Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Podiatrists Support Trump for President

Discussion in 'USA' started by Craig Payne, Mar 12, 2016.

  1. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Oh, give me a break, Eric! The Law was written decades ago; every POTUS has used it since; the Constitution does NOT apply to non-citizens and Visa holders; pundits everywhere are dismissing the 9th Circuit as playing politics...yet you're regurgitating the Maddow talking points. Pedophilia is no laughing matter...nor one to be so easily dismissed such as you've done. Stay tuned, Eric...looks like you need to be beaned over the head before you will listen and/or accept the evidence.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/go...ffjoe&utm_content=2017-02-10&utm_campaign=can

     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017
  2. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

     
  3. Oh Dear Matt, it's taken a long time for the penny to drop - you have to excuse my ineptitude. I'm sure the APMA have a strong fraternity and benevolence towards all members, but if there's anything we can do from this side of the pond - food parcels, meds, clothes, whatever - please don't hesitate to ask.

    Do let us know how you get on.
     
  4. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Pedophilia is well known in the British parliament...Thatcher knew about it, so did Cameron. I just never thought your level of depravity was on this side of the pond. Silly me.
     
  5. I fear a Freudian Slip my dear boy; I never mentioned child molestation or even considered it. Remind me again of your argument for breast examinations as an assessment tool for minor toe surgery...
     
  6. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Never happened Mark...but don't let the truth get in the way of your rant. BTW...have you ever had "relations" with underage boys like they do in your Parliament?

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...-are-supposed-to-start-this-week-3474355.html

    http://www.globemagazine.com/content/clinton-stopped-her-tracks
     
  7. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    NSFW...Extreme Caution advised! Not to be viewed by the faint of heart and/or those with questionable spirituality. (that means you, Mark).



    Is this enough for you, Eric?
     
  8. http://abc30.com/archive/6171118/

    "Prosecutors had claimed the Fresno podiatrist gave patients breast exams for no medical reason. One of the alleged victims was a minor. During the trial, Sciaroni's attorney told jurors these exams were necessary before patients underwent foot surgery. "

    Is this accurate? If so, why are breast examinations "necessary" before patients undergo foot surgery?
     
  9. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Not accurate, Mark...and I've addressed this before on this forum and with you directly. The media was practicing "fake news"...something you should be familiar with. Now...answer my question.
     
  10. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Here you go, Eric...another piece...NSFW:

     
  11. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    The noose is tightening...

     
  12. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    What's really happening in Sweden...according to one brave journalist:

     
  13. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    I found something which should lighten the mood (whoops, maybe not for some) after the previous post pertaining to the shocking REAL situation occurring in Sweden. Oh, hang on... before I do that... let's not also forget (particularly as I'm Australian) that an Australian Sixty Minutes crew were attacked whilst reporting in Sweden. Why did the Australian Sixty Minutes crew go all the way to Sweden?... hmmm... well, it wasn't to report on a much-awaited ABBA reunion that's for sure. Why were they attacked?... hmmm. What is the breakdown percentage of "refugees"/"migrants" being male between the age of 19 & 45 (U.N.H.C.R)?... hmmm. Who were they attacked by?... hmmm...



    It's as if many within Sweden are suffering from a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome :(! Oh, yes... I have friends in Sweden... they are concerned... very concerned - aka - AFRAID!

    Now for the comical part… well, sort of... i.e. poor performance of humans in positions of power (& yes, it’s been present from all walks in life – albeit, some areas more prominent than others)...



    Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide… a book with a “very extensive bibliography:D. It did get to # 1 on Amazon… looks to be about # 2 at the moment... http://sre.novelrank.com/80544ed07845796856d1524ddd0d2f61e3f007 ;).
     
  14. drhunt1

    drhunt1 Well-Known Member

    Don't confuse Pizzagate for Pedogate...two separate items. But then...one has to wonder why Alifantis came to making the top 50 most influential people in DC, or why he had 4-5 different visits to the WH....does it?

