787Driver wrote:

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Scorpius wrote:

The destruction of the building clearly does not correspond to the declared number of cruise missiles.

You may hold on to that nonsense belief, but that doesn´t make it more true. As numerous posters, me included, have pointed out to you, that wasn´t an excessive number of missiles for the target, if you want to ensure that nothing is left standing above or below ground. You just conveniently ignore that is was a fairly large building complex and one that may have been designed to be bombed.

They just dropped ~3 Grand Slams worth of warhead onto the target, and three of those, or equivalent Tallboys, have never been declared excessive to destroy a single target.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

The destruction of the building clearly does not correspond to the declared number of cruise missiles.

You may hold on to that nonsense belief, but that doesn´t make it more true. As numerous posters, me included, have pointed out to you, that wasn´t an excessive number of missiles for the target, if you want to ensure that nothing is left standing above or below ground. You just conveniently ignore that is was a fairly large building complex and one that may have been designed to be bombed.

They just dropped ~3 Grand Slams worth of warhead onto the target, and three of those, or equivalent Tallboys, have never been declared excessive to destroy a single target.

best regards
Thomas

The above photo shows explosions of single-Calibre missiles, which are cruise missiles of the same class with "Tomahawks". Once again: each of the explosions - is one hit cruise missiles at the target.
In this regard, the question arises: either cruise missiles " Caliber "have a much greater firepower than cruise missiles" Tomahawk", or the building, which we talked about earlier, received no more than 5-6 cruise missiles each.

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Of course your opinion should be taken into account if you were a credible source, but I’ve seen more than enough to see that you are extremely biased.

The presence or absence of bias in no way characterizes the truth of the information provided. I provide information that is easily verified by checking through open sources. My political views have nothing to do with the information I provide. And trying to justify your position based on my political views looks pretty pathetic. Take care of yourself, and not for my preferences - they don't have to worry about, and the right to Express their point of view on the issues under discussion - an essential for every person on Earth.

Scorpius wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Of course your opinion should be taken into account if you were a credible source, but I’ve seen more than enough to see that you are extremely biased.

Scorpius wrote:

The above photo shows explosions of single-Calibre missiles, which are cruise missiles of the same class with "Tomahawks". Once again: each of the explosions - is one hit cruise missiles at the target.
In this regard, the question arises: either cruise missiles " Caliber "have a much greater firepower than cruise missiles" Tomahawk", or the building, which we talked about earlier, received no more than 5-6 cruise missiles each.

The building is still standing and damage seems to be more cosmetic than real. What sort of building was it, where was it (GPS coordinates please) how many subsurface levels where expected, was the goal to kill people inside, or to destroy machinery and data inside beyond repair/recovery. Damaged rood also makes it much more look like an LGB impact, unless your cruise missiles do a "please shot me down" pop up maneuver.

best regards
Thomas

Scorpius wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Good to see you subscribe to the point of view that you should have the facts with available credible documentation. I look forward to your change of minors and now give us a credible source for your presented fact, if you have an opinion, that is fine too, but don't present it as a fact.

That you are not taken seriously by me (and apparently other forum users), is because you have written some "facts" which was verifiable and turned out not to be the truth. So it is not Russians perse, it is you and how you present yourself here, you lost all credibility with me on delicate issues with a Russian angle.

You can, more or less, say whatever you want - freedom of speech - and the receiver can do with it whatever he wants. Freedom of speech is not to take everything that is said at face value. I can think on my own as can you.

So I agree with 787Driver, I don't trust anything you say without credible evidence to back it up. And your opinion is just your opinion. Like your statement: "pathological falsity of Western culture". Ok, your opinion brings nothing to the table. You can say it, but for me, such gross generalizations only say something about you, nothing about western culture.

Scorpius wrote:

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society.

Excuse me? That looks just like you have thrown all "representatives of Western Society" into the same box, because of the "basis of their beliefs". Isn't that exactly the crime you accuse everybody else here?
I recommend you google the phrase "Pot calling kettle black"

Scorpius wrote:

He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Or.... because you have track record of lies and exaggeration. That's not a random accusation, but a very specific and relevant reason not to trust what you write. It's called CREDIBILITY.
I recommend you google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", by Aesop (620-564 BCE)

BTW - I'm curious; which of your handlers came up with "pathological falsity of Western society", because with your track record of garbled mis-translated posts, I'm fairly sure neither you nor google translate would have come up with such a contrived pre-programmed phrase.

https://yadi.sk/d/cTNQs9kM3UYTbe

Chemical attack victim gives an interview

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society.

