Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 1313
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Author
Message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
Cui prodest?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/uk-set-up-48m-chemical-weapons-defence-centre-gavin-williamson  


When is a sample going to be provided to Russia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2018 10:55 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Its nothing more than a blog site. The owner seems to have a beef with the Guardian, and the users to. I wouldn't say its a good source for anything.

"Cherry pick your articles just like the facts that you use."

I don't know what facts I am using to warrant that statement. All I know is this blog site that carries a massive slant is in your eyes, a good source.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:54 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
Its nothing more than a blog site. The owner seems to have a beef with the Guardian, and the users to. I wouldn't say its a good source for anything.

"Cherry pick your articles just like the facts that you use."

I don't know what facts I am using to warrant that statement. All I know is this blog site that carries a massive slant is in your eyes, a good source.


Do you doubt that articles accuracy. Do you doubt they get some of their info from the Guardian. William Craddick who published this article on OffGuardian is an investigative journalist, if you do a little checking. But going by your statement this site is just a blog.............lol. William Craddick was they first to disclose the Silsby Trafficking Scandal - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-laura-silsby/

Not bad for a blogger, banned Guardian poster etc............lol. Granted not all of their stories meet good journalism. But what media's does these days. Even the WH is commenting on the state of the MSM's bias and untruthful reporting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:30 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

sod98 wrote (View Post):
not all of their stories meet good journalism


The sites standard in journalism reflects on the accuracy of the article.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
dj

Rep: 157.5
votes: 9


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Sod has the most wonky, obscure sources for news in the history of news.  Duh of course the "WH" aka Donald constantly complains about "mainstream" news because they do real journalism or even heaven forbid investigative journalism with sources that actually work at the WH.  You must really be a professional troll with censored media only allowed to access wonky news sources.

Valery Morozov is not a "spy".  Rather a whistle blower, his only alleged wrong doing is complaining about corrupt business practices in Russia.  Hardly enough to justify death threats from anonymous encrypted emails.  Did you read that article on BI?  He is a real regular Russian guy whom fled Russia like many others that moved to U.S.

Estimated 14 death linked to Russian State or Russian Mafia:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil?utm_term=.vf2Gl6qbk#.csY3gr08m
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:03 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
sod98 wrote (View Post):
not all of their stories meet good journalism


The sites standard in journalism reflects on the accuracy of the article.


mooxe that's right. The standard of that article was accurate and by a investigative journalist something most MSM don't have anymore. Well done and you even recognized that they have journalists.

DJ - where do I begin. First you say I'm indulging in far right web sites and now calling this socialist website wonky without any checking. You have stated that I must be a Russian troll and that I'm not from NZ. You are more confused that Bradley Manning. I do believe this posting was one of the  first from a non MSM site. Does that worry you guys more than the truth. As that's what they have published. I guess you and mooxe have had issues with the truth and not being able to admit your mistakes in the past.

Valery Morozov - who cares what he is. Has he proof or is evidence enough that they make these baseless claims for you to believe.

mooxe and Dj - once again looking forward to you guys saying that you were wrong. The article is accurate and by a investigative journalist. Off Guardian is associated through supply of articles. Man up or DJ just admit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Off-guardian.com is as associated with theguardian.com as any random blog is quoting BBC articles. What does theguardian.com say about its association with off-guardian.com? You're seemingly trying to lend credence to off-guardian.com by stating its associated with theguardian.com which is a trusted news source in order to validate your point of view while at the same time bashing MSM for poor journalism. This is a paradox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 7:08 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
Off-guardian.com is as associated with theguardian.com as any random blog is quoting BBC articles. What does theguardian.com say about its association with off-guardian.com? You're seemingly trying to lend credence to off-guardian.com by stating its associated with theguardian.com which is a trusted news source in order to validate your point of view while at the same time bashing MSM for poor journalism. This is a paradox.


No, I have replied to your post " The Guardian head to off-guardian.org to bash Guardian articles. Its mostly opinion pieces and summary articles stitching together a collection of other news ". And " just facts interpreted from the web ". I have shown that to be untrue just by that one article where OG is associated to the Guardian and an investigative journalist wrote the article. Man up mooxe, you challenged OG's status of journalism. I have proved once again that you were wrong using wiki as your source of research. The banned members of the Guardian joining OG - I wouldn't know but you must have some info on that...........surely.

Calm down mooxe........admit you got this wrong too. I have supplied evidence that you can check, now run off and check it.................lol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

This linked article from your first post is from disobedientmedia.com and shared with off-guardian.com.

