FabSwingers.com forum: So OPCW says there was no attack

By *agermeister OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

On Douma.

But funnily enough the msm have yet to report this.

How low can this government (and it's propaganda arm known as the BBC) go?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iverpool LoverMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"On Douma.

But funnily enough the msm have yet to report this.

How low can this government (and it's propaganda arm known as the BBC) go?"

Never heard anything on news about this so i just googled it now.

Turns out the UK,US and france all boycotted it.

No surprise there i guess seeing as they knew there wasnt attack.

What do the people in these forums that was adamant it was assad and russia and was banging on their war drums just hours after the incident have to say now?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Link?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *urve BallWoman
over a year ago

North London

Also, fairly convenient, how Israel's "discoveries" about Iran came at this specific time. Someone's pulling the strings behing everything happening in the middle east lately. The question is who and, more importantly, why. I have a feeling that the answer will be unexpected and surprise us all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can we have a link .It appears the opcw is still investigating the chemical attack.Please tell me you haven't been taken in by fake news again...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Can we have a link .It appears the opcw is still investigating the chemical attack.Please tell me you haven't been taken in by fake news again...

It seems the only fake news was that Assad and Russia carried out a chemical weapons attack in Douma. If the independent OPCW say there was no attack in Douma then this looks like Iraq weapons of mass destruction false intelligence all over again.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've fact checked it.It's false!!! I think you guys should also..Sputnik news anyone..

I wondered why nobody was providing a link.The Confirmation bias is strong in some.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Anyone remember which UK party leader was against any military action until there had been independent confirmation of a chemical attack? Could it have been the same person as wanted proof that Russia had used a chemical agent in the UK? Was it the same person who cautioned against using military force to bring about regime change in Libya and Iraq? Is it the same person who says we should not be arming Saudi? Who could that be?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Anyone remember which UK party leader was against any military action until there had been independent confirmation of a chemical attack? Could it have been the same person as wanted proof that Russia had used a chemical agent in the UK? Was it the same person who cautioned against using military force to bring about regime change in Libya and Iraq? Is it the same person who says we should not be arming Saudi? Who could that be?"

Nigel Farage said all those things but I get the feeling it wasn't him you were thinking of.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xplicitlyricsMan
over a year ago

south dublin

"On Douma.

But funnily enough the msm have yet to report this.

How low can this government (and it's propaganda arm known as the BBC) go?"

Funnily enough Im on the OPCWs site and it makes no mention of an announcement on Douma that resembles your statement. Not on its site or its twitter feed.

Its last update was a week ago to say its fact finding mission had just moved on to the 2nd site. So if no ones reporting this and OPCW itself isnt publishing anything that says they said that. Maybe they havent said it...

If you'd like to keep up with the news on OPCWs investigation they have twitter, facebook, youtube and pinterest as well as their own site with a press release section.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *urve BallWoman
over a year ago

North London

Nigel Farage said all those things but I get the feeling it wasn't him you were thinking of. "

Farage?! When?! Has he expanded his vocabulary?! I thought every second word out of his mouth was "brexit". The first and third being "Europe" and "bad"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There are some questions to be answered :

1. Why were they denied access - they should have gone in same day or next day!

2. Why were they denied access to any person so they could get independent verification - either way?

3. How long does it take for forensic material to disappear?

4. Either side can put forward "tame" witnesses - so unreliable.

There are two sides to every story and somewhere in the middle is the truth!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did anyone bother finding out why the title of the thread is an absolute outrageous lie!

Now who would put out such a lie.Who would benefit from such lies.Come on guys your free thinkers aren't you, your open minded aren't you?.They couldn't lead such critical thinkers up the garden path could they?

You guessed it people ?

It's irrefutable Russian propaganda.

Standard practice from the Kremlin as they know the shepple on the web will promote this as it fits their world view and biases.Hook line and sinker comes to mind.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oodmessMan
over a year ago

yumsville

"Did anyone bother finding out why the title of the thread is an absolute outrageous lie!

You guessed it people ?

It's irrefutable Russian propaganda.

Standard practice from the Kremlin as they know the shepple on the web will promote this as it fits their world view and biases.Hook line and sinker comes to mind.

Just before local elections.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"On Douma.

But funnily enough the msm have yet to report this.

How low can this government (and it's propaganda arm known as the BBC) go?"

