PUTIN: The US is planning false-flag attacks in Syria to frame Assad for using chemical weapons

[laughing dog]

Russia vetoed the Un resolution for an investigation. The USA did not.

But please, do not let the facts get in your way.

What facts other than we have not established who carried out the actual attack. IT doesn't help where the US feels free to bomb whoever it wants without an investigation. Naturally Russia would veto. Action should take place after an investigation is concluded.

Your response is completely irrelevant to the post you quote.

If Russia were serious about an investigation, it would not have vetoed the resolution.

And, of course, it is possible that Russia was and is upset with Assad, and was okay with the US bombing a Syrian airbase in order to send a discreet signal to Assad that he cannot simply commit any atrocity he wishes.

 

[barbos]

PUTIN: The US is planning false-flag attacks in Syria to frame Assad for using chemical weapons

Russian President Vladimir Putin says he has “intelligence” that the US was planning false-flag attacks in Syria to frame Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime of using chemical weapons. He also announced that Russia will ask the UN to investigate the chemical attack that took place in the Idlib province of Syria. The Russians deny that the Syrian government is responsible for the attacks. Following is a transcript:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhXHYMPUPvU[/YOUTUBE]

I saw a part of the same speech in original russian. I can't be sure it was exactly the same part of it but Putin was speaking in more hypothetical mode. I think translation might be off a little. In any case there was that Daily Mail article that was pulled off about british intelligence discussing false-flag attacks in Syria.

 

[barbos]

Why? I might miss your replies

We still haven't had any indication of an investigation into what caused this

Investigation? You mean like the one proposed that Russia vetoed?

Russia vetoed a UN resolution Wednesday that would have required Syria to cooperate with investigators and face full accountability after a brutal chemical attack in that country.

They vetoed because it put a blame on Syrian government in it

 

[Will Wiley]

Investigation? You mean like the one proposed that Russia vetoed?

Russia vetoed a UN resolution Wednesday that would have required Syria to cooperate with investigators and face full accountability after a brutal chemical attack in that country.

They vetoed because it put a blame on Syrian government in it

You can't expect JH to actually read the resolution.

 

[Axulus]

I would not put it passed Putin to tell that lie. I would not put it passed the USA to actually do that either. So I don't know what to believe.

So you are saying it is pretty much a 50/50 chance that the US flew in and deliberately dropped sarin gas to massacre civilians so that they can blame Assad, vs the alternative that Assad (and his government) did it, with many documented abuses against Syrian civilians over the course of this war (by organizations such as HRW).

And all the US people involved are remaining silent about their involvement in the massacre, from those who loaded the Sarin gas onto the US aircraft (which no witnesses apparently was able to identify a US aircraft flying over the Syrian city), to the other people who work at whatever facility the US stockpile of sarin gas is kept at, to the pilot, to the military commanders, etc.

Really now? Have people really lost all sense of perspective? Alex Jones really seems to be getting through to people.

 

[Axulus]

What facts other than we have not established who carried out the actual attack. IT doesn't help where the US feels free to bomb whoever it wants without an investigation. Naturally Russia would veto. Action should take place after an investigation is concluded.

Your response is completely irrelevant to the post you quote.

If Russia were serious about an investigation, it would not have vetoed the resolution.

And, of course, it is possible that Russia was and is upset with Assad, and was okay with the US bombing a Syrian airbase in order to send a discreet signal to Assad that he cannot simply commit any atrocity he wishes.

I suspect that, behind the scenes, Russia is furious at Assad. I don't see any upside for them with this attack. Even China is backing off its support for Russia in the Syria matter.

 

[laughing dog]

Investigation? You mean like the one proposed that Russia vetoed?

Russia vetoed a UN resolution Wednesday that would have required Syria to cooperate with investigators and face full accountability after a brutal chemical attack in that country.

They vetoed because it put a blame on Syrian government in it

You can't expect JH to actually read the resolution.

I cannot find the text. Can you?

I ask because if the quoted article is accurate, then the resolution does not blame Syria.

Again, as usual, Putin fanboys do not let the facts get in the way.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What facts other than we have not established who carried out the actual attack. IT doesn't help where the US feels free to bomb whoever it wants without an investigation. Naturally Russia would veto. Action should take place after an investigation is concluded.

Your response is completely irrelevant to the post you quote.

If Russia were serious about an investigation, it would not have vetoed the resolution.

And, of course, it is possible that Russia was and is upset with Assad, and was okay with the US bombing a Syrian airbase in order to send a discreet signal to Assad that he cannot simply commit any atrocity he wishes.