Excuse me? That looks just like you have thrown all "representatives of Western Society" into the same box, because of the "basis of their beliefs". Isn't that exactly the crime you accuse everybody else here?
I recommend you google the phrase "Pot calling kettle black"

Scorpius wrote:

He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Or.... because you have track record of lies and exaggeration. That's not a random accusation, but a very specific and relevant reason not to trust what you write. It's called CREDIBILITY.
I recommend you google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", by Aesop (620-564 BCE)

BTW - I'm curious; which of your handlers came up with "pathological falsity of Western society", because with your track record of garbled mis-translated posts, I'm fairly sure neither you nor google translate would have come up with such a contrived pre-programmed phrase.

So far, all I see here is your lies. About the alleged Russian downed MH17, about the supposedly poisoned Russian Skripal, about the alleged Syria chemical weapons, about allegedly managed to fly from the destination a hundred cruise missiles. This is characteristic of all these your statements combined a complete lack of any evidence. When you at this point - you start screaming that reporting is Putin's and the Kremlin's Troll hacker. What's more, you're trying to accuse me of lying right now.
Let's go with the evidence. Point to the facts. Where did I lie? Remember, if you are not going to show these points with convincing evidence you show in front of the whole audience, what a liar are you. By evading the presentation of evidence, you will also prove to be a liar. Now, I repeat: I accuse you of lying about allegedly misinforming someone here. I'm saying you're lying about it. Your application is fake. Please submit concrete evidence or GTFO.

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society.

Excuse me? That looks just like you have thrown all "representatives of Western Society" into the same box, because of the "basis of their beliefs". Isn't that exactly the crime you accuse everybody else here?
I recommend you google the phrase "Pot calling kettle black"

Scorpius wrote:

He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Or.... because you have track record of lies and exaggeration. That's not a random accusation, but a very specific and relevant reason not to trust what you write. It's called CREDIBILITY.
I recommend you google "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", by Aesop (620-564 BCE)

BTW - I'm curious; which of your handlers came up with "pathological falsity of Western society", because with your track record of garbled mis-translated posts, I'm fairly sure neither you nor google translate would have come up with such a contrived pre-programmed phrase.

So far, all I see here is your lies. About the alleged Russian downed MH17, about the supposedly poisoned Russian Skripal, about the alleged Syria chemical weapons, about allegedly managed to fly from the destination a hundred cruise missiles. This is characteristic of all these your statements combined a complete lack of any evidence. When you at this point - you start screaming that reporting is Putin's and the Kremlin's Troll hacker. What's more, you're trying to accuse me of lying right now.
Let's go with the evidence. Point to the facts. Where did I lie? Remember, if you are not going to show these points with convincing evidence you show in front of the whole audience, what a liar are you. By evading the presentation of evidence, you will also prove to be a liar. Now, I repeat: I accuse you of lying about allegedly misinforming someone here. I'm saying you're lying about it. Your application is fake. Please submit concrete evidence or GTFO.

Did you notice a trend in this thread?
For example that the vast majority of users posting here agree that you are in denial? Could it be that it's actually not us spreading lies and misinformation, but in fact you?

From the way the Russians denied access to international air crash investigators for the first many days after the downing of the Malaysian airliner giving them time to remove any evidence? That the Russians and the Syrians denied access to international and independent experts till they could remove all evidence that a chemical attack took place? That you give more credibility to the Russians than the independent experts saying that Skripal was poisoned by a Russian produced nerve agent? That the Russians have knowingly killed thousands of civilians during their bombardement of Syria? And just like the Russian and Syrian losers, you're denying their barbaric acts of violence? You disgust me.

Scorpius wrote:

The above photo shows explosions of single-Calibre missiles, which are cruise missiles of the same class with "Tomahawks". Once again: each of the explosions - is one hit cruise missiles at the target.
In this regard, the question arises: either cruise missiles " Caliber "have a much greater firepower than cruise missiles" Tomahawk", or the building, which we talked about earlier, received no more than 5-6 cruise missiles each.

Congratulations scorpius your country is now neck deep in the quagmire that is the middle east. Welcome to the club!

Scorpius wrote:

So far, all I see here is your lies.

Well that's no surprise since you seem to dismiss anything as lying that's not completely in line with your pro Russian viewpoint. Then you put yourself on your imaginary high horse demanding facts and sources, while you yourself do nothing of the sort. Do you think satellite pictures with exploding buildings (without any source) or amateurishly compiled google earth imagery (without any source) prove anything?

