Paphitis:
I can't agree with anything you say at the moment.........
Hmmmm .....I don’t find that surprising. Your posts would indicate that your primary source of information is the Main Stream Media (MSM)? This is borne out by your reference to any contrary argument as being a ‘conspiracy theory’ and those that raise such arguments as ‘conspiracy theorists’. In history, time after time, it has turned out that what those who have been fed propaganda by the MSM call a conspiracy theory, turns out to be the truth. The events in Syria will turn out the same way. This was informative and shows how propaganda being spread by the MSM is a common event by Governments: (Video and article)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-world-into-war/5336838Furthermore, there is conclusive proof that Assad was responsible for the CW attack on civilians last month. This is what the evidence is pointing to, not least being the fact that rocket fragments were found at ground zero belonging to the Syrian Armed Forces.
That is absolutely not correct as Ban-Ki-Moon spelled out. Again it is propaganda based and far from conclusive! There is no proof either way and to go to war on a gut feeling is criminal. Actually, if you read some of the free news web sites there would seem to be a stronger case for the rebels having been responsible for this and previous gas attacks.
The UN report said the rocket and other evidence laying around had very likely been moved and the location, which was in rebel held territory, had been well walked over. So, hardly even reliable, let alone conclusive?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/five-lies-invented-to-spin-un-report-on-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack/5350111A point I could not find clarified in the report was whether the Sarin was military type or the type referred to as ‘kitchen sink Sarin’. The former would have killed first responders as it clings to clothing fibres. The second, home made Sarin disperses very much quicker.
It was also noted that the dead had no signs of trauma i.e. no blood from physical wounds, strange as even chemical warheads as used by the military explode on impact. There were no rebels among the victims who were mainly women and children and just a few elderly men. This suggests that the gas permeated into homes over a period of time killing the weakest first, that is the children.
The most credible report by Yahya Ababne supported by a 20yr veteran journalist from AP who interviewed survivors at the site who recounted that there had been an accidental discharge of chemical weapons supplied by the Saudis as the rebels had no knowledge of what they were handling. They died in the tunnels when the device(s) discharged the contents when the accident happened. It is credible but, again is not proof, just another piece of evidence. It needs a proper forensic investigation by experts, not wild ill informed claims by ignorant politicians like Kerry/Hague.
http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/09/01/which-syrian-chemical-attack-account-is-more-credible/So far, everything stated on this forum has just been fabricated hysteria and so far not even one bit has been found to be accurate.
To the contrary. This seems to support many of the comments on this forum:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/murky-clues-from-uns-syria-report/5350248There is NO proof for the claims by either the US, the UK or the French although you wouldn't realise that if you watched the BBC or read the UK MSM papers. Going on a degree of probability my money is on the rebels or just remotely, maybe rebels associated with the Syrian Army, being responsible. I don’t think Assad had anything to do with it. But I suppose if the evidence for proof isn’t there then the next best thing is to tell lies as the 'sheeple' fall for it every time................. the primary reason for this war is regime change just as it was in Iraq and Libya and we were fed a string of lies on those attacks too!