     
  15. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    There have been significant developments of late. As the following video states, the Obama era for American [lame] foreign policy is clearly over. Back in 2012, Obama warned the Syrian president if he used chemical warfare he'll be crossing a "red line" - Obama didn't have the backbone to back it up (i.e. there was a leadership vacuum - treaties, words mean nothing if there isn't force to back them up). That "red line" was certainly crossed (proving that Assad can't be trusted) via the evident fact that the Syrian/Assad regime still had chemical weapons (when previously they stated they hadn't), of which have recently been used on Syrian citizens. Not only did Syria (Assad) say there weren't any more chemical weapons but so did the Obama camp (including Susan Rice; like Clinton, another pathological liar) & Russia assure the world there was no more (meaning they were removed)... but evidently there were… & they've been used. Trump decided to take action - quickly (under the circumstances) - & rightly so…



    Trump has said in the past he would avoid Syrian intervention… & who can blame him in light of the absolute mess the whole Syrian issue is…



    But there has to be a point - crossing that "red line" (chemical warfare) was that point… & Assad well & truly crossed it with the latest chemical warfare attack on Syrian citizens… committing genocide! There has been something like 500 000 Syrian's killed in the history of this issue… & about 5 million displaced. This issue needs to be dealt with at the source - Syria. Like the following Syrian in the next video (Kassem Eid), I would think that most Syrians want to stay in their own country… not become refugees in other lands; unless there is an underlying (nefarious) agenda (the intention to migrating to the “West” for a purpose – which I won’t go into here). Syrians want a safe place to live in their own country (as many would say)... but then there is the muslim/Christian conflict (which is another big mess i.e. muslim [predominant sunni] intolerance to anything non-muslim)! As well as the muslim (sunni)/muslim (shia) conflict! [Whilst a majority of the Syrian population is sunni, Assad is Alawis/shia... hence the support from Iran (shia predominant) & Hezbollah (shia militants)].



    This issue & the result thereof should also be a smack in the face for Putin (as well as those other Russia related rumours i.e. Trump/Putin "bromance"). As stated, this whole issue is a real mess (unclear & confusing alliances within this conflict) - the Syrian issue (involving the Free Syrian Army [initial rebels], ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, Gulf States, Russia, Kurds, Turkey etc… is a melting pot for further disaster)… & the current relationship with Russia is also a mess. There are no clear solutions to this… & probably never will be… but possibly a part solution (another scenario) with a better chance in dealing with this problem is for the U.S & Russia to act together to effectively deal with the Assad regime & ISIS (which is likely to be unlikely due to Russia having military bases within Syria… & there being an ego conflict)... but that can then potentially invoke another adversary (the origin of which will no doubt be too controversial to state here).

    Other than that (& other than invoking a spiritual solution)... another solution would be to band together with some rich friends, build a spaceship... & fly into space... or hope there are aliens with good intentions...



    ... or maybe we need a good ol' alien invasion from outer space to help gel humanity together as Earthlings for a higher cause.
     
  16. Why would Assad risk using chemical weapons?

     
  17. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    That's an interesting account Mark.

    As we should both expect... there is going to much conflicting information on this issue.

    The Assad regime has used chemical weapons on Syrian citizens in the past (hence the treaties). Can such a person be trusted?

    There is (apparently) evidence such as the following:

    Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...pons-assad-russia-rebels-latest-a7669011.html

    That gentleman in the video you cited stated that the Syrian (Assad government) air force striked (quote)... "an ammunition dump owned by terrorists & their factory was hit... a factory that makes ***chemical weapons***" (end quote).

    Now let's think about this. If you knew that the factory was there which contained chemicals to make chemical weapons... would you not avoid blowing the wretched thing up, thereby exposing those very chemicals to the surrounding areas which civilians reside??? I know I certainly wouldn't be targeting such a known facility under these circumstances. Would that sound logical to you? Why would you (a government) be so irresponsible to do such a thing. Either way... the Assad/Syrian government/regime is responsible... either directly (via intent via chemical missile strikes)... or at the very least, indirectly (via stupidity, poor judgement, recklessness or... quasi intent... to cause harm due to the nature of this stated facility).

    It would appear that this "terrorist" chemical weapons "factory" scenario isn't a new (insider) theory... others know of such... including the deputy prime minister of Turkey (& Russia)...
    Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/chemical-attack-syria.html?_r=2

    Stating:
    Turkey’s deputy prime minister, Tugrul Turkes, told the state-run Anadolu Agency on Thursday that the Russian explanation was “unfulfilling.”
    “If the Syrian regime knew that there were chemical weapons in the warehouse, it should have also known that it should not have attacked it,” he said.