Maybe people would take you seriously if you abide to the same standards that you demand from others.

Why do you guys feed this troll?

Scorpius; in your particularly odious post, you used the words lies, liar, and lying a total of seven times in relation to myself. That must be something of a record, even for you.

Scorpius wrote:

So far, all I see here is your lies. About the alleged Russian downed MH17,

My lies about MH17? I haven't uttered a single comment in connection with MH17. This can be proved by searching this thread's posts for "MH17" in connection with my ID. You will find the result is zero.
An apology from you is required.

Scorpius wrote:

about the supposedly poisoned Russian Skripal,

So they are now only "supposedly poisoned"? Somebody had better notify TASS, Pravda and even Putin, because unlike you, they have all admitted a poisoning event took place. If I am lying, then so are they. Another apology is therefore due from you.

about the alleged Syria chemical weapons,

Ok, this one is open for debate. On the one side, the WHO, the UN, most of NATO, hundreds of nations are all accepting these claims. On the other side; Syria (the part of it controlled by Assad), Iran, and Russia claim it isn't true.
Even Wikipedia talks in terms of "suspected" chemical attacks, as does most Western news media. I'm OK with that.
But Wikipedia also documents over 70 previous chemical weapon attacks in the last four years , both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons. Perhaps you were hoping we had all forgotten about those atrocities? As I have said more than once; credibility is everything, and even though there may be no proof (yet) on this occasion, there are serious grounds for suspicion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_ch ... _Civil_War

about allegedly managed to fly from the destination a hundred cruise missiles.

I haven't argued for any specific number of cruise missiles, but TASS reports 103 were launched. I'm happy to agree with TASS (& others), and you need to make another apology to me, or argue a case for why Russian news agencies are telling lies.

Scorpius wrote:

When you at this point - you start screaming that reporting is Putin's and the Kremlin's Troll hacker.

Interesting; so you now admit to being a hacker as well as a Kremlin Troll? BTW, screaming (or shouting) is usually conveyed by the use of CAPITAL LETTERS. I didn't do any screaming, so that's another apology you owe me.

What's more, you're trying to accuse me of lying right now.

I don't have to try very hard; you do most of the damage all by yourself.

Let's go with the evidence. Point to the facts. Where did I lie?

I keep quoting where you lie, in post after post, but you keep ignoring it.

Remember, if you are not going to show these points with convincing evidence you show in front of the whole audience, what a liar are you.

That's not been a problem for you.

By evading the presentation of evidence, you will also prove to be a liar. Now, I repeat: I accuse you of lying about allegedly misinforming someone here. I'm saying you're lying about it.

That's right, you keep accusing me of being a "liar" in sentence after sentence, but no matter how hard you push this anti-social trolling behaviour, I'm not going anywhere.

Overall, I detect a note of desperation in your post. Others here have noticed it too.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons.

Didn´t Putin guarantee Russia would make sure that all the Chemical Weapons are destroyed? So either Russia is lying about intentions and accomplishements, or Assad is outsmarting Russia by a million miles.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons.

Didn´t Putin guarantee Russia would make sure that all the Chemical Weapons are destroyed? So either Russia is lying about intentions and accomplishements, or Assad is outsmarting Russia by a million miles.

best regards
Thomas

My take is indeed the Assad regime is outsmarting the Putin regime. The Assad regime played it smart, from their perspective.....

I suppose we will have to hear choruses of "fake Israeli intel" and "fake news" and whatever but

http://www.businessinsider.com/israeli- ... led-2018-4

The mission accomplished zero and wasted millions of dollars. I am sure the people of Flint and Appalachia and Puerto Rico are so happy. #morewinning

And, now, we are learning that Russia told coalition forces where could be bombed.

http://www.newsweek.com/now-russia-says ... omb-895204

SMDH.... i have no words....

tommy1808 wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons.

Didn´t Putin guarantee Russia would make sure that all the Chemical Weapons are destroyed? So either Russia is lying about intentions and accomplishements, or Assad is outsmarting Russia by a million miles.

best regards
Thomas

Not only Putin guaranteed this, OPCW observed the process, of finding the chemicals and taking them out of Syria for destruction. And later even Kerry acknowledged and admitted that chemicals and per-cursors are out of Syria. So first questions go there.

seb146 wrote:

And, now, we are learning that Russia told coalition forces where could be bombed.

http://www.newsweek.com/now-russia-says ... omb-895204

SMDH.... i have no words....

