US & Israel Invade Syria to prevent 'Chemical Weapons Attack' as Russia Rushes to Aid Assad

More saber rattling?

Russia swoops in to help Assad with ISIS.

Obama says Russia plan is doomed to failure.

Al Qaeda swoops in to fight ISIS.

Obama says its doomed for failure.

Didn't we kill Al Qaeda? No

......so than ISIS? Oh the tangled webs we weave when we seek out to deceive.

Does anyone like ISIS? I don't like ISIS. Are they still getting finances from oil revenue? They still real estate investors in Baghdad? Still rocking those Toyotas?

Can someone send Iran, Syria, Turkey, Russia and U.S. And anyone else a map of Baghdad and a pic of what a Toyota truck looks like? Seems they're having a hard time identifying them. Thanks in advance.

Your truly,
Concerned Citizen

So has US and Russia started shooting at each other yet?

a reply to: paraphi

- Afghanistan was already brutalised by conflict and mayhem following the Russian intervention. Arguably it's in a better state now.
- Iraq was run by a brutal dictator who was responsible for the deaths of countless thousands.
- Libya was a repressive dictatorship.

But they were anti US so they had to be good guy's.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: anticitizen
afghanistan
iraq
lybia

To be fair.

- Afghanistan was already brutalised by conflict and mayhem following the Russian intervention. Arguably it's in a better state now.
- Iraq was run by a brutal dictator who was responsible for the deaths of countless thousands.
- Libya was a repressive dictatorship.

That's not actually being fair, but more like a simple parroting of the official lines given as excuses.

Afghanistan has always been invaded almost completely throughout it's history going way back into antiquity..no foreign power, from Alexander the Great to Genghis Khan and most lately Bush Jnr and Obama, has ever managed to subdue or fully control the place for very long, the locals simply bide their time and fight wars of attrition against the invaders, gradually wearing them down and eventually they leave.

The Soviets were just one of a long list of invaders who thought they could succeed were other empires have failed miserably..of course, they were wrong about Afghanistan, just as the latest US led invasion will also ultimately prove to be wrong. The Afghanis will simply do what they have always done, wait it out while wearing down the resolve of their enemies.

How you think Afghanis are somehow better off while suffering yet another invasion, this time from the US and allies is staggering. Is anyone actually better off by being invaded and having war made upon them and their families? I don't think so.

Iraq was run by a brutal dictator who had killed many of his 'subjects', including wiping out entire Northern villages using poison gas. It is estimated over the decades Saddam was in power in Iraq, 1000's of Iraqis disappeared, were summarily imprisoned or were tortured and executed by the regime, reports of as many as 30,000 Men, Women and Children were murdered by Saddam....that's 10 times the number of people murdered by Saddam as were murdered on 9/11 in NY. So NOT a good guy by any stretch of the imagination!

However...during the US led Coalition who made war on Saddam and his regime in DS2, the end result has been upwards of one million dead, millions more displaced, and the rise and emergence of radical groups, such as IS, bent on changing the status quo in these countries 'liberated' and 'freed' by the US invasion(s).

If we're to use the numbers of Iraqis dead at the hands of Saddam as a reason to invade and remove Saddam, we must also look at the numbers of Iraqis dead at the hands of, and dead as a direct result of the US / Coalition forces during their 'liberation' of Iraq from Saddam.

The net result is the numbers of Iraqis dead because of the war to remove Saddam is orders of magnitude higher than those murdered by Saddam. Is it to be considered a 'good trade off' to cause the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqis, create untold and unimaginable havoc and totally destabilise Iraq and the wider region in order to stop a despot who has killed 30,000?

Saddam could have been killing 30,000 a year and he still wouldn't have had a long enough lifespan to equal the deaths caused by the US invasion...think about it. Is Iraq better off after being invaded by the US?

Is the region enjoying an unusual period of increased stability and peace since the invasions and war brought to them by the West? Quite the opposite is true.

Saddam deserved the noose, that's without doubt. The Millions of people dead and displaced in order to remove him however, did not deserve to pay the price they were required to pay to do it.