Quote:
The site is our own work, and is not supported by any governments, institutions or pressure groups.


Quote:
OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis.  Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.


So as they even state, they are (ex)users of theguardian.com who created their own website. No association other then them being users of another site. If you read the comments around the site you can see users commenting on how they are banned at other sites.

Quote:
And we’ll be doing our little best to remind our mainstream media, including The Guardian itself, that this is supposed to be their duty. They probably won’t listen, but we’ll keep saying it anyway.


They probably won't listen. To me it doesn't sound like they are associated with theguardian.com. Each paragraph in their about page suggests they have a problem with theguardian.com. It seems the sites main purpose is to drive a thorn in the side of theguardian.com.

So once again, this good source of news as you call it, is not much more than a nice looking one or two man operation using Wordpress for a news blog hosted at godaddy.com with 380,000 other websites hosted on the same server.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Disobedientmedia.com on the other hand looks more credible. They have staff listed at the very least. However, William Craddick's past post history has been called into question and is worth looking into. Which has been done... https://www.stopfake.org/en/spread-it-on-reddit-how-a-fake-story-about-angela-merkel-led-to-a-far-right-cluster-on-reddit/.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
dj

Rep: 157.5
votes: 9


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 2:57 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Thanks, you proved my point.  You "lost" the argument when you had to resort to name calling and showed utter lack of basic knowledge.   You are as much NZ as I am Eskimo.   It's NOT about Partisan news sources that are "left wing" or "right wing". That defeats the whole purpose of journalism.  The only thing that matters are the facts, no spinning info to suit agendas.  Most people cite news from NPR, BBC, or other credible news sources that are fact-checked and with sources.  You constantly conflate blogs, obscure sites or YouTube videos with facts.  Is there some reason why?

Who cares about Morozov?  Really?  I care about him.  He should be free to express his opinions about corrupt business practices in Russia as a Russian national.  If you actually took time to read the article you can see he did in fact report the threatening emails.  Hello?  If they had to be sent anonymously and encrypted it's obvious they wanted to threaten him.  You can invent your own opinions, but you can't invent your owns facts.  Even if they get in the way of your ideological agendas.  Morozov did show the evidence.

As far as sample of the chemicals used in attack.  Do you really expect UK government to ship sample of extremely dangerous substance back to Leningrad labs?  Who else would want to attempt assassination of all these Russian nationals in UK?  

sod98 wrote (View Post):
mooxe wrote (View Post):
sod98 wrote (View Post):
not all of their stories meet good journalism


The sites standard in journalism reflects on the accuracy of the article.


mooxe that's right. The standard of that article was accurate and by a investigative journalist something most MSM don't have anymore. Well done and you even recognized that they have journalists.

DJ - where do I begin. First you say I'm indulging in far right web sites and now calling this socialist website wonky without any checking. You have stated that I must be a Russian troll and that I'm not from NZ. You are more confused that Bradley Manning. I do believe this posting was one of the  first from a non MSM site. Does that worry you guys more than the truth. As that's what they have published. I guess you and mooxe have had issues with the truth and not being able to admit your mistakes in the past.

Valery Morozov - who cares what he is. Has he proof or is evidence enough that they make these baseless claims for you to believe.

mooxe and Dj - once again looking forward to you guys saying that you were wrong. The article is accurate and by a investigative journalist. Off Guardian is associated through supply of articles. Man up or DJ just admit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:31 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

They are associated to the Guardian through their supply of articles like I have been saying. Also like I have said, that article was written by an Investigative journalist. Something that you denied but I have shown again that you were wrong. I can agree that me saying Off Guardian was a " pretty good  " site shows it's not 100% if you look up an explanation of pretty good / fair. Once again I hope that helps you mooxe. Are you now doubting the Guardian who some of their articles come from, please give your reasons. Or are you doubt the English language or am I again presenting the truth that you have issues with - the truth. I believe you have issues with meanings of words. But that comes down to schooling and education or the lack of.

Do either of you doubt this articles accuracy as I have asked before but once again you refused to answer by saying nothing about that. Do you disagree that William Craddick is an Investigative Journalist. He first bought to light the issue of human trafficking of teens from Haiti post their disaster if you check. Something the Clinton's would like to forget with their association with this issue . Like most media they do print false news and WAPO, NYT and many others are excused from that - WMD's in Iraq and Sarin Gas use by Assad's Syria to white helmets being the good guys etc. That's why I have always stated reading media from many sources.