So where have you pulled this fake news from then? I just googled OPCW “news” and I am up to page 3 with no subject matter like you claim even from ”msm” outlets like RT and Al Jazeera lol

Do you fee

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agermeister OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

[Removed by poster at 02/05/18 08:45:49]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agermeister OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *agermeister OP Man
over a year ago

Leeds

"Did anyone bother finding out why the title of the thread is an absolute outrageous lie!

You guessed it people ?

It's irrefutable Russian propaganda.

Standard practice from the Kremlin as they know the shepple on the web will promote this as it fits their world view and biases.Hook line and sinker comes to mind.

No physical evidence

No witnesses

Child in the video says it wasn't a chemical attack

Assad would be the last person to benefit from such an attack or staged attack.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/"

Ah Russia Today...

When quoting a propaganda outlet you really should say something like 'according to ...'. Of course the same goes for Fox and many others.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iverpool LoverMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/"

Dont expect certain people to believe anything rt source as its all propagander.

Anything thst doesnt come from bbc or sky news they wont believe.

But if it does come from bbc or sky then they no longer question because its gotta be true if its on bbc or sky.

They had their war drums banging away as soon as it was on BBC news about alleged chem attack.

These people that believe everything their governents tell them along with MSM.

These people are more dangerous than any conepiracy theorist.

As if every joe public was like them the goverment would be able to do what they want when they want....kinda like what they have been doing...but more and more people are waking up and questioning whats being said on the news.

We are not quite there yet but eventually there will be less amd less gulllable people like the few in these forums that eat and swallow everything they see on main stream news.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iverpool LoverMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/

Ah Russia Today...

When quoting a propaganda outlet you really should say something like 'according to ...'. Of course the same goes for Fox and many others."

Can we add bbc and sky news to those too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

Nigel Farage said all those things but I get the feeling it wasn't him you were thinking of. "

Jeremy Corbyn was the other person you were thinking of wasn't he?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Can we add bbc and sky news to those too.

Of course if you want to. All news outlets slant and pitch stories. I only named fox for balance because it is just as obvious in its 'selective' news coverage.

To be honest I miss having relatively honest news reporting from the BBC but will give them credit for the subtle way they tell us when they are pumping a party line on a subject. I wonder how many others have noticed how some stories are covered by reporters who as their title suggest report the facts as best known but other stories are covered by editors, of course editors give editorials which are based in editing stories in order to spin them and then give opinions to the reader/listener/watcher...

Amazing what can openly be got away with just by using language correctly. Especially after 40 years of cutting education standards to the point we can now turn out workers just well enough trained to do what is required of them but still so poorly educated that they can be hoodwinked at every turn into voting against their self interests again and again. All that is needed is the correct dog whistle.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

see.... i asked this question all the time, and not one of you ever care to answer this....

in fact... i'll extend this to two questions...

1) if everyone and the russians are lourding over this OPCW report..... then surely if you are going to give this organisation credit, then why are you not giving the OPCW the same credit over the Salisbury report where they agreed with the UK surmation that a russian nerve agent was used.....

in fact russians were saying they would conduct their own report...

so the OPCW is either credible... or they are not!... So which is it?????

2) if the OPCW is now this ultra credible organisation, then why have russia vetoed them doing the same job they were doing until november 2017 on five seperate occasions.......

all the un resolutions have just wanted them to continue on the work they were doing, not one thing more......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/"

Wow...

The article is about interviews that were given by local residents and no more than that.

You have completely taken the report out of context and made a conclusion that is not supported by what the article actually says. It even says that six of those people have already been interviewed by the OPCW.

Also, I have seen this reported on Sky News a couple of weeks ago where a reporter was in Douma interviewing people who were challenging the assertion that a chemical attack had taken place. One Dr said that oxygen deprivation and dust inhalation were the causes of respiratory problems.

For what it is worth, I have doubts as to whether this actually took place but I think it better to wait for the OPCW formal response rather than try to attribute a news article and suggest that the article confirms something that it doesn’t.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll given anyone a tenner if you can show me where the OPCW have said there was no chemical attack.

Any takers...

Jesus titty Christ you lot give conspiracy theorists a bad name..

For the last time it is fake news .The OPCW has a website people.Click on it for fucks sake.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

"see.... i asked this question all the time, and not one of you ever care to answer this....

in fact... i'll extend this to two questions...

in fact russians were saying they would conduct their own report...

so the OPCW is either credible... or they are not!... So which is it?????

2) if the OPCW is now this ultra credible organisation, then why have russia vetoed them doing the same job they were doing until november 2017 on five seperate occasions.......

all the un resolutions have just wanted them to continue on the work they were doing, not one thing more......"

