It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beautiful Babies Barbarically Murdered

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlueAjah

Absolutely! He cares SO much that he lobbed dozens of Tomohawks into civillian areas to show the Syrian
people just how loved their children are by President Trump by killing a few himself. That is the deepest type of care I've ever seen!







Um, he didn't lob bombs into "civilian areas", but onto airfields where they stored the sarin gas and the planes took off. At least get your liberal talking points right.


Someone needs to tell those kids to stay away from military installations then because there are at least 4 dead children and last I checked, children were still civilians, even in Syria.

Perhaps you should work on your own talking points if you automatically resort to calling anyone who disagrees with President Manchilds actions. It's amusing, but an inaccurate descriptor at best.



Gee, ya think?!

Maybe dad should have told them to go play in the traffic instead, like normal dads.


Right, because it's just everyday normal life in the suburbs there as opposed to a 4 year long civil war. I'm sure there is plenty of time for watching the Waltons while hearing TV dinners in the oven because life is just normal in a war zone after all.


I'm glad he bombed the airfield.


Why are you glad? What objectives were obtained? Were there any other objectives aside from a PR stunt to distract the already rabidly partisan American populace?

A maximum of 15 people were killed, 1/3 of them were children and after tossing nearly 5 dozen Tomahawks at them which cost on average 1.6 million each middle (without the booster) they were still able to use the air strip today and planes were landing and taking off from there. So what exactly was accomplished by this inane action?


Bummer about the kids.



Yeah, you seem real choked up over it!



Trump is NOT obama.

obama let things go on there for how many years?

If I was Trump I'd be pissed off too for the crap obama started, besides being spied on and having to clean up his messes all over the mideast, africa and asia.

If obama did what he promised, we wouldn't have to blow # up.

Nobel peace prize my ass.








edit on 4 7 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Who started the mess? It was long before Obama. The US has been meddling in others affairs for decades.

Looks like Trump plans on keeping it going.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Perhaps my level of literacy has fallen in the last hour or so, but I'm having a hard time finding the part of your reply where you describe what objectives were accomplished and what we, the American people, gained from this action? It was cute though how you completely deflected all of the blame away from Trump and tossed that onto Obama! Well done. Or is that what you were glad about? That Teump isn't Obama so whatever he does must be OK because he's not Obama?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: and14263

Don't fall for it.


Major difference between using conventional weapons against rebels and using weapons prohibited by the Geneva Protocol on areas where children are present.

These 60 cruise missiles were justified. At least the cruise missiles are legal under the Geneva Protocol and attacked military targets.
edit on 7-4-2017 by Miracula2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

They didn't want to take action.
www.washingtonpost.com...


Really those war monger Republicans didn't want to take action?

Since they hold the majorities.


Oh they're warmongers but their problem wasn't bombing, it was the fact Obama wanted to do it. If it was a Republican president they would have given him the green light.

The GOP proudly boasted they would not support anything Obama wanted, even if it went against their own agendas.
edit on 7-4-2017 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Perhaps my level of literacy has fallen in the last hour or so, but I'm having a hard time finding the part of your reply where you describe what objectives were accomplished and what we, the American people, gained from this action? It was cute though how you completely deflected all of the blame away from Trump and tossed that onto Obama! Well done. Or is that what you were glad about? That Teump isn't Obama so whatever he does must be OK because he's not Obama?




What objectives did you expect?

Seems to me he accomplished what he wanted to.

Will it take another salvo? On assad's palace's next time? Put one through his window like they did to Gaddafy?

Personally, I would have started with that.





posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Sure sounded like to hate Trump-maybe it fluctuates-I don't know.

Despite all the convoluted scenarios, we know nothing. Except death and destruction continue.

But do we blame every president for every death when we are at war with their country?

Being a Brit, I understand your confusion-no one knows anything-and they are liars if they say they do. The MSM-really?

My heart does weep for those in countries with so much suffering and pain-and where we are involved is disgusting.

Trump is no better or worse than the others-he'll lie when he feels he has to and say "sorry" for all the atrocity.

Are living in some horror movie? Well, obviously-some of our fellow humans are.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Let me get this straight, he shouldn't have mentioned the murdered babies? Or is it that he shouldn't have called them beautiful?

He should just be callous? But then you get mad that he doesn't care? I mean, let's be honest here. No matter what happens many here won't accept what is said about it, regardless of language.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Perhaps my level of literacy has fallen in the last hour or so, but I'm having a hard time finding the part of your reply where you describe what objectives were accomplished and what we, the American people, gained from this action? It was cute though how you completely deflected all of the blame away from Trump and tossed that onto Obama! Well done. Or is that what you were glad about? That Teump isn't Obama so whatever he does must be OK because he's not Obama?




What objectives did you expect?


I expect that when we take military action against another sovereign nation who hasn't actually attacked Americans that there actually be some sort of objective involved. I know that my unit never went anywhere or did anything without clear objectives in place.