You don't condemn a particular party/parties and then conduct an investigation; you conduct an investigation first. To do as prescribed is a sublime to asininity in thought and deed. The previous investigations did not visit the sites as given below so naturally this should also be done so there is less likelihood of conclusions being pulled out of places where the sun don't shine.

See:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-to-condemn-syria-chemical-attack.html
Russia has criticized previous investigations carried out by the OPCW and the United Nations which blamed the Syrian government for at least three chemical weapons attacks without visiting the sites. Safronkov reiterated Wednesday that an investigation cannot be conducted remotely and experts must be drawn from a wide geographical basis.

Therefore my response is befitting to the circumstances. The statement called for a wide range of nationalities and the teams go to the actual sites.

 

[Playball40]

Your response is completely irrelevant to the post you quote.

If Russia were serious about an investigation, it would not have vetoed the resolution.

And, of course, it is possible that Russia was and is upset with Assad, and was okay with the US bombing a Syrian airbase in order to send a discreet signal to Assad that he cannot simply commit any atrocity he wishes.

You don't condemn a particular party/parties and then conduct an investigation; you conduct an investigation first. To do as prescribed is a sublime to asininity in thought and deed. The previous investigations did not visit the sites as given below so naturally this should also be done so there is less likelihood of conclusions being pulled out of places where the sun don't shine.

See:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-to-condemn-syria-chemical-attack.html
Russia has criticized previous investigations carried out by the OPCW and the United Nations which blamed the Syrian government for at least three chemical weapons attacks without visiting the sites. Safronkov reiterated Wednesday that an investigation cannot be conducted remotely and experts must be drawn from a wide geographical basis.

Therefore my response is befitting to the circumstances. The statement called for a wide range of nationalities and the teams go to the actual sites.

I'm not seeing where it says anything like what you are claiming.

Russia objected to a paragraph that would have required Syria to provide investigators with flight plans and information about air operations on the day the attack was launched, as well as the names of helicopter squadron commander and immediate access to airbases where it may have been launched.

Russia objected because Assad needs to cooperate with the investigation....that is NOT the same as they have 'condemned Assad for the attacks' - they have 'condemned the attacks' which makes perfect sense. So good try.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ted-nations-investigation-of-syria-gas-attack

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Investigation? You mean like the one proposed that Russia vetoed?

Russia vetoed a UN resolution Wednesday that would have required Syria to cooperate with investigators and face full accountability after a brutal chemical attack in that country.

That was not an investigation but a veto not based on an investigation. Russia was perfectly sensible to veto it. In fact such a premature resolution, assumption of blame without an investigation is at best asinine.

So when the resolution said Syria must cooperate with investigators, what were those investigators investigating?

 

[laughing dog]

Your response is completely irrelevant to the post you quote.

If Russia were serious about an investigation, it would not have vetoed the resolution.

And, of course, it is possible that Russia was and is upset with Assad, and was okay with the US bombing a Syrian airbase in order to send a discreet signal to Assad that he cannot simply commit any atrocity he wishes.

You don't condemn a particular party/parties and then conduct an investigation; you conduct an investigation first. To do as prescribed is a sublime to asininity in thought and deed. The previous investigations did not visit the sites as given below so naturally this should also be done so there is less likelihood of conclusions being pulled out of places where the sun don't shine.

Your response is a sublime to asininity. Please show the condemnation.

And, more importantly, there is nothing stopping Russia from introducing a resolution calling for an investigation. Yet the paymaster of internet trolls has yet to introduce one into the UN security council.
Now, why is that?

One possible explanation is that Russia knows that Assad did it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Pooty, he crazy!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't condemn a particular party/parties and then conduct an investigation; you conduct an investigation first. To do as prescribed is a sublime to asininity in thought and deed. The previous investigations did not visit the sites as given below so naturally this should also be done so there is less likelihood of conclusions being pulled out of places where the sun don't shine.

Your response is a sublime to asininity. Please show the condemnation.

And, more importantly, there is nothing stopping Russia from introducing a resolution calling for an investigation. Yet the paymaster of internet trolls has yet to introduce one into the UN security council.
Now, why is that?

One possible explanation is that Russia knows that Assad did it.

Ya, that is a key point. If they had a problem with some technical aspect of the wording of this resolution, there's absolutely nothing which prevented them from introducing their own without any funky wording immediately after vetoing the evil one which destroyed hope and freedom.

This isn't about them wanting a fair investigation, this is about them wanting to prevent an investigation because they already know what the results of a fair investigation would be.

 

[Will Wiley]

Your response is a sublime to asininity. Please show the condemnation.