1) They didn't though, did they? The OPCW made no comment on the origin of the agent, they said that they agreed with Porton Down, who said there was no way of knowing where it was made.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"Also, fairly convenient, how Israel's "discoveries" about Iran came at this specific time. Someone's pulling the strings behing everything happening in the middle east lately. The question is who and, more importantly, why. I have a feeling that the answer will be unexpected and surprise us all."

I read today that Mossad stole the entire archive of the weapons programme. Not copies, the originals.

Terrible housekeeping by Iran, if true.

That said, the 5+1 deal was Iran was reached because the west suspected a clandestine bomb programme. What Israel is saying merely reinforces why the 5+1 deal was needed.

Trump, though, egged on by the Israelis, wants to scrap it, thereby allowing Iran to resume the programme.

Except all its records now appear to have been stolen.

A peculiar turn of events.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

but still so poorly educated that they can be hoodwinked at every turn into voting against their self interests again and again. All that is needed is the correct dog whistle. "

Hang on, didn't you vote for both Thatcher and Blair at least once? If you were hoodwinked by them what hope have 'ordinary' people got?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I read today that Mossad stole the entire archive of the weapons programme. Not copies, the originals.

Terrible housekeeping by Iran, if true.

That said, the 5+1 deal was Iran was reached because the west suspected a clandestine bomb programme. What Israel is saying merely reinforces why the 5+1 deal was needed.

Trump, though, egged on by the Israelis, wants to scrap it, thereby allowing Iran to resume the programme.

Except all its records now appear to have been stolen.

A peculiar turn of events."

Yup. Trump is being played for a fool in my opinion. Iraq war lies coming round again

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

I read today that Mossad stole the entire archive of the weapons programme. Not copies, the originals.

Terrible housekeeping by Iran, if true.

That said, the 5+1 deal was Iran was reached because the west suspected a clandestine bomb programme. What Israel is saying merely reinforces why the 5+1 deal was needed.

Trump, though, egged on by the Israelis, wants to scrap it, thereby allowing Iran to resume the programme.

Except all its records now appear to have been stolen.

A peculiar turn of events."

i just think it is interesting that israel dispute the crediblity of iran, when they themselves refuse to say whether they have a program and wont sign up to the NPT....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Israel, Saudi and Trump all want to push back on Iran’s support for shia groups across the region. They also want curbs on its missiles.

The nuclear deal was about none of that. It only curbed nuclear.

The IAEA says the deal is working, so that ties Trump’s hands when it comes to poking the Iranians in the eye.

Tearing it up on some phoney pretext will gave him a cleaner slate to assault Iran, with his Saudi and Israeli chums.

Russia and China are in Iran and working on projects. The Russians are investing its civil nuclear programme, the Chinese in petroleum.

Get ready for Syria version 2.

The UK wisely is sticking with the 5+1 deal. Nothing the Israelis have come up with changes that. The records are old, not new. They reinforce why the deal was reached in the first place.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I read today that Mossad stole the entire archive of the weapons programme. Not copies, the originals.

Terrible housekeeping by Iran, if true.

That said, the 5+1 deal was Iran was reached because the west suspected a clandestine bomb programme. What Israel is saying merely reinforces why the 5+1 deal was needed.

Trump, though, egged on by the Israelis, wants to scrap it, thereby allowing Iran to resume the programme.

Except all its records now appear to have been stolen.

A peculiar turn of events.

i just think it is interesting that israel dispute the crediblity of iran, when they themselves refuse to say whether they have a program and wont sign up to the NPT...."

Well that's always been Israeli policy of non disclosure. Everyone knows they have between 80 and 400 warheads.

I would let Iran develop nukes.Isn't that the principal behind MAD that prevents war .They are not stupid or suicidal in Tehran.The moment a launch was detected from Iran it would become a smouldering crater.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"https://www.rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses/

Dont expect certain people to believe anything rt source as its all propagander.

Anything thst doesnt come from bbc or sky news they wont believe.

But if it does come from bbc or sky then they no longer question because its gotta be true if its on bbc or sky.

They had their war drums banging away as soon as it was on BBC news about alleged chem attack.

These people that believe everything their governents tell them along with MSM.

These people are more dangerous than any conepiracy theorist.

We are not quite there yet but eventually there will be less amd less gulllable people like the few in these forums that eat and swallow everything they see on main stream news."

So those that believe the BBC are more gullible than those that believe RT!

Whereas I believe that no information source is beyond question the fact that you choose to believe RT (Russia Today) in preference to the BBC says more about your gullibility than anyone else's.