    Yep... that sounds logical to me.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  18. Matt

    No where in the interview does Tom Duggan state that government forces "knew" about the chemical weapons factory. You make an assumption that the site was deliberately targeted based on what? Your own febrile imagination far away in a land down under. Listen to what he says. Listen to what's happening in the background. It's a soundtrack that won't get much airtime in the dark recesses of the internet that fuel the paranoia, Matt, but it holds more sway than a small town one-man fantasy band any day.
     
  19. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Mark.
    Now starting to take things personally & make personal digs are we ("febrile imagination far away in a land down under")? I'm not exercising anything is the way of "febrile imagination"... just trying to exercise logic in light of the stated scenario & the evidence at hand. Does my geographic location have an impact on my assessing the evidence from those within the area? In which case, does yours?

    I didn’t state that Tom Dugan stated that government forces “knew” about this supposed “chemical factory”. This Tom Dugan isn't the only one (journalist) in Syria. Who are we to believe? A known genocidal maniac (with a history of related atrocities – “dozens of chemical warfare attacks across Syria” since the Obama ‘red line’ ultimatum) & a British journalist living in Damascus... or others on the ground such as the likes of "U.N investigators", "French intelligence" etc…? As well as U.S intelligence who had radar citing of Syrian aircraft dropping bombs (albeit that intelligence doesn’t tell us the nature of those bombs).

    If the government forces did not "deliberately" target this supposed “chemical weapons” facility - what were they targeting - a target that is apparently close to civilian territory? They were targeting something, were they not? Was it an "ammunition dump"? A building of some sort & why this building? But hey, it would appear that if such an event did take place... the hit was pretty direct on such an area/facility (i.e. a "factory"/building)? Why did the government forces target such a facility (an "ammunition dump" & a "factory" which just so happens to contain chemical warfare material)? Don't you think that the Syrian government has intelligence on such a supposed facility... apparently held & owned by known "terrorists"? Would the government forces attack unknown objects in unknown areas? What terrorists were they in the area? Were they “rebels”? There are a lot of questions attached to your chosen view of events… & no doubt a lot of mental gymnastics to answer them in a quest to make the Assad regime innocent & this Tom Dugan credible.

    Either way though, as stated previously… the Assad regime is responsible for the exposure of chemical warfare on Syrian/civilian citizens – either directly or... at the very least, indirectly.

    What we know about Syria's chemical weapons
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/syria-sarin-chemical-weapons-explainer/index.html

    - Why would the Assad regime want to produce so much chemical weapons? Hmmm... & don't tell me it was to kill the bindies on their grass (like the bindies we have "down under").

    - Was all the chemical stockpile removed/destroyed? Hmmm...

    - What is the nature of such chemical weapons in the way of preparing it, transporting it & storing it... & could such terrorists have the ability/infrastructure to do so? And if so, to do so unnoticed? Hmmm...

    My guess is (& I'll admit, I'm no chemical weapons expert)... that a wee bit if science & specified equipment is involved. But hey, that's just a guess... from a dude "down under".

    - Another view on this supposed scenario (a convenient one at that) that "terrorists" was harbouring a chemical weapons factory... & the nature of such chemicals in the supposed stated scenario. Hmmm...

    But hey, they are just a few views from people who have more informed intelligence on this issue than you & I.
     
  20. So you think Trump did the right thing, Matt, bombing this remote airstrip with 59 cruise missiles (but managing to miss the runway at the same time)? Russia was informed in advance of the airstrike - just in case any of their personnel were in the area. It is fairly probable that Putin sent a PM to Assad to let him know too. If Trump really wanted to avenge those "beautiful babies" he would have eliminated Assad or another member of his regime - but he didn't; he took the worst possible option - an overwhelming reactionary strike against a target of absolutely no importance whatsoever. It was for the benefit of the gullible - Trump included. You too obviously.
     
  21. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Your above comment makes little sense & also shows you know little about the issues involved i.e. the nature of that Syrian military target (air base, which according to you has "absolutely no importance whatsoever")... & (quote)... "If Trump really wanted to avenge those "beautiful babies" he would have eliminated Assad or another member of his regime" (end quote). Really? Ok Mark... what do you think would be the impact of killing... "Assad or another member of his regime" (& the potential numerous casualties involved) would have on the international community? :confused: It is quite possible this scenario was discussed... but evidently not advised upon (by those who thought about it far deeper than you have, have more experience & intelligence than you have on such matters). As stated, the chosen actions served as (in part) a warning i.e. the target of the air base where the Syrian air strikes originated. As you rightly stated, warning was also given to reduce the possibility of any casualties at the air base (but specific buildings & air craft was destroyed by guidance based Tomahawk missiles).