I don't know who interpreted Lavrov's statements in this way, but I don't think Russian military could tell where Americans are "allowed" to bomb. They told that Americans should not bomb Russian bases - true, but not beyond that.

mad99 wrote:

https://yadi.sk/d/cTNQs9kM3UYTbe

Chemical attack victim gives an interview

Yepp. "Syrian Hollywood".

anrec80 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And, now, we are learning that Russia told coalition forces where could be bombed.

http://www.newsweek.com/now-russia-says ... omb-895204

SMDH.... i have no words....

I don't know who interpreted Lavrov's statements in this way, but I don't think Russian military could tell where Americans are "allowed" to bomb. They told that Americans should not bomb Russian bases - true, but not beyond that.

Sky News (owned by Rupert Murdoch/Fox) reported that Russian Foreign Minister told "coalition" forces where was "safe" to bomb, so

seb146 wrote:

Sky News (owned by Rupert Murdoch/Fox) reported that Russian Foreign Minister told "coalition" forces where was "safe" to bomb, so

Still no answer to this. A "too good to be true" kind of a thing. The "western coalition" listening to Russians - it's certainly overkill. On the other hand, there is a saying in Russia: "who doesn't want to talk to Lavrov, will talk to Shoigu" (Russian Defense Secretary).

Dutchy wrote:

My take is indeed the Assad regime is outsmarting the Putin regime. The Assad regime played it smart, from their perspective.....

What about from your perspective? From your perspective - it's not so smart even being there, and for Assad even being alive?

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius; in your particularly odious post, you used the words lies, liar, and lying a total of seven times in relation to myself. That must be something of a record, even for you.

Scorpius wrote:

So far, all I see here is your lies. About the alleged Russian downed MH17,

My lies about MH17? I haven't uttered a single comment in connection with MH17. This can be proved by searching this thread's posts for "MH17" in connection with my ID. You will find the result is zero.
An apology from you is required.

Scorpius wrote:

about the supposedly poisoned Russian Skripal,

So they are now only "supposedly poisoned"? Somebody had better notify TASS, Pravda and even Putin, because unlike you, they have all admitted a poisoning event took place. If I am lying, then so are they. Another apology is therefore due from you.

about the alleged Syria chemical weapons,

Ok, this one is open for debate. On the one side, the WHO, the UN, most of NATO, hundreds of nations are all accepting these claims. On the other side; Syria (the part of it controlled by Assad), Iran, and Russia claim it isn't true.
Even Wikipedia talks in terms of "suspected" chemical attacks, as does most Western news media. I'm OK with that.
But Wikipedia also documents over 70 previous chemical weapon attacks in the last four years , both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons. Perhaps you were hoping we had all forgotten about those atrocities? As I have said more than once; credibility is everything, and even though there may be no proof (yet) on this occasion, there are serious grounds for suspicion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_ch ... _Civil_War

about allegedly managed to fly from the destination a hundred cruise missiles.

I haven't argued for any specific number of cruise missiles, but TASS reports 103 were launched. I'm happy to agree with TASS (& others), and you need to make another apology to me, or argue a case for why Russian news agencies are telling lies.

Scorpius wrote:

When you at this point - you start screaming that reporting is Putin's and the Kremlin's Troll hacker.

Interesting; so you now admit to being a hacker as well as a Kremlin Troll? BTW, screaming (or shouting) is usually conveyed by the use of CAPITAL LETTERS. I didn't do any screaming, so that's another apology you owe me.

What's more, you're trying to accuse me of lying right now.

I don't have to try very hard; you do most of the damage all by yourself.

Let's go with the evidence. Point to the facts. Where did I lie?

I keep quoting where you lie, in post after post, but you keep ignoring it.

Remember, if you are not going to show these points with convincing evidence you show in front of the whole audience, what a liar are you.

That's not been a problem for you.

By evading the presentation of evidence, you will also prove to be a liar. Now, I repeat: I accuse you of lying about allegedly misinforming someone here. I'm saying you're lying about it.

That's right, you keep accusing me of being a "liar" in sentence after sentence, but no matter how hard you push this anti-social trolling behaviour, I'm not going anywhere.

Overall, I detect a note of desperation in your post. Others here have noticed it too.

You're trying to interpret my words again.

I haven't uttered a single comment in connection with MH17.