Seems to me he accomplished what he wanted to.


Which was what exactly? Killing civilian bystanders? We haven't blown up enough children in Yemen the last month and a half? The only person who seems to know what Trump wanted to accomplish is Trump but I've yet to see any indication that he is able to articulate his intent. His goals must not have been terribly grandiose because after 5 dozen missiles at 1.6 M a pop, the Syrians are still taking off and landing on that air strip.


Will it take another salvo? On assad's palace's next time? Put one through his window like they did to Gaddafy?

Personally, I would have started with that.



So we shouldn't worry about international law when Trump wants to whip it out and show the world what he packing in those ill fitting and poorly tailored trousers of his? Interesting. Personally, I think that 90+ million we wasted in munitions could have been better spent on education or infrastructure improvements right here in the U.S.

Just to be clear here, I'm not trying to bust your balls. I'm genuinely curious and after several replies to me, you have yet to articulate why you were glad that this action was taken. Typically, when people are pleased with something it is because they see or receive, something positive so I was genuinely inquiring as to WHY you are glad that we spent over $90 million USD in missiles alone to do absolutely nothing aside from add more death and carnage to this world with our Code of Hammurabi attitude of an eye for an eye.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I swear...some of you are freakin' pathetic. Nuff said.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   
expect the price of baby oil to rise ....



sarcasm OFF



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

NLP techniques used to influence people. It's not about should or shouldn't have said. It's about the influence of these techniques over the people.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

One more leader using the 'think of the children' hook to excuse carnage. It's as old as dirt and gets dragged out most years.

It works well because we all despise people who are cruel to children. People who kill babies are the worst and *less than* human. Therefore none of us care when the *less thans* get bombed - it serves them right. Simultaneously, it's a great look for the brave leader who valiantly defends the lives of babies. We all identify with the humanity of saving young lives.

The Nazis said Jews ate their own babies and our propaganda said Germans stabbed babies with bayonets. As emotive as they are untrue.

So what the OP is saying is Trump has utilised a propaganda technique to superficially justify the bombing of the Syrian airfield. It's never really about 'the children' or the 'beautiful babies.' We can say that with 99% certainty because Coalition forces/Allies have been drone-striking and generally bombing for many years and have killed thousands of children and babies as 'collateral damage.' I imagine the Russians, Japanese and whoever else have used this technique too.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Half won't get it because the propaganda and programming has worked exceedingly well. They are immune to any appeal to look at the situation critically.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

True! We're all saturated in propaganda and it isn't easy to see through it. Plus we're all susceptible.

Some people don't stand a chance because they're bloody idiots and can't help it



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

How about not being a hipocrite and don't act as if US attacks and bombs didn't kill any beautiful babies and kids in the past and in numbers !!



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think so, yes. One, chemical warfare is unacceptable. Two, America is back on the world stage where it should be. Three, pacifism only helps the enemy. Four, it sends a message to America's allies and enemies. My only reservation is what the policy will be.

1. Chemical warfare was used in Fallujah, not a peep. 2. Team America never left the World Police. 3. And yet, all of our wars have only created martyrs for the jihadis, like we're cutting one head off of a Hydra. 4. It sens a message that we dont plan things properly?




originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Put one through his window like they did to Gaddafy?

I dont think you remember that story then, because we supported the terrorists (yet again) who then went to torture and drag Gaddafi through the streets.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah



Because he cares about babies?

Only the ones killed in gas attacks? Those are the only ones killed by the Syrian military?

I'd like to know how many babies the US has killed in it's shock and awe wars on the axis of evil.


I heard that over 500,000 Iraq citizens died since the war due to starvation so I'm pretty sure the number is quite high.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: twfau
a reply to: peter vlar

Could have used 'butchered' rather than 'murdered' for the alliteration.

I think he sounds a bit desperate, perhaps he should be as he has now lost a lot of support of the Steve Bannon luvvies and alt-right basement dwelling you-tube bloggers that helped him win power.

More importantly he has also shown the world he will act purely on emotion. An act first, think later president is just a little concerning.


He's been showing the world that on Twitter for years.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlueAjah

Absolutely! He cares SO much that he lobbed dozens of Tomohawks into civillian areas to show the Syrian
people just how loved their children are by President Trump by killing a few himself. That is the deepest type of care I've ever seen!







Um, he didn't lob bombs into "civilian areas", but onto airfields where they stored the sarin gas and the planes took off. At least get your liberal talking points right.


Someone needs to tell those kids to stay away from military installations then because there are at least 4 dead children and last I checked, children were still civilians, even in Syria.

Perhaps you should work on your own talking points if you automatically resort to calling anyone who disagrees with President Manchilds actions. It's amusing, but an inaccurate descriptor at best.


What were kids doing on a military airfield? Human shields? Or bad parenting? "Stupid is what stupid does".




top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join