    Is it a case of... damned if you do & damned if you don't... particularly with Trump?

    Hey Mark, believe your chosen view of events... we both live in civil regions of the world (still) where you have the right to do so.

    Crikey... talking about gullibility though! o_O
     
  22. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Mark, President Trump notified Putin because the Russians had troops in the area and he did not want to start a conflict with Russia that could potentially lead to war or nuclear war. Not notifying Moscow would have been foolish and dangerous. The communication line between the U.S. and Russia was established by President Kennedy in 1963 after the Cubin Missile Crisis almost led to nuclear war.

    Trump was give three military options to respond to Assad’s most recent use of chemical weapons on his own people. He said he chose the more measured response because he wanted to send a message to Assad, not take him out. The purpose of the airstrike was not intended to solve the civil war in Syria. If Assad continues to use chemical weapons there will likely be major consequence for Assad. Trump know that removing Assad could lead to even greater instability in the region unless there is a reasonable plan for regime change in conjunction with removing Assad. That would likely be done with a UN coalition effort.
     
  23. Jeff

    You don't know that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. The President and just about every mainstream media rushed to blame Assad without first examining the evidence - a good example being independent observers such as Tom Duggan in #258 above. Much in the same way as Osama Bin Laden was fingered for the 9/11 atrocity within minutes of it unfolding, Assad is assumed the guilty party without a shred of evidence to support it.

    Trump is an instinctive, reactive opportunist - he thought he could deflect attention away from his domestic disasters by lobbing a few missiles off after being swayed by reports of dead babies. That's a cynical 180° shift in direction for Donald with Syria. That don't matter anymore though - it's how to take advantage of a situation for political gain. A gamble rather than a calculated risk. I'm surprised you of all people have fallen for the spin.

    Do you really think Assad would be inhibited by anything Trump might do? Would an escalation of conventional warfare in the region be acceptable? What the people of Syria need more than anything else is some peace to rebuild their lives without the ill-conceived madness of a deluded half-wit complicating matters further.

    Bombs don't work, Jeff. They kill and maim just as much as Sarin or Chlorine gas. Spread the word, man.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
    • List
  24. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    There is evidence Mark, it’s just you’re too bias & gullible (possibly paranoid) to recognise them (oh the irony, gullibility & paranoia - two attributes you accuse others of). Assad has used chemical weapons numerous times on his own citizens in the past (look it up)… but now you think this latest event is some sort of conspiracy theory. Where is your evidence… some journalist living in Damascus, the Russian’s account & that of the Syrian/Assad regime who were responsible for the missile strikes (whether chemical base or otherwise) in the first place (yea – great sources of evidence you have there).

    Let’s look at Russia: who is Assad’s greatest ally, who have military bases in Syria as well as being one of the groups who were responsible for (apparently) eliminating Assad’s chemical stockpile years ago. This latest war crime happened on their watch - they are embarrassed for messing up. They have cause to cover this up… the Russians have a history of covering their mistakes/responsibilities - remember the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 that was shot down over the Ukraine - shot down by a Russian Buk surface-to-air missile (which was transported from Russia on the day of the crash & returned to Russia afterwards). Remember how Russia interfered with investigations & told downright lies in order to shirk off any responsibility.

    As for the credibility of the Assad regime… that’s been covered before… their history on such matters (chemical warfare) speaks volumes… to anybody with half a brain & more than two neurons to rub together.

    Going to harp on your pet project again – "9/11". Just because there were extremely disturbing (to say the least) events surrounding 9/11 (yes, I agree with you)… there is no need to invoke such traits here. Not every politico-military event which goes against your world view has some underlying nefarious conspiracy type agenda attached. There was evidence to support Assad’s involvement (reporters who were first at the scene - who saw the environment - yea, who know better than Tom Duggan).

    Well Mark, it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve fallen for the anti-US/anti-Trump spin (based on your history). Your opinion contradicts the evidence & the political (White House) environment. As you state, Trump did not want to get involved in Syria… (not mentioning names) one of his closest & strongest advisors told him not to, another close advisor told him he should - there was bitter conflict between the two advisors & subsequently the three of them (to the point one of them could leave - which then could have impact within PR relation/media circles). Do you think based on Trumps history of views on Syria & based on the conflict at the time of the decision process Trump went into this issue based on the superficial reasons you’ve stated. Is it so hard for you to believe that Trump may have been saddened by the events of the attack & annoyed that such an attack was a direct violation of a previous treaty associated with the U.S (pertaining to chemical warfare - with evidence pointing to the nerve agent sarin)… & that such an attack has happened on his watch. So Trump took action - two days later he authorised missile strikes on the Syrian airbase where the (chemical) weapons had been loaded… or if you prefer, where the jets took off from & evidently missile striked a civilian population (& in your perspective)… just so happen direct hit on a terrorist “chemical factory” (of which going against the views of chemical weapons experts around the world).

