EXCLUSIVE: Sarin materials brought via Turkey & mixed in Syrian ISIS camps – Turkish MP to RT

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again nothing new here, was reported by Turkish media 2 months ago it is not a RT story but you can't see past those 2 letters.

As for not credible meaning not wrong what is the meaning of that? How is something right and not credible at the same time? You are just trying to muddy the waters. For shame, for shame.

originally posted by: Britguy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04


Claim.
Evidence that checks out.
Belief.

Ah!
A bit like the multiple claims of Russia invading Crimea / Ukraine?
A bit like the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
A bit like the claims the US government was "surprised" by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?

See, we get bombarded all the time with claims of things by the government and it's agencies, while they never actually produce any evidence to back it up, yet people claim it's from credible sources.

Russia did invade Crimea/Ukraine. Putin admitted it.
The Iraq intelligence was a result of multiple things, but was verified by everyone. No one, even Russia that I recall, disputed it at the time.

Pearl Harbour is likely a time where the government let a tragedy happen to prevent a worse tragedy.

All of these are logical fallacies from you and an attempt to derail the discussion which apparently you don't like the way it's going. stay on topic.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again nothing new here, was reported by Turkish media 2 months ago it is not a RT story but you can't see past those 2 letters.

As for not credible meaning not wrong what is the meaning of that? How is something right and not credible at the same time? You are just trying to muddy the waters. For shame, for shame.

I don't care who it was reported by. The OP used RT and did not have a proper link. I had to get one. I looked at it, and said there is nothing credible yet. I actually said nothing about RT being tied to it's credibility. Seriously, are you even reading before spewing Putin approved rhetoric? Every single post where you talk about what I claimed has been wrong. Literally every one. Read, be honest, don't make up lies about what I have said.

Well i would wait till he gets hes proves to right hands or something, spilling this kind of info for "showing" of or whaeva can get this dudes very silent and very fast.. Either hit the prove to all of to see or make sure u get to the right people to hand it over.

Personally i dislike any news stations so bad that i cannot even follow their news that much, only pick up some pieces here and there but daily following is out of question, were they RT or any other station, i just get angry about their ways of reporting things. They give more FK to shock people in state of fear than inform people to become stronger and its not really about money, they would make money either way, its directing the people.

originally posted by: romilo
Well i would wait till he gets hes proves to right hands or something,

Me too. Be careful, wanting evidence seems to make you a shill!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your first post

RT and link is broken

To be honest I don't give a toss what you do and do not find credible and I doubt many others do either, our little back and forth was initiated by you with the tag line

Nothing credible I can see as of now.

Seriously, are you even reading before spewing Putin approved rhetoric?

What Putin approved rhetoric, please point it out. Attacking because people have a different opinion from you. How childish

This will be my last response to you as I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ah! The old "stay on topic" response? That's a bit tired and lame but still used by a few on here when faced with a challenge of their views.

Once again you fail by quoting events, but not presenting actual evidence of the official narrative. Simply saying it is true is hardly evidence at all.

I understand that goes for both sides, but simply dismissing something as not being credible because it was stated by someone in opposition to your currently held views is both blinkered and laughable.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Your first post

RT and link is broken

To be honest I don't give a toss what you do and do not find credible and I doubt many others do either, our little back and forth was initiated by you with the tag line

Nothing credible I can see as of now.

Seriously, are you even reading before spewing Putin approved rhetoric?

What Putin approved rhetoric, please point it out. Attacking because people have a different opinion from you. How childish

This will be my last response to you as I really don't care what your opinion is on this.

Of course you don't. You only care about those who spew your approved propaganda. as proven by your saying it was started by me saying there is nothing credible as of now.

You could not handle someone not buying in to a story with no verifiable facts and had to start an argument over it. Saying it could turn out to be true was not good enough for you. Anything pro Russia has to be right, all the time, evidence and facts not required apparently.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ah! The old "stay on topic" response? That's a bit tired and lame but still used by a few on here when faced with a challenge of their views.

Except you look the fool since I answered all your off topic questions. Maybe you can tell me. What does this post have to do with Pearl Harbour?

Once again you fail by quoting events, but not presenting actual evidence of the official narrative. Simply saying it is true is hardly evidence at all.

I understand that goes for both sides, but simply dismissing something as not being credible because it was stated by someone in opposition to your currently held views is both blinkered and laughable.

I have no need to search for sources for a completely off topic comment you made.

