Washington Is Destroying The World

originally posted by: intrptr

Thats Syria, not some "Islamic State" as you would have us believe. Thanks for sounding off, you just confirmed my suspicions.

Which you fail to mention that the 'Syrian' town is overrun with "Islamic state" Vermin.

Believe what you will, everybody has their beliefs.

He made a point that Turkey can do whatever it wants to do within it's own borders. If they want to line up their tanks on their side of the border whats it to you? Funny how many here are screaming for Turkey a 'NATO' member to go in and mop the floor with IS. ISIS, ISIL whatever. Yet, once again they have shown restraint but then are called ISIS sympathizers or supporters.

Meh

a reply to: SLAYER69

He made a point that Turkey can do whatever it wants to do within it's own borders.

Turkey is NATO . They wouldn't lift a military finger without orders from headquarters.

The border is with Syria, not "ISIS". They will roll them tanks when the "pre invasion bombardment" is finished.

In another thread you said I was "doom porning" about air strikes in Syria before they began.

Now you are "meh" about the ground attack portion of the invasion. Stay tuned…

I know what I am seeing.

a reply to: intrptr

Well for starters NATO does not have a military (aside from a joint command) so please do some research before making a false claim.

You do understand that heavy equipment, specifically tanks and others, will be loaded onto train / road transports to get them to their destination. They go thru gas like no other not to mention tank tracks have a habit of breaking the ground it drives over = its a bitch on road surfaces and causes damage.

The airstrikes, which are supported by Assad by the way, are targeting ISIS forces. There is no follow up ground invasion planned for Syria.

Syria is not a caliphate and once again you only see what you want while making false claims. ISIS controlled territory, which falls into Syria AND Iraq, is a declared caliphate.

I am not sure how a caliphate and Syria / Iraq sovereign territory has confused you.

Do research before spouting off please and also you need to learn the difference between your opinion and fact. You seem to confuse the 2 which is why your posts drag the thread off topic.

a reply to: intrptr

Turkey is NATO . They wouldn't lift a military finger without orders from headquarters.

You obviously do not know how NATO works.

The border is with Syria, not "ISIS". They will roll them tanks when the "pre invasion bombardment" is finished.

As you wish: Assad's people are decapitating journalists. Problem with that?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not sure how a caliphate and Syria / Iraq sovereign territory has confused you.

It Hasn't. You pulling the "sovereignty" card as US (NATO) bombs rain down on both Iraq and Syria?

Priceless.

originally posted by: intrptr

Turkey is NATO . They wouldn't lift a military finger without orders from headquarters.

You are demonstrating your lack of knowledge again. NATO is a defensive alliance. If a member initiates an armed conflict they are not protected by NATO. Secondly, NATO command cannot give orders to sovereign military units unless they are activated by the home country for NATO use.

originally posted by: intrptr
The border is with Syria, not "ISIS". They will roll them tanks when the "pre invasion bombardment" is finished.

Then why is Syria accepting international assistance to target ISIS? Iraq is doing the same, although for some strange reason you are ignoring that piece of the puzzle. Is it because you cant make false allegations about the tanks rolling into Iraq?

Also, ISIS declared a caliphate. You are arguing against that because it doesn't support your claim about Syria.

originally posted by: intrptr
In another thread you said I was "doom porning" about air strikes in Syria before they began.

Now you are "meh" about the ground attack portion of the invasion. Stay tuned…

What ground attack?

originally posted by: intrptr
I know what I am seeing.

yet you are not understanding what you are seeing.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra

I am not sure how a caliphate and Syria / Iraq sovereign territory has confused you.

It Hasn't. You pulling the "sovereignty" card as US (NATO) bombs rain down on both Iraq and Syria?

Priceless.

And again your ignorance and desire to blame the west is undermining your position and credibility. NATO is not involved in air strikes in Syria / Iraq against ISIS.

What part of ASSAD ACCEPTING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE are you just not comprehending? Or are you going to try and argue that Assad is lying when he asked for and accepted assistance?

a reply to: DJW001

As you wish: Assad's people are decapitating journalists. Problem with that?

I have more of a problem with this…

Us Airstrikes on Kobane

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: DJW001

As you wish: Assad's people are decapitating journalists. Problem with that?

I have more of a problem with this…

Us Airstrikes on Kobane

I would be concerned as well... Trying to sift through a link to a google search of the word Kobane bringing up pictures does not support what ever it is you are trying to claim.

originally posted by: intrptr
In another thread you said I was "doom porning" about air strikes in Syria before they began.

Please quote and link that for me because I'd like to read the context in which it was posted.

Context, That's a nasty word obviously for some around here because it Crystallizes, Clarifies facts and Mystifies others apparently

a reply to: Xcathdra

What part of ASSAD ACCEPTING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE are you just not comprehending?

The part where he didn't ask for it beforehand.

Foreign "assistance", lol.

originally posted by: intrptr

Foreign "assistance", lol.