    Tell me Mark, do you care more about the method… or the loss of lives involved (& subsequent intentions ensued)?

    Oh crikey – more hypocrisy. Yes, the people of Syria certainly do want a peaceful environment to live in (I cited a video of this in post #257) - however, Assad is not providing it… he has been proven guilty of genocide in the past via the form of barrel bombs & chemicals in killing his own people (or at least people living within Syria). Someone of this nature simply should not be the future leader of Syria.

    Why don’t you send that wise tidbit as a text (or tweet) to someone who really needs it - Assad! Remember – it was his aircraft that is responsible for the ummm… missile attacks… which killed more than 80 (“86”, likely to rise) & injured “a few hundred” men, women & children (via chemical/gas i.e. sarin)!
     
  25. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Mark, Matt has done an excellent job of summing up an appropriate response to you. The U.S. does not want to get drawn into Syria’s civil war. However, responding to the use of chemical weapons was the reason for Trump’s decision to attack the airbase where satellite evidence shows that the attack was launched from.

    The Sunnis and Shias have had conflict since the 600’s AD. It is estimated that about 85% of the world’s Muslims are Sunni while about 15% are Shia. Only the Sunnis and Shias can resolve their differences and I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, if ever. Trump said we should stay out of the civil war for several reasons, but primarily because he was concerned that taking out Assad might result in an even worse (hard to imagine) leader taking over in his place. After the invasion of Iraq and remove Sadam Hussein from power, the U.S. was stuck in Iraq with a major mess and loss of American life. The American people don’t what a repeat of that in Syria.
     
  26. I don't think you could provide a better example of parochial ignorance than the above, Jeff. Your government invaded a sovereign country on a false premise, murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands Iraqis and destabilised an entire region - and you use this as an excuse to justify a lunatic's tentative excursion once again in the Middle East! But let's not upset the American people that you speak of - better the killing takes place in the Syria or Iraq than Manhatten or Washington, right?

    The truth is that none of us know who is really responsible for the atrocities over the last two decades - but there are few innocent parties. The disappointment is realising we are not one of them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  27. Sorry, Matt, I'm not replying to that incoherent and nonsensical rant; it's even more obtuse and delusional than your creationist claptrap - and that says something. Go lightly.
     
  28. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq because I did not see any sense of urgency in it. Inaccurate intelligence information or the misinterpretation of intelligence information are certainly issues of concern. We don't know all of the intelligence information that was available to Trump, so it is impossible for you or I to know all of the factors that he considered before making his decision.
     
  29. efuller

    efuller MVP

    Is the foreign policy significantly different? Will lighting off $60 million worth of firecrackers change what is happening in Syria? What else has changed? Yes, one report said 7 people died. The same report said that planes were using the airbase the next day. We will have to wait and see if the missile strike changes anything for the better. It's too soon to be saying, "See Trump's policy was better than Obama's." We will have to wait and see what message Assad takes from the missile strike.
     
  30. We don't know the facts, Jeff. Only those involved know for sure what happened. Neither did Trump - but that doesn't matter; he just makes them up to suit the story. I wrote a few weeks ago that Trump would be set-up to fail. Given his impetuous personality, it won't be long.
     
  31. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Set-up? Do I smell another conspiracy theory brewing?:)
     
  32. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    It doesn't surprise me Mark that you were unable to comprehend it… your history has stated similar comprehension difficulties. Jeff (Dr Root) appears to have understood my post quite well. It's hard to say whether the above depicts sincere comprehension difficulties or that you are using a lame excuse in not acknowledging another perspective to this evident confusing/ambiguous issue (i.e. the reality of the chemical attacks) as well as not answering questions. I've asked numerous questions pertaining to the reality & logic surrounding the nature of the attacks… of which you've answered none… no doubt because the reality & logic are "incoherent" & left wanting in regard to the Russian, Assad Regime & Tom Duggan take on events.