If you have a hole in your roof, leaking rainwater into your home...you don't obliterate the entire house to stop a leaking roof, although this is essentially what happened to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and is set to happen, yet again, in Syria.

That's arguably a fair assessment, not what you wrote mate.

a reply to: paraphi

And actually Libya was done by Europe. If you call US involvement leading, then you think leading from behind is leadership.

originally posted by: brancolinoxx
a reply to: Wookiep

I understand your point, and the comment about it being in guise of stopping a chemical attack is certainly last years news. But with the events of the last couple of days this is very relevant again. Russia is now in Syria, UK and US are once again hinting they want to get more involved with possible intervention soon.

This is a repeat of what we saw last year but this time its looking like it will go ahead without being voted down like last year. I believe seeing those videos is a great reminder of what may be around the corner. It is very relevant to events today.

The OP should have at least clarified these vids were old, I agree.

The sad thing is that it's election season and the party we voted in to oppose what Obama wants to do have decided that best strategy is to let him have everything with token resistance and then say, "But it's a great 2016 campaign issue!"

There are some things the administration wants to do that could make a 2016 campaign a moot point, but too bad the opposition party is too spineless to figure that out. And they wonder why their chosen candidates have no poll numbers.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: anticitizen
afghanistan
iraq
lybia

To be fair.

- Afghanistan was already brutalised by conflict and mayhem following the Russian intervention. Arguably it's in a better state now.
- Iraq was run by a brutal dictator who was responsible for the deaths of countless thousands.
- Libya was a repressive dictatorship.

I'd throw a grand on the table Iraqis would rather have that "Brutal Dictator" over ISIS, by a long shot.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
More saber rattling?

Russia swoops in to help Assad with ISIS.

Obama says Russia plan is doomed to failure.

Al Qaeda swoops in to fight ISIS.

Obama says its doomed for failure.

Didn't we kill Al Qaeda? No

Al Qaeda swoops in to fight ISIS.

Am I the only one that thinks this is madness? Can you provide a story or link? because .. i need to read about that, just to make sure, pandora's box is fully operational.

On a very serious note, we all knew it was coming, whether it started or not I think we have seen enough evidences, moves of chess pieces to know, it is actually going down.

But make no mistake, our worse enemy is not the powers that be. Our worse enemy has and always been ourselves, especially for being naive and unable to truly point the fingers at the real culprit. All one has to do but look into a mirror. We are as a collective responsible for this, because we focused too much on self than of our neighbors. We turned a blind eye when crimes were committed against humanity. Now take a look at the result.

There will be those who will still deny, but to those who fought hard to expose the truth and prevent this from happening through mass awareness, you guys are my brothers, and I feel your pain. No matter the outcome of the actions of those who are insane. Keep the faith and don't allow them to take that away from you. No matter how dark things may seem.

We are all human beings, we know this war is a lie, but watch, because we are all human beings, watch! those are our brothers and sisters dying on the field! no matter which side is fighting. They are in the end, human beings. Take away the skin, take away religion, I am sure all of us (with exception of ET's, ) have the same color of meat and blood. What you see before you ladies and gentlemen, is the result of apathy, greed and selfishness. The result of egotistical and narcissist desires.

None of this is the will of God, whether you are a believer or not. This is the will of EVIL and the world is about to witness the beast.

I think this speech comes to play.

a reply to: Wookiep

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I just don't understand the intent of the OP.

It's to ram Anti-American, Anti-Israel propaganda down everyone's throat.

Good thread! It took quite a while to get through and it was a roller coaster of emotions. More than once I was ready to reply in anger but I did my best to get to the end. Now that I've reached it, all I can say is, there's no point getting emotional. the thread is a microcosm of world politics and it's easy to see why there are conflicts all over the planet. Everyone has an opinion and chances are, it's a biased one - me included. Just look at the title of the thread. It's totally misleading and written like any attention getting newspaper article.