I'm talking about your entire group - you, Dutchy, tommy and others who are pressing charges without any evidence or a court decision.
The fact that the idiot Google translator does not distinguish between the Russian words "you" and "you" (lol, in the original it is "ты" (singular, personalized appeal to the interlocutor) and "вы" (plural, appeal to a group of interlocutors) is the fault of those who wrote algorithms for the Google translator.

So they are now only "supposedly poisoned"?

allegedly poisoned by Russians. the fact that the Skripal was poisoned - no one denies. The question is who poisoned him. And somehow substance poisoned - too, is unknown.

Consider your other ads is not even necessary - specifically you, SheikhDjibouti, just trying to distort my words, but do not give any real argument. References to Wikipedia as evidence? Is it serious?

Scorpius wrote:

And somehow substance poisoned - too, is unknown.

The substance used to poison the Skripals is clearly known, whether you deny it or not.

Porton Down identified it as Novichok and this was subsequently confirmed by the OPCW. There is no doubt what was used to poison them.

Lavrov was shown to be lying when he tried to discredit Porton Down's identification of Novichok.

Scorpius wrote:

I'm talking about your entire group - you, Dutchy, tommy and others who are pressing charges without any evidence or a court decision.
The fact that the idiot Google translator does not distinguish between the Russian words "you" and "you" (lol, in the original it is "ты" (singular, personalized appeal to the interlocutor) and "вы" (plural, appeal to a group of interlocutors) is the fault of those who wrote algorithms for the Google translator.

Phew! What a relief to find you are naming all of us as liars, (again, and again), and not just me personally. Even though that is exactly how it came across in your post.

Actually, it is the fault of English that "you" (singular) and "you" (plural) are identical; don't blame the algorithms in Google Translate. I agree that Russian, (and French & other languages) can be more helpful with options such as "tu" and "vous", although these also sometimes have issues.
Either way, you are still wrong because I am not part of that "entire group", unless by entire group you mean the remainder of the planet?
We (the group you are trying to place me in) do not share nationality, country of residence, religion, age group, marital status, or indeed much at all, except possibly we are all male - but I wouldn't even guarantee that.
That just leaves one thing we share, and to group everybody who disagrees with you, regardless of their reasoning, in one pot is exceedingly lazy arguing.

But best of all, you have identified an issue (multiple definitions for the English word "you"), and even though the evidence is out there in front of you, you have blamed the wrong entity ("the idiot Google translator"). This coming from someone who demands detailed evidence and proper investigation from everyone else before making rushed accusations. Maybe you need to follow your own advice ....

Consider your other ads is not even necessary - specifically you, SheikhDjibouti, just trying to distort my words, but do not give any real argument.

That's a nifty sidestep that avoids addressing anything difficult or embarrassing for you. Straight from the Big Book of Trolling™; rule 42 - ignore any arguments that expose you as incorrect.

Scorpius wrote:

References to Wikipedia as evidence? Is it serious?

And there we have it in a nutshell. Even when we present evidence, you will dismiss it. Wikipedia sometimes has it's faults, but unlike many sites online, they always identify their sources - in this case 123 varied sources. You cannot blame Wikipedia in isolation; you need to examine these 123 sources, aka the rest of the known world except Russia. Don't trouble yourself; I already know your answer.

One incident of chemical warfare could be a fabrication.
Two incidents maybe..
But 70 ! Over four years, in multiple locations. How many were emphatically denied at the time, and reluctantly accepted as the truth when evidence finally came to light?
What would be equally interesting (& damning) would be to ask how many alleged incidents were proven to be false-flag, because if you can prove that the devious deceitful West has made false accusations before, this would support your case. Here's my challenge to you; show us previous cases where the West alleged chemical incidents, and then had to apologise for being wrong. Or explain why the West was right 70 times, but wrong at the 71st.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_ch ... _Civil_War

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius; in your particularly odious post, you used the words lies, liar, and lying a total of seven times in relation to myself. That must be something of a record, even for you.

Scorpius wrote:

So far, all I see here is your lies. About the alleged Russian downed MH17,

My lies about MH17? I haven't uttered a single comment in connection with MH17. This can be proved by searching this thread's posts for "MH17" in connection with my ID. You will find the result is zero.
An apology from you is required.