DJ read what I said " Valery Morozov - who cares what he is". Back on topic - so who can you proof threatened him...........evidence.... it was from Russia or was it some underworld businessmen - all speculation. He can't prove it was from Moscow or from his neighbor. Saying something is often different to reality DJ. What better way to set someone up. Also,  if you are going to kill someone after all of the public backlash over the nerve agent business ,  would you send them threatening letters etc............lol. That's pure fantasy but some people will believe anything.

Both mooxe and DJ need to learn meanings of words and read what is in front of them and not what their paranoid minds tells them what they want to see. You guys are embarrassing themselves further. Thanks for the laughs again guys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:41 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
Cui prodest?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/15/uk-set-up-48m-chemical-weapons-defence-centre-gavin-williamson  


You are so right. I just can't understand how naive and gullible some people are to what is a fact. Just the docket issue shows how little people understand law within their own country. Also how saying or changing a name can give the wrong illusion for the right effect - Russian nerve agent - USSR ( Uzbekistan ). And forgetting to mention all countries that are capable of making that agent.

DJ's comment that Britain doesn't need to give a sample is just naive. Britain accused Russia, they have denied guilt. They are asking England now to provide a sample to clear them. As I understand it. The nerve agent has a signature that can confirm details of manufacture. Could be the reason Britain won't give it to them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:28 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

I absolutely doubt the article. William Craddick's reputation has been called into question previously in the link I posted. Since you label him as an investigative journalist, where did he travel to and who did he speak with to form any facts in this article? Nowhere and nobody! Apply the same questions to his Haiti article. This is a stitched together opinion article. The fact is, his article is an opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
JFFulcrum

Rep: 78.8


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

Strange things in media continues:

Farther of poisoned in 2006 Litvinenko made statement on TV, that his son was poisoned by CIA agent, and make friendship with suspected (by Britain) killer:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazeta.ru%2Fsocial%2F2018%2F03%2F21%2F11690293.shtml&edit-text=
 
Russian state media back-edited interview with another 'father' of 'Novichok' weaponry:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fruposters.ru%2Fnews%2F20-03-2018%2Fotredaktirovalo-intervyu-razrabotchikom  

One of Rink statements was that is impossible to transfer armed Novichok in luggage. Now, due to back-editing, all information provided by him should be treatened with caution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:06 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

mooxe wrote (View Post):
I absolutely doubt the article. William Craddick's reputation has been called into question previously in the link I posted. Since you label him as an investigative journalist, where did he travel to and who did he speak with to form any facts in this article? Nowhere and nobody! Apply the same questions to his Haiti article. This is a stitched together opinion article. The fact is, his article is an opinion.


What happened to your attack on the " pretty good " that's right i stared you into another trap.....................lol. And do I see - sorry sod I was wrong........no.

If you want that info send him a email like you can to all medias. And here we are once again you are questioning his Haiti article. Go back to being the janitor mooxe. I trying to stop you making a bigger fool of yourself but you keep digging that hole. Calm down and pour yourself a warm milk drink. Take a few deep breaths. You believe WAPO and sorts who report what these moderate rebels are saying through the SOFHR. They have been discredited as being a one man band out of a little house in Britain..............lol. And that was several years ago and they are still being used. How many times over the years have I had to show links and info to mooxe and DJ just to get - no reply. Do your own donkey work. You are pathetic.

Get back on topic and stop embarrassing yourself further. At least as the janitor you didn't appear stupid, naive and gullible. Where is Citrus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.7
votes: 25


PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

sod98 wrote (View Post):


What happened to your attack on the " pretty good " that's right i stared you into another trap.....................lol. And do I see - sorry sod I was wrong........no.

If you want that info send him a email like you can to all medias. And here we are once again you are questioning his Haiti article. Go back to being the janitor mooxe. I trying to stop you making a bigger fool of yourself but you keep digging that hole. Calm down and pour yourself a warm milk drink. Take a few deep breaths. You believe WAPO and sorts who report what these moderate rebels are saying through the SOFHR. They have been discredited as being a one man band out of a little house in Britain..............lol. And that was several years ago and they are still being used. How many times over the years have I had to show links and info to mooxe and DJ just to get - no reply. Do your own donkey work. You are pathetic.

Get back on topic and stop embarrassing yourself further. At least as the janitor you didn't appear stupid, naive and gullible. Where is Citrus.