"US & Israel Invade Syria to prevent 'Chemical Weapons Attack' as Russia Rushes to Aid Assad"

Last time I checked, in this context, the word "invade" is present tense. As a reader, my first thought is, "oh crap, it's happened... the war has started and this can't be good!". I guess the title was supposed to stir me up! Just what the MSM does isn't it? I was concerned enough that I type in "world news" in Google. The first thing that came up was "Elton John: I want to meet Putin over gay rights". I wiped my brow and felt relief! If that's the major headline, then at least 99.99% of the worlds population has nothing to fret over.

Back to the microcosm... if all of the contributors in this thread were together in a single location, I'm convinced a fist-fight would break out eventually. In this thread, there's pro-Russian, anti-Israel, lot's of anti-western (almost all of it directed at the USA) and a few pro-Muslim. Okay, I'm biased too. I'm pro-USA which makes me no different and, yes, I take offense to those who think every little conflict is America's fault and it's the final nail in the coffin of the US economy. I'm not a war monger and I don't try to insight people to fight. I'm also not a pacifist and believe there are times to fight for what you have.

So to all the haters, bad politicians and dictator-want-to-be's, quit trying to stir sh*t up.

Iraq under Saddam.


And after the US government

10 years later

originally posted by: [post=19797212] Yeah, if Ghadaffi didnt like you he was a tyrant. But a lot of his policies put our govts to shame.

If he had supplied weapons to blow up Americans rather than just insignificant Britons, would you feel the same?

Suppose he enabled 9/11? Would you think the same of him? He provided the means (via US money .... ) for the murders of hundreds of British women and children over many years.

The shame is that we did not take hm out 30 years ago ....

a reply to: Sovan

Look how much war has been going on under the anti-war Prez...this just goes to show that no matter who gets in office, it's the CFR who rules the roost.
But Valerie Jarrett sure has been doing a fine job(of helping ruin the US)

edit: Antony Sutton explains all this complicated mess in his writings
check this "How The Establishment Creates War and Revolution"

The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is the notion that conflict creates history.
From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. For example: When the Trilateral Commission discusses "managed conflict", as it does extensively in its literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends - not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.

The dialectic takes this Trilateral "managed conflict" process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again: Thesis is antithesis results in synthesis.

The synthesis sought by the Establishment is called the New World Order. Without controlled conflict this New World Order will not come about. Random individual actions of persons in society would not lead to this synthesis, it's artificial, therefore it has to be created. And this is being done with the calculated, managed, use of conflict. And all the while this synthesis is being sought, there is no profit in playing the involved parties against one another.

This explains why the International bankers backed the Nazis, the Soviet Union, North Korea, North Vietnam, ad nauseum, against the United States. The "conflict" built profits while pushing the world ever closer to One World Government. The process continues today.

Antony C. Sutton
April, 1984

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

And that was just the preface but to get more please read on

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Is this when we get to mention her Iranian ties again?

The only aid the West should be giving Israel is a 20 mile high wall encircling the entire region.
Let them play their own war games in private.
When they all destroy themselves the world will be a safer place.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Is this when we get to mention her Iranian ties again?

Yes it surely is

originally posted by: Ilovemygreatdanes
a reply to: brancolinoxx

Yes!! Thank you!

It's unbelievable and sad that this is happening all over again. Check another one off the list of 7 countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan.

Long read but this is a great post from 2012 calling out the end game
Are The Middle East Wars Really About Forcing the World Into Dollars and Private Central Banking?


Eta: this is a really lame excuse.

Interesting. I've read that Iran holds a huge amount of Iraqi Dinars, which are not yet traded on the Intl market after having been devalued in the Gulf War with Iraq. Supposedly, Iran wants their own currency revalued, and this may be part of why Iraqi Dinar is not yet revalued back to it's pre-war status. This is the kind of stuff traditional news media won't tell outright.

If anything, we've learned that some places are better off with ruthless scumbags maintaining the status quo by force.

Better to have a tyrant that everyone fears than to let idiots run loose and wreck everything.

US Boots on Syrian Soil!

ground combat to ensue?

Russia is sending a nuclear sub to syria, which means there could be nuclear war at some point in time. . . .


Russia Sends World's Largest Sub with 200 Nuclear Warheads to Syria