Scorpius wrote:

about the supposedly poisoned Russian Skripal,

So they are now only "supposedly poisoned"? Somebody had better notify TASS, Pravda and even Putin, because unlike you, they have all admitted a poisoning event took place. If I am lying, then so are they. Another apology is therefore due from you.

about the alleged Syria chemical weapons,

Ok, this one is open for debate. On the one side, the WHO, the UN, most of NATO, hundreds of nations are all accepting these claims. On the other side; Syria (the part of it controlled by Assad), Iran, and Russia claim it isn't true.
Even Wikipedia talks in terms of "suspected" chemical attacks, as does most Western news media. I'm OK with that.
But Wikipedia also documents over 70 previous chemical weapon attacks in the last four years , both before and after Syria supposedly relinquished their chemical weapons. Perhaps you were hoping we had all forgotten about those atrocities? As I have said more than once; credibility is everything, and even though there may be no proof (yet) on this occasion, there are serious grounds for suspicion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_ch ... _Civil_War

about allegedly managed to fly from the destination a hundred cruise missiles.

I haven't argued for any specific number of cruise missiles, but TASS reports 103 were launched. I'm happy to agree with TASS (& others), and you need to make another apology to me, or argue a case for why Russian news agencies are telling lies.

Scorpius wrote:

When you at this point - you start screaming that reporting is Putin's and the Kremlin's Troll hacker.

Interesting; so you now admit to being a hacker as well as a Kremlin Troll? BTW, screaming (or shouting) is usually conveyed by the use of CAPITAL LETTERS. I didn't do any screaming, so that's another apology you owe me.

What's more, you're trying to accuse me of lying right now.

I don't have to try very hard; you do most of the damage all by yourself.

Let's go with the evidence. Point to the facts. Where did I lie?

I keep quoting where you lie, in post after post, but you keep ignoring it.

Remember, if you are not going to show these points with convincing evidence you show in front of the whole audience, what a liar are you.

That's not been a problem for you.

By evading the presentation of evidence, you will also prove to be a liar. Now, I repeat: I accuse you of lying about allegedly misinforming someone here. I'm saying you're lying about it.

That's right, you keep accusing me of being a "liar" in sentence after sentence, but no matter how hard you push this anti-social trolling behaviour, I'm not going anywhere.

Overall, I detect a note of desperation in your post. Others here have noticed it too.

You're trying to interpret my words again.

I haven't uttered a single comment in connection with MH17.

I'm talking about your entire group - you, Dutchy, tommy and others who are pressing charges without any evidence or a court decision.
The fact that the idiot Google translator does not distinguish between the Russian words "you" and "you" (lol, in the original it is "ты" (singular, personalized appeal to the interlocutor) and "вы" (plural, appeal to a group of interlocutors) is the fault of those who wrote algorithms for the Google translator.

So they are now only "supposedly poisoned"?

allegedly poisoned by Russians. the fact that the Skripal was poisoned - no one denies. The question is who poisoned him. And somehow substance poisoned - too, is unknown.

Consider your other ads is not even necessary - specifically you, SheikhDjibouti, just trying to distort my words, but do not give any real argument. References to Wikipedia as evidence? Is it serious?

You seem to be missing the elephant that is staring you in the face while you go off on all these different tangents. The elephant being Russia neck deep in the quagmire that is Syria. So grab your popcorn and enjoy the show.

The Russian defense Ministry presented the wreckage of downed air defense systems in Syria cruise missiles NATO. Two more cruise missiles were found intact (likely to have fallen as a result of malfunctions).
https://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12172894@egNews

According to earlier statements of representatives of the Pentagon, no missile was shot down. That's all we need to know about the level of truthfulness of Pentagon statements.

They already found explanations - they say they don’t know how these samples got to Russians.

Scorpius wrote:

According to earlier statements of representatives of the Pentagon, no missile was shot down. That's all we need to know about the level of truthfulness of Pentagon statements.

Can you find a link to one of these Pentagon statements (specifically saying no missile was shot down)? It would reinforce your case, so please don't ignore my request.

anrec80 wrote:

They already found explanations - they say they don’t know how these samples got to Russians.

"They" - who are they? Please provide a link confirming your statement. It carries more weight if "The Pentagon says..." instead of "anrec80 says....."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 07726.html

Robert Fisk on the gas attack

mad99 wrote:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

Robert Fisk on the gas attack

Robert Fisk on the gas attack.... what?
I don't have the bandwidth to download a lengthy article, or even a short article accompanied by far too many cookies and adverts, unless there are some key points of interest. What is Fisk's angle? Is it pro Russia? Is it pro America? Or are you suggesting it is a nicely balanced summary? Give me a reason to spend time & effort reading it, please.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

According to earlier statements of representatives of the Pentagon, no missile was shot down. That's all we need to know about the level of truthfulness of Pentagon statements.