Iranian general accidentally reveals troops in Syria

WASHINGTON – An Iranian general made a major mistake by conceding Shiite Iran has military forces in Syria fighting to preserve the embattled government of Shiite Alawite President Bashar al-Assad.

Gen. Hossein Hamedani, a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, commented in a speech that the Islamic republic is militarily involved in Syria. The problem is Tehran has repeatedly denied that Iranian combat forces are fighting alongside Syrian troops in a three-year civil war in which more than 140,000 Syrians have been killed.

Until now, Iranian officials claimed that Tehran was providing only humanitarian, economic and technical help to Syria

a reply to: intrptr

Funny.. Assad didn't get permission from Iraq before launching airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq back in august.

Syria and Iraq both requested assistance in going after ISIS. The US notified Iran and Syria (yes Iran and Syria via Iraq) when we started the air campaign. That notification occurred just prior to the launch of airstrikes.

Iraq and Syria requested assistance from the international community going back to June 2014.

again do you do research before posting?

a reply to: SLAYER69

Look it up yourself, you said it. I don't lie about these things. Paraphrased…

'Beginning airstrikes in Syria is doom porn.'

That was a response from you to me before they began.

Thanks for the official line everyone. I get enough of that from the main scream.

See ya…

Those tanks will roll across the border into Syria.(bookmark it)

originally posted by: intrptr

Thanks for the official line everyone.

= you cant support your claims and you cant refute the facts posted so you are taking your marbles and going home.


check.

If you should come back feel free to make your case using sources and facts please.

originally posted by: intrptr
Paraphrased…

'Beginning airstrikes in Syria is doom porn.'

Figured, no context.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you should come back feel free to make your case using sources and facts please.

Whats the point? You cite sovereignty for Iraq and Syria but then your solution is bombocracy , violating that very sovereignty. Yoour responses get longer and longer, pushing any content further down slope in an effort by sheer volume to bury others content.

I find that typical of warmongering and double standard practice to heap on a bunch of Officialdom about US foreign policy. There is no point in conversing with that kind of position or linking anything.

But here. That whole last flurry that was directed at my simple comment can be unburied by restating it here. That way it will have to be buried all over again.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And my reply to your reply same page…

Aww, you can't fool me. Those are NATO Tanks… facing the Syrian border. Read that Mobile Armor, not fixed artillery.

You do understand why they mount guns on tracks? To move them around, generally in the direction they are facing. All bunched up on the border, just "sitting there"… uh huh.

And the airstrikes just beyond the border are softening the Syrian town prior to the tanks rolling in.

Thats Syria, not some "Islamic State" as you would have us believe. Thanks for sounding off, you just confirmed my suspicions.

a reply to: intrptr

You cant violate a nations sovereignty when they ask for assistance and allow the flights. What part of Syria and Iraq asking for assistance are you not understanding.

Or are you ignoring that fact because it undermines your blame America for all position you have taken in this case? Posts would not get buried if we didnt have to play the stupid 20 questions reposting sources because you fail to read / research.

As an example its been stated many times now that Iraq and Syria requested assistance. The US has notified Iran and Syria prior to the airstrikes, which is what Syria wanted. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that there are over 40 nations involved, including airstrikes.

Is it your position the US is the only nation "violating" sovereign airspace?
Is there any particular reason you single the US out while ignoring the rest?

This is the problem you create for yourself. You make a claim you cant support. When facts are provided that undermine your argument, you ignore it and keep repeating the false claim.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You cant violate a nations sovereignty when they ask for assistance and allow the flights. What part of Syria and Iraq asking for assistance are you not understanding.

I understand thats what all conquering nations say when they otherwise blame their victims for invading them… promoting the lies about why we excuse our actions for those ends while insisting on maintaining those rights for ourselves is the double standard i pointed to my last reply.

Now I know you know that so I don't have to ask 'what part don't you understand'.

On the other hand, repeating "You don't understand" isn't an argument. Its scolding others opinions like they were your children to further a weak argument.

Invasion is invasion. Thats the Syrian border, not some border with "ISIS". That is conveniently omitted from the argument by those that want to justify the reasons for violating International Law in regards to other countries Sovereignty.

Those tanks will roll and the excuse will be that its for "Humanitarian" reasons (as usual) "because they fear a massacre' if they don't. That is the current line, right? "Bombs aren't enough to save Kobani". "We're afraid there will be a massacre… we have to invade".

Check todays headlines… you'll have to dig somewhat, distractions such as Ebola, Gay Marriage and Police abuse are the pond scum blocking our view.

I don't have any marbles but I am leaving now… dad.

a reply to: intrptr

You ask why your posts get buried... Its because you do not read the posts and make the same failed argument over and over, even after the facts are posted that don't support the claim you are making.

Syria requested international assistance.
Iraq requested international assistance.

Both countries are allowing the airstrikes, including Syria towards the US.

Its not a tough concept to understand. The fact you are trying to push your claim when Syria and Iraq don't support your claim is telling. Are you that hard up to go after the US any way you can that you will intentionally ignore facts that don't support your claim?