Thread:
Nina Illingworth seems to be remarkably ill-informed about Syria for such a long rant. But I’m sure we all have our positions to shill.
Which bit in particular?
Mostly she’s saying that (a) none of the recent stuff has been proven, and (b) we have good reason to distrust the Western authorities on this.
Unconfirmed, but interesting if true:
Of course he did…
Peak white feminism:
This whole thing is starting to smack of babies in incubators
There have been previous chemical weapon attacks and other atrocities against civilians (e.g. barrel bombs). This isn’t a new thing they’ve just made up, we’re just responding to it for a change.
This whole thing has been a fugazi form day one; we wanted to topple Assad because he was next on the list and we hired LITERAL FUCKING TERRORISTS from shattered Iraq to do it.
This started as an uprising of Syrians against Assad. The West very definitely did not want it to happen which is why we’ve done everything possible to not get involved. So much so that we didn’t support the moderates with anything more than kind words which meant they lost power and influence to groups like ISIS who had money and weapons which led inevitably to the current shitshow.
if this shit is really happening, it should not be that hard to prove
we fly military missions all over Syria daily; but all they can show you is some Youtube videos from a propaganda group that has been discredited already.
Does she realise this is a warzone? What sort of privileged access does she think news organisations have? Is she aware of how many journalists have been killed, for example by deliberately targeting their satellite phone signals?
She doesn’t appear to know any of the recent history of Syria and has no appreciation for the geopolitics driving the whole thing, but is certainly capable of vomiting up a couple of talking points that promote her agenda.
I’m sure the people of Syria appreciate her efforts.
Thread:
Yes, there have been previous chemical attacks, mostly chlorine. Zero evidence has been provided that this latest attack came from the Syrian Army rather than the rebels.
Inspectors were due to arrive the day after the missile attack; any supposed evidence of Syrian sarin production is now buried in rubble.
Some western journalists have made it into Syria:
In what way is a barrel bomb any more of an atrocity than a regular bomb? In what way are they worse than the thousands of bombs that the US has dropped on Syria? Those bombs have killed about 6,000 civilians.
It started with protests against Assad, which apparently included salafist jihadis and attacks against government forces from the beginning. The USA and their proxies have been pumping guns, money and jihadis into the region for about five years now.
According to the Rojavans, ISIS/ISIL are currently allied with the Turks who invaded Afrin.
She wasn’t talking about journalists, she was talking about US intelligence agencies.
As far as I can tell, most Syrians are strongly opposed to the rebels. Assad is a brutal dictator, but he’s a secular dictator who is not known for persecuting religious or ethnic minorites. Despite his many flaws, most Syrians appear to still find him preferable to the genocidal salafist fanatics of the rebellion.
This is a debate from a few weeks ago, presenting both pro- and anti-intervention arguments. Note that neither side in this debate denies the involvement of al-Qaeda linked extremists on the rebel side.
I can provide more sources on this stuff later, but the internet is rather screwy here at the moment; both Boing Boing and The Guardian are inaccesible.