Can you find a link to one of these Pentagon statements (specifically saying no missile was shot down)? It would reinforce your case, so please don't ignore my request.

The allies fired 105 weapons at these targets. The missiles came from British, French and American platforms in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, McKenzie said.
“All weapons hit their targets close to the designated time on target,” he said. The American ships were: the USS Monterrey, the USS Laboon, the USS Higgins and the submarine USS John Warner. Two B-1 Lancer bombers launched joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles. Support aircraft – tankers, fighters, electronic warfare aircraft and more – also participated.
“None of our aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defenses,” McKenzie said.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1493718/pentagon-officials-describe-syria-strikes-hope-assad-gets-message/
Is this a reliable source for you, or will you begin to claim that the Pentagon site was hacked by Russian hackers?

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

According to earlier statements of representatives of the Pentagon, no missile was shot down. That's all we need to know about the level of truthfulness of Pentagon statements.

Can you find a link to one of these Pentagon statements (specifically saying no missile was shot down)? It would reinforce your case, so please don't ignore my request.

The allies fired 105 weapons at these targets. “All weapons hit their targets .
“None of our aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defenses,” McKenzie said.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1493718/pentagon-officials-describe-syria-strikes-hope-assad-gets-message/
Is this a reliable source for you, or will you begin to claim that the Pentagon site was hacked by Russian hackers?

Yes, that is perfectly acceptable. Thank you.
ps. Why would I think otherwise? Please don't confuse my identity or beliefs with others posting here.

I'm happy to accept the possibility some missiles were brought down. Or fell out of the sky all by themselves.
There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.
I'm really not too bothered either way.

Scorpius wrote:

The Russian defense Ministry presented the wreckage of downed air defense systems in Syria cruise missiles NATO. Two more cruise missiles were found intact (likely to have fallen as a result of malfunctions).

According to earlier statements of representatives of the Pentagon, no missile was shot down. That's all we need to know about the level of truthfulness of Pentagon statements.

The Russian defense Ministry presented........ enough said. Zero credibility.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles, which indicates the shooting down of cruise missiles, fragments of which were presented, the Syrian air defense.
On the one hand, we have statements from the Pentagon that no missile was shot down, and that all missiles hit the target - on the other hand, we have statements from the Russian defense Ministry that part of the cruise missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses. The Russians now reinforced by the demonstration of fragments of the downed cruise missiles.
From this fact arises two questions:
1. What is the real effectiveness of the missile strike?
2. Why did the Pentagon lie? Again.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

I'm happy to accept the possibility some missiles were brought down. Or fell out of the sky all by themselves.
There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

Check, check and check. Given the Russian government tendency to handle the truth quite loosely, I think this is the most likely source of those fragments, how would we know that the Russian government is telling us the truth.

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles,

If you say so.
I can only see bent twisted pieces of metal, as if they were involved in some kind of explosion (which could be from a Syrian AAM, or the result of the Tomahawk warhead itself). Or possibly just mangled by several tonnes of concrete, reinforcing rods, and assorted laboratory equipment.

Do Syrian/Russian AAMs provide distinctive shrapnel that can be distinguished from impacts due to other random pieces of metal?

I've got a piece of scrap aluminium sheet in my garage, and I reckon I can replicate those exact puncture holes in 5-10 mins with a hammer and a cold chisel. Would that prove it was shot down by a Syrian AAM? Maybe if I run a gas torch over the edges it will look even more realistic.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles,

If you say so.
I can only see bent twisted pieces of metal, as if they were involved in some kind of explosion (which could be from a Syrian AAM, or the result of the Tomahawk warhead itself). Or possibly just mangled by several tonnes of concrete, reinforcing rods, and assorted laboratory equipment.

Do Syrian/Russian AAMs provide distinctive shrapnel that can be distinguished from impacts due to other random pieces of metal?

I've got a piece of scrap aluminium sheet in my garage, and I reckon I can replicate those exact puncture holes in 5-10 mins with a hammer and a cold chisel. Would that prove it was shot down by a Syrian AAM? Maybe if I run a gas torch over the edges it will look even more realistic.

Do you have any evidence that these marks were made "with a hammer and a cold chisel"?

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles, which indicates the shooting down of cruise missiles, fragments of which were presented, the Syrian air defense.
On the one hand, we have statements from the Pentagon that no missile was shot down, and that all missiles hit the target - on the other hand, we have statements from the Russian defense Ministry that part of the cruise missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses. The Russians now reinforced by the demonstration of fragments of the downed cruise missiles.
From this fact arises two questions:
1. What is the real effectiveness of the missile strike?
2. Why did the Pentagon lie? Again.

lol Russian military technology is no match for USA. Just check the difference in defence budgets. 'nough said.