That is not why I stated it was not credible. More lies from your side of the field, big surprise. Maybe you can quote where I stated it was not credible because it's in opposition to my currently held views (which you clearly don't even know what they are since I would not in the least be surprised if Turkey was involved).

Keep playing the fool.

originally posted by: sosobad
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again nothing new here, was reported by Turkish media 2 months ago it is not a RT story but you can't see past those 2 letters.

As for not credible meaning not wrong what is the meaning of that? How is something right and not credible at the same time? You are just trying to muddy the waters. For shame, for shame.

Is there a thread on this already?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

what has this post got to do with Pearl Harbour? Simple answer is nothing as I was using it, along with the other examples, as instances of complete BS and lying by government on the official narrative.

It was very much "On Topic" as the topic under discussion at the time was "credible sources" of news. I wasn't making Pearl Harbour, Iraq or Crimea / Ukraine the topic of discussion, merely using them as examples of the lies governments tell us without providing one shred of evidence to back them up with.

Given Turkey's actions in working with ISIS and acting as the NATO / US agitator recently, is it really a stretch to believe they have not supplied Sarin or other agents to the terrorists?

originally posted by: Britguy


what has this post got to do with Pearl Harbour? Simple answer is nothing as I was using it, along with the other examples, as instances of complete BS and lying by government on the official narrative.

So as I said. Nothing.

It was very much "On Topic" as the topic under discussion at the time was "credible sources" of news. I wasn't making Pearl Harbour, Iraq or Crimea / Ukraine the topic of discussion, merely using them as examples of the lies governments tell us without providing one shred of evidence to back them up with.

So you hate claims with no evidence so much you reply with hostility towards me when I ask for evidence. Makes so much sense.

Given Turkey's actions in working with ISIS and acting as the NATO / US agitator recently, is it really a stretch to believe they have not supplied Sarin or other agents to the terrorists?

Do you even read my post before replying?

my currently held views (which you clearly don't even know what they are since I would not in the least be surprised if Turkey was involved).

Sounds like I don't find it a stretch to believe.

Sorry, you can attack me all you like for not jumping on the heil Putin bandwagon. I am still going to say I will reserve my judgment until actual evidence is presented.

a reply to: benwyatt

No I don't think so but it was reported 2 months back by Turkish media, the fact it is RT will give ammunition to those who will call it propaganda. I linked one of the Turkish stories already on the last page for you but it won't matter to some as they'll see RT and throw the baby out with the bath water.

a reply to: sosobad

Let's clear the air. RT does not = wrong. But they ARE happy to publish absolute crap. So when you see RT, it means dig deeper, not it's wrong.

To claim it's on RT is a logical fallacy, and I call out logical fallacies on both sides.

I was literally going to post how I predict a Sarin attack is coming soon, and I saw this thread.

Strange.

My prediction still stands. And I predict it will be somewhere in Europe or a Kurdish village.

I'll leave it at that for now

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sosobad

Let's clear the air. RT does not = wrong. But they ARE happy to publish absolute crap. So when you see RT, it means dig deeper, not it's wrong.

To claim it's on RT is a logical fallacy, and I call out logical fallacies on both sides.

Now I am only responding to clear 1 thing up

To be honest I don't give a toss what you do and do not find credible

read it again.
I have no interest in talking to you when you use abrasive language telling others that they only listen to "Putin approved propaganda". I was replying to another poster so please kindly keep your nonsense to yourself, it has nothing got to do with you. This will be my very last response to you as you can't have a talk about anything without throwing around accusations.

a reply to: sosobad

Yea but , what is this ? this is prof that RT is a cunningly devised plan to control all the news to Putins liking :>)

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Sounds like the lifted the current season's plot of Homeland.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sosobad

Let's clear the air. RT does not = wrong. But they ARE happy to publish absolute crap. So when you see RT, it means dig deeper, not it's wrong.

To claim it's on RT is a logical fallacy, and I call out logical fallacies on both sides.

What a #ing joke. RT is a completely one sided news conglomerate, created by Putin's buddy and offers counter views to the western mainstream media.

Sounds pretty damning huh?

Ya see the thing is, regardless of RT's stated and unstated goals, their actual investigative and news reporting is leaps and bounds better than any/most western news outlets. So don't kid yourself. Any self respecting critical thinker will take the information and draw their own conclusion. Some can read between the lines while others can not.

RT is not an unbiased publication but it's still better than the alternative.