So far I have not taken an opinion on any article referenced in this thread. I have given my opinion of the websites and people posting to them. To summarize, off-guardian.com is not a legitimate news source or a pretty good source for news, its an opinion blog. Disobedientmedia.com is a more professional looking site with staff but the co-founders credibility has been called into question. William Craddick's article your posted claim no sources other than news websites and show no attempts to contact actual witnesses or people involved. After having your good source scrutinized you could only resort to personal attacks which were;


    I am a janitor
    I am making a fool of myself
    I am pathetic
    I am naive
    I am gullible
    I am embarassing myself
    I am insecure
    I lack judgement
    I appear stupid
    I make things up
    I have a narrow point of view
    I cherry pick articles


My comment about you showing contempt for others on this site is well proven by you, proven beyond a reasonable doubt just in this one thread. In fact, mostly every reply you make in response to an opposing view is so riddled with insulting rhetoric that your credibility here has been ruined. Its such a common theme with you that's its worth addressing and not off topic.

Do you care to explain why you act like this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:55 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

So far I have not taken an opinion on any article referenced in this thread. I have given my opinion of the websites and people posting to them. To summarize, off-guardian.com is not a legitimate news source or a pretty good source for news, its an opinion blog. Disobedientmedia.com is a more professional looking site with staff but the co-founders credibility has been called into question. William Craddick's article your posted claim no sources other than news websites and show no attempts to contact actual witnesses or people involved. After having your good source scrutinized you could only resort to personal attacks which were;


    I am a janitor
    I am making a fool of myself
    I am pathetic
    I am naive
    I am gullible
    I am embarassing myself
    I am insecure
    I lack judgement
    I appear stupid
    I make things up
    I have a narrow point of view
    I cherry pick articles


My comment about you showing contempt for others on this site is well proven by you, proven beyond a reasonable doubt just in this one thread. In fact, mostly every reply you make in response to an opposing view is so riddled with insulting rhetoric that your credibility here has been ruined. Its such a common theme with you that's its worth addressing and not off topic.

Do you care to explain why you act like this?[/quote]


You state that you have not taken an opinion - no investigative Journalist - William Craddick like him, hate him or disagree with some of his articles is a investigative journalist. "  Since you label him as an investigative journalist, where did he travel to and who did he speak with to form any facts in this article " - look up what an investigative journalist does. Some scour documents, interview parties from all side, interrupt videos and pics, visit sites of interest etc. You seem to have a very shallow idea of an investigative journalist. Craddick is a free lance IJ which means he writes for many medias. How more can I help you or do you still know better.............lol,.

" Contempt. Sod's greatest asset ". If you don't like me labeling you naive, gullible etc which you are by the way, don't through the first stones then cry about it. I believe it's better to give than to receive. Off the topic - you have been so far off topic for most of this thread it shows how one sided your views are. Not to mention how you refuse to admit when wrong - Remember the tranny's in the US military saga and this one. You have labled me anti American when giving facts that you don't like..........I'm not crying. Your point of view.

In future I suggest if you don't like the rocks I throw don't throw the first pebble..........or just harden up snowflake. Remember you threw the first one I just returned the gesture.

As a janitor on this site you do a marvelous job. As a comments man.....do a little more research, esp on the meaning of words - pretty good.......I was wondering what you meant by those comments as it appeared you were agreeing with me then not......lol. Don't take what I have written out of context but in the correct meaning of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

mooxe in fairness I also called you - weak minded
                                              - feeble minded
                                              - god, as in god syndrome
                                              - also that you refuse to admit when wrong (  a narcissist  )
                                             


Some meanings of " pretty good " - usual, decent, adequate, reasonable, satisfactory,average, common, middling, moderate, ordinary etc etc....you get the drift.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
sod98

Rep: 11.6
votes: 5


PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:43 am Post subject: Re: Syria chem attacks Reply with quote

JFFulcrum wrote (View Post):
Strange things in media continues:

Farther of poisoned in 2006 Litvinenko made statement on TV, that his son was poisoned by CIA agent, and make friendship with suspected (by Britain) killer:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazeta.ru%2Fsocial%2F2018%2F03%2F21%2F11690293.shtml&edit-text=
 
Russian state media back-edited interview with another 'father' of 'Novichok' weaponry:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fruposters.ru%2Fnews%2F20-03-2018%2Fotredaktirovalo-intervyu-razrabotchikom  

One of Rink statements was that is impossible to transfer armed Novichok in luggage. Now, due to back-editing, all information provided by him should be treatened with caution.


Great articles once again. Certainly paints a different picture and contains more background info to the western narrative. Cheers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> The Mess
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!