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles,

If you say so.
I can only see bent twisted pieces of metal, as if they were involved in some kind of explosion (which could be from a Syrian AAM, or the result of the Tomahawk warhead itself). Or possibly just mangled by several tonnes of concrete, reinforcing rods, and assorted laboratory equipment.

Do Syrian/Russian AAMs provide distinctive shrapnel that can be distinguished from impacts due to other random pieces of metal?

I've got a piece of scrap aluminium sheet in my garage, and I reckon I can replicate those exact puncture holes in 5-10 mins with a hammer and a cold chisel. Would that prove it was shot down by a Syrian AAM? Maybe if I run a gas torch over the edges it will look even more realistic.

Do you have any evidence that these marks were made "with a hammer and a cold chisel"?

Do you have any evidence that these were shot down and that this is striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles, other than the Russian ministry of defense saying so?
You believe the Russian ministry of defense, but labeled the outcome of a British laboratory which the OPCW concurred, as fake. So first you, first your evidence before asking others.

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

There is also the possibility that fragments of missiles "survived" the explosion wherever they landed, and those could be the pieces shown by the Russians/Syrians.

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles, which indicates the shooting down of cruise missiles, fragments of which were presented, the Syrian air defense.
On the one hand, we have statements from the Pentagon that no missile was shot down, and that all missiles hit the target - on the other hand, we have statements from the Russian defense Ministry that part of the cruise missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses. The Russians now reinforced by the demonstration of fragments of the downed cruise missiles.
From this fact arises two questions:
1. What is the real effectiveness of the missile strike?
2. Why did the Pentagon lie? Again.

lol Russian military technology is no match for USA. Just check the difference in defence budgets. 'nough said.

USA: 3% of the national income, Russia: 5% or do you mean in absolute numbers?

Dutchy wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

the fragments show traces of the striking elements of anti-aircraft missiles, which indicates the shooting down of cruise missiles, fragments of which were presented, the Syrian air defense.
On the one hand, we have statements from the Pentagon that no missile was shot down, and that all missiles hit the target - on the other hand, we have statements from the Russian defense Ministry that part of the cruise missiles were shot down by Syrian air defenses. The Russians now reinforced by the demonstration of fragments of the downed cruise missiles.
From this fact arises two questions:
1. What is the real effectiveness of the missile strike?
2. Why did the Pentagon lie? Again.

lol Russian military technology is no match for USA. Just check the difference in defence budgets. 'nough said.

USA: 3% of the national income, Russia: 5% or do you mean in absolute numbers?

What do you think?

So, basically, it is he said/she said. And we still have dirty water in the United States, health care costs for the average person is out of control again, good jobs are not to be found unless you have a college education which is out of reach for many people. But, yeah, let's split hairs over an attack that did nothing to change anything.

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I would believe it if a credible independent expert said what you said, but you're an anonymous airliners.net user with a clear pro Russian agenda, so I wouldn't trust what you write on this topic in any case.

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Of course your opinion should be taken into account if you were a credible source, but I’ve seen more than enough to see that you are extremely biased.

Maybe so, but to be fair so are you and a bunch of others. Just biased towards the other side.

seb146 wrote:

So, basically, it is he said/she said. And we still have dirty water in the United States, health care costs for the average person is out of control again, good jobs are not to be found unless you have a college education which is out of reach for many people. But, yeah, let's split hairs over an attack that did nothing to change anything.

Are you becoming a cynic, Seb?

Redd wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Scorpius wrote:

Ahahahah, the famous " Western freedom of speech." On the basis of my beliefs, you declare that my opinion should not be taken into account. A perfect illustration of the pathological falsity of Western culture.
Any normal person during the discussion could try to support his point of view on the basis of facts, observations.y available photos and videos, documents. But not a representative of Western society. He will tell you that your words cannot be trusted because ... [then there will be any random accusation - that you are Russian, or you are black, or you are Latin American, or you are not Catholic, or you do not have enough money in your accounts in Switzerland].

Of course your opinion should be taken into account if you were a credible source, but I’ve seen more than enough to see that you are extremely biased.

Maybe so, but to be fair so are you and a bunch of others. Just biased towards the other side.

I don't promote fake news though. And by the way you're also pretty biased.