| This was not a waste of time after all, since I have seldom seen so hand picked sources. You refuse to accept anything official from USA, and then quote conspiracy theories from a blogger!! :-) About your claims about the Syrian chemical weapons attack: The overheard communications (by Israelis and Americans) are lies, of course. And it is just more lies that the Syrian government shelled the attacked areas after the chemical attack to destroy the evidence! Shameless liars about your Glorious Leader, those Westerners. :-) Uh, no... they hate Assad too! :-) To be realistic, if there are state budget's involved, you can get any number of statements from individuals. Robert Parry might want to retire, who knows? Here is a good source, with high credibility, about the second use of chemical weapons -- HRW (I assume the rebels had helicopters they used only for that bombing, then hid? :-) ): http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/05/13/syria-strong-evidence-gov... And about the most well known attack: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c... It is easy to find similar from Amnesty and others. (But HRW is just another part of the Western conspiracy against Rus.. Syria, only independent bloggers are dependable of course. Oh, wait...) ---------------- But the Syria claims was nothing. A few minutes with Wikipedia made my day when I checked your claim that the referendum in May was dependable. >>No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. From my previous comment -- the opinions were totally different just ONE month earlier. The relevant wikipedia page on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_status_referendum,_2014... Money quote: These results could not be independently verified.[29][63] <My stomach hurts from laughing.> I am certain you have read some blogger than knows better than the liars at BBC and PewResearch. :-) Then we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_status_referendum,_2014... group of pro-Russian separatists in possession of a 100,000 ballots already marked with a 'yes' vote for the referendum were captured A campaign of intimidation, beatings, and hostage taking has forced many pro-Ukrainian activists and known opponents of secession to Russia to flee the region, leaving the referendum to take place without any dissent or opposing voices And so on... More obvious lies!! :-) So you claim a referendum whose result can't be verified [and after hunting of the opposition members!] is trustworthy and showed that all the opinions had totally changed in one month and resulted in a popular uprising... (No Russian military this time. Honest!) Thanks for a good laugh. (My poor stomach. :-( ) Let me guess -- Wikipedia and its sources are just lies, you KNOW that the May vote was dependable because there is some blogger that support this, here too? You saw that on Putin's own media? (I removed quotes about the previous poll faked by Putin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014 since that is just more democratic lies about your Glorious Leader? :-) ) |
2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.
Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?
It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.
Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.