    Well the above doesn’t surprise me either. You evidently misunderstand the nature of the topic going by the above little dig. If you're unable to understand words/sentences on a screen in relation to a differing perspective, then understanding the more complex issues surrounding the intricacies of biological information & the origin of such would likely be well beyond you… particularly when such perspective challenges your narrow world view i.e. the issues surrounding empirically sound naturalistic processes of acquiring the evident need for an immense degree of new genetic information leading to numerous novel & more complex traits to substantiate the evident immense degree of biodiversity (on this planet), whilst in an environment of genetic entropy (whoops, sorry... that was probably too "incoherent" for you).

    Now I hope the above wasn’t too difficult for you to understand… but no doubt the following will be, so you might want to switch off now & go back to your scrabble game ;).


    Reports Differing to the Russian, Assad Regime & Tom Duggan Take:
    - Background:
    Location & history -


    Tuesday (4-4-17), the Syrian air force bombed the town Khan Sheikhun - killing 80+ & injuring hundreds of people... the nerve agent sarin was associated with the attacks.

    [​IMG]

    - notice how far Damascus (Tom Duggan location) is from Khan Sheikhun.

    Two days later the US president, authorised missile strikes on the Syrian airbase where the chemical weapons had been loaded (or if you prefer: where the Syrian bombers departed from).

    Russia & Syria regime have claimed the sarin came from rebel stockpiles hit accidentally by (Syrian) government bombs, an argument dismissed by chemical weapons experts & inconsistent with evidence at the site of the attack.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/syria-nerve-agent-attack-why-it-made-sense-to-assad ...

    - Site of the Attack – was there a “chemical factory/warehouse” destroyed?:
    Exclusive:
    Kareem Shaheen reports from Khan Sheikhun, where he was the first reporter from western media to reach the site of this week’s devastating atrocity…

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/the-dead-were-wherever-you-looked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack ...
    [​IMG]

    - The accounts of residents - “responded in disbelief to the Russian allegation”:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack
    [​IMG]

    - What the civilians/witnesses saw at the time of the attack:
    - Symptoms:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...oked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack
    [​IMG]

    - What happened afterwards:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-defends-attack-syria-demands-end-slaughter-072308125--politics.html

    - Chemical weapons expert opinion -> Russian account “fanciful”, “completely untrue … a “lie”:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947
    - Conflicting evidence with the Russian account:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947
     
  33. Peter Ford - former British Abassador to Iraq and Syria.

     
  34. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Mark, thanks for sharing the video featuring Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford makes an interesting statement in the interview. He contends that there are two possible scenarios, 1) the American version that Assad dropped chemical weapons is correct or 2) that an ordinary bomb may have hit a chemical weapons dump where the Jihadists were storing chemical weapons. If scenario two were true, then where did the Jihadists get those chemical weapons? From Assad’s stockpile? Do the Jihadists have the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons right under Assad’s nose?

    Ford is just speculating and has no access to any classified intelligence. Ford also stated in the interview that British defense secretary Michael Fallon believes that there is sufficient evidence to support Trump’s actions. Who is better informed and has access to current intelligence information, acting British defense secretary Michael Fallon or former ambassador Peter Ford? Fallon.
     
  35. "If scenario two were true, then where did the Jihadists get those chemical weapons? From Assad’s stockpile? Do the Jihadists have the capacity to manufacture chemical weapons right under Assad’s nose?"

    I've no idea, Jeff. Maybe it was brought over from Iraq or manufactured elsewhere, Pakistan for example. It's not difficult to do. Perhaps it was old Syrian stock captured by rebels - I don't know, what's more, neither do you.

    Thankfully there are more measured responses from other G7 leaders who have called for a full investigation before any further escalation - something the orange retard might have considered if he had half a brain.

    Chemical and biological warfare is horrific - but just like using HGV trucks on pedestrians - it is easily done, with a little knowledge. Are you aware that podiatrists regularly dispose of a vital ingredient used in the manufacture of a deadly biological agent - the other ingredient easily purchased from a good garden centre?

    Who are the rebel groups in Syria - and given that the US and UK have funded and armed them, can you accept the possibility that the chemical agents originated from one or the other - most likely the U.K.?
     
  36. Jeff Root

    Jeff Root Well-Known Member

    Well, thankfully we now know the truth: “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dismissed reports of last week's chemical attack as "100% fabrication," an assertion at odds with numerous eyewitness accounts, independent analysis and even the explanation given by its strongest ally, Russia”.