And, more importantly, there is nothing stopping Russia from introducing a resolution calling for an investigation. Yet the paymaster of internet trolls has yet to introduce one into the UN security council.
Now, why is that?

One possible explanation is that Russia knows that Assad did it.

Ya, that is a key point. If they had a problem with some technical aspect of the wording of this resolution, there's absolutely nothing which prevented them from introducing their own without any funky wording immediately after vetoing the evil one which destroyed hope and freedom.

This isn't about them wanting a fair investigation, this is about them wanting to prevent an investigation because they already know what the results of a fair investigation would be.

Ya right. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and Assad used chemicals weapons.

You just keep believing whatever they tell you Tom. Do you have any evidence for your accusation? You know...evidence?

Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian ‘chemical weapons attack.’ Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

— Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That’s pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don’t you think?

And it’s not up to Assad to prove his innocence either. That’s baloney. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let’s see it and be done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows to establish the truth. And that’s what we want, we want to know what really happened.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, that is a key point. If they had a problem with some technical aspect of the wording of this resolution, there's absolutely nothing which prevented them from introducing their own without any funky wording immediately after vetoing the evil one which destroyed hope and freedom.

This isn't about them wanting a fair investigation, this is about them wanting to prevent an investigation because they already know what the results of a fair investigation would be.

Ya right. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and Assad used chemicals weapons.

You just keep believing whatever they tell you Tom

Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian ‘chemical weapons attack.’ Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

— Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That’s pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don’t you think?

Yes, this is what I'm asking you. If Russia believes that these are the facts and wants an impartial investigation which doesn't assume Assad's guilt, why was their veto of the evil investigation not immediately followed up by their own proposal for an impartial and objective investigation? They are allowed to propose things on their own, you know.

If the case against Assad is weak, you don't need to handle it with dueling propaganda wars. You can make a proposal to find out the facts without any undue influence being placed on the investigators. What's the Russian opposition to that strategy based on?

 

[Will Wiley]

Ya right. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and Assad used chemicals weapons.

You just keep believing whatever they tell you Tom

Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road

“Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian ‘chemical weapons attack.’ Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died…..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.”

— Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community

You don’t have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That’s pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don’t you think?

Yes, this is what I'm asking you. If Russia believes that these are the facts and wants an impartial investigation which doesn't assume Assad's guilt, why was their veto of the evil investigation not immediately followed up by their own proposal for an impartial and objective investigation? They are allowed to propose things on their own, you know.

If the case against Assad is weak, you don't need to handle it with dueling propaganda wars. You can make a proposal to find out the facts without any undue influence being placed on the investigators. What's the Russian opposition to that strategy based on?

You just claimed that Russia knows Assad did it. What evidence do you base that on?

You have already reached your conclusion....and that is the problem all round.

You think it is quite ok for you to sit there in Canada and tell us that Assad did it and that Russia is complicit. But for some reason you don't see any problem with doing that. ??? Even though you don't produce any evidence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You just claimed that Russia knows Assad did it. What evidence do you base that on?

I'm positing that based on the fact that they're the only party involved who is hampering an investigation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and would call upon the Russian government to put forward a motion for an independent and impartial investigation into the matter in order to find the truth without any biases involved in order to make me eat my words.

 

[Will Wiley]

You just claimed that Russia knows Assad did it. What evidence do you base that on?

I'm positing that based on the fact that they're the only party involved who is hampering an investigation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and would call upon the Russian government to put forward a motion for an independent and impartial investigation into the matter in order to find the truth without any biases involved in order to make me eat my words.

Because they know there will not be a fair investigation, they know it's a lynch mob, and they know that people like you have already made their minds up. They are over the crap I'd say.
You see it doesn't matter that the WMD destruction in Iraq was a lie or that the 2013 analysis was shown to be wrong. They know that people like you have made their minds up, and that there is lynch mob, of people like you. Good people.

Somehow you do't think it is a lynch mob though???

 

[laughing dog]

I'm positing that based on the fact that they're the only party involved who is hampering an investigation. I'd be happy to be proven wrong and would call upon the Russian government to put forward a motion for an independent and impartial investigation into the matter in order to find the truth without any biases involved in order to make me eat my words.

Because they know there will not be a fair investigation..

How do they know that? Seems awful convenient and that sentiment allows any leader to commit any atrocity on the basis that the claim that no investigation will be fair.

 

[Will Wiley]

Because they know there will not be a fair investigation..

How do they know that? Seems awful convenient and that sentiment allows any leader to commit any atrocity on the basis that the claim that no investigation will be fair.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A[/YOUTUBE]