    I’m glad we got that all cleared up. We now know, thanks to Assad, that there were no chemical weapons involved in the bombings. It was all staged Assad says. No claim that a conventional bomb may have hit a chemicals weapons stockpile held by rebels or Jihadists. Perhaps the World Trade Center attack was staged as well.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/middleeast/syria-bashar-assad-interview/
     
  37. Yes, I saw the interview. What I haven't seen - ten days on - is any evidence from US authorities to support the claim that Syria is the guilty party. No satellite or video imaging, no explanation or copy of the intel Trump based his decision on. What we have seen is video of the aftermath of a gas attack where the victims were tended by the White Helmets. We now know that the video was supplied by the same organisation.

    The UN War Crimes Commission have said an independent investigation is needed but a motion mandating one was vetoed by the UK earlier today.

    I don't know what happened last week, Jeff. Neither does any of us - this is mere fanciful speculation. Until the incident occurred, Assad was in a stronger position than he has been since the civil war began. With Putin's aid, he had almost defeated the rebel forces and had retaken many of the strongholds outside Damascus. Informed opinion suggests Islamic forces were already fleeing the country with Iran and Iraq also attacking them from the east and it was likely that the Syrian fighting would all have been over by early summer - with Assad still in power, of course.

    It is a conclusion unacceptable to the west. Trump launched a missile attack on a sovereign country - a week later, he has yet to provide the evidence that he relied on other than the disturbing images provided by the White Helmets. Whether it was a staged operation by rebel forces, a consequence of a conventional strike on a munitions factory or a direct chemical attack by Syrian aircraft, time will tell. We need to know. But the onus is on your President to explain his decision to bomb the airfield, killing seven innocent civilians, let's not forget - and provide the international community with the supporting intel and evidence for rigorous examination.

    You could ask Trump to explain why Newton's Third Law was AWOL on 9/11, Jeff - the definitive proof the your government lied to the world over the events of that day - but you'd have to be imaginative...

    "Hey Mr Trump, an accidental dump is a hazard as time goes by and imagine if you will that one day you scoot a naughty poop in the shower that beautiful morning as you shampoo those wonderful golden locks. You rub your eyes and look down but low and behold there is no poop, spoldge or even scoosh - just a gaping hole in the 24 carat shower tray and right down through all the floors of Trumpety Towers where deep in the bowels of the basement a molten, golden Presidential turd glowed white hot - and was still all runny four weeks later.

    Even if you had a vindaloo the night before - would you be surprised?
    "



    And if that's impenetrable, take a large bowling ball up to a second floor window and drop it onto a standing paper couch roll - the kind you use in clinic. Assuming it hits square on - with maximum load and force - does it flatten the paper roll on the concrete below or does it bounce off after the roll absorbs the impact? If it is the latter, how much has the couch roll flattened following the impact and can you explain why the paper roll hasn't compressed fully - even when the falling object was three times its weight and dropped from a great height? Ah - resistance, you say - and for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Now explain to me why three towers collapsed within 2.8 seconds of freefall speed that day without the substantial resistance being utterly compromised?

    The troubles of the last sixteen years have been predicated on a lie advanced by your government and President at the time. That is not anti-American. It is a fact. I have very fond memories of the USA - and count many Americans as friends. It is a great country. By you have assholes in your political structures - just as we have in the UK and almost every other country too, who act in our name but in their own and other interests - powerful multinationals and financial institutions, who would think nothing of promoting operations to strengthen their position.

    I don't know much about Assad other than what I read in the media - and I wouldn't be surprised if he had blood on his hands. But what about Netenyahu and his predecessors in the Knesset? What about the killings of the Palestinian children - and almost daily occurrence in the occupied territories and Gaza strip? The use of white phosphorus on densely packed civilian areas. Is that any more ethical than Sarin gas? Israel gets $billions in aid and armaments from the USA every year. Without question. Israel counts on vetoes from the UK and USA in the UN for anything from new settlements to curtailing military action in civilian areas. Buckingham Palace announced today that the Queen will make a Royal State visit to Israel later this year. I wonder if she'll have time to take the golden carriage through Gaza for what's left of their kids to gaze and wonder at in amazement? I wonder if she'll wave?

    Eyes tight shut, Jeff, look the other way. You won't be alone. Wilful ignorance can be a comforting companion. But it is never enlightening.

    All the best.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page