United States-Russia-Syria

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Jonjonj

The first one WAS NOT SYRIA.

That's why Obama didn't want to bomb.

This one doesn't make sense that Russia and Syria would use chemical weapons; their winning the war.

Anyway, they should have a UN investigation and be sure that this wasn't one of those EVIL wicked Al Qaeda groups WHO DO HAVE Chemical weapons...

Also the US is going on the old 911 law to bomb Syria. Doubtfully that is lawful.

Of course there should be an investigation. Of course there should be full and honest disclosure, and of course there should be in the meantime SOMEBODY who is prepared to hit the nail on the head!

Those killers who have spent the last decade invading politics, let us get those people too, nails and heads!

Those killers who have been allowed to pass as prophets and angels...

Yeah, time for a reckoning, you up?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

To what end?

If he were then he would require some amount of evidence to outweigh the images and video that has been used on the rest of the world. Then he would have to be believed. Not impossible.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

To what end?

If he were then he would require some amount of evidence to outweigh the images and video that has been used on the rest of the world. Then he would have to be believed. Not impossible.

He wouldn't act unless he would be believed. Unfortunately, most people on any given panel will go with the victim.

If you knew everyone would think your maneuver is too insane to even consider as a possibility, would you do it to gain an advantage politically?

Maybe not you, but someone who is able to see human beings as chess pieces will.

a reply to: JinMI

This whole thing stinks at every turn!!

The freaking stench is overwhelming!!!

a reply to: TarzanBeta

That's just it. I don't see and advantage to be made in their war effort nor politically. Victim or aggressor using CW.

The use of CW on anyone, let alone civilians, would throw the whole thing into a much bigger and observable mess and whomever is responsible, IMO, knew exactly that and exactly what response they would get.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Jonjonj

The first one WAS NOT SYRIA.

That's why Obama didn't want to bomb.

This one doesn't make sense that Russia and Syria would use chemical weapons; their winning the war.

Anyway, they should have a UN investigation and be sure that this wasn't one of those EVIL wicked Al Qaeda groups WHO DO HAVE Chemical weapons...

Also the US is going on the old 911 law to bomb Syria. Doubtfully that is lawful.

Of course there should be an investigation. Of course there should be full and honest disclosure, and of course there should be in the meantime SOMEBODY who is prepared to hit the nail on the head!

Those killers who have spent the last decade invading politics, let us get those people too, nails and heads!

Those killers who have been allowed to pass as prophets and angels...

Yeah, time for a reckoning, you up?

I don't totally follow you but...

Look, when Isis reared its ugly head, I called not for the US to just go in there alone but to go to the UN and form a 100,000-man war coalition o fmany countries and exterminate them in a short time.

But what you learn is that apparently the US may be using these groups as a battering ram against countries s they want to control

I am totally against anyone who would use those weapons on kids. Id like to get it myself….But sinister groups do false flags like that all the time just to rile up the people and then go after a target they want to go after, such as in this case Syria. They did the same thing to Libya.

Here is the reason why

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That's just it. I don't see and advantage to be made in their war effort nor politically. Victim or aggressor using CW.

The use of CW on anyone, let alone civilians, would throw the whole thing into a much bigger and observable mess and whomever is responsible, IMO, knew exactly that and exactly what response they would get.

That last line is exactly what I've been saying.

MIC

and all, they still run shiz!

Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, gave a wide-ranging interview in New York Thursday where she called on the U.S. to carry out airstrikes on Syrian airfields in order to prevent more chemical attacks on its citizens.
“I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them,” Clinton made the comment during an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof at a women’s summit.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That's just it. I don't see and advantage to be made in their war effort nor politically. Victim or aggressor using CW.

The use of CW on anyone, let alone civilians, would throw the whole thing into a much bigger and observable mess and whomever is responsible, IMO, knew exactly that and exactly what response they would get.

Some people know more about regional politics than we do and some people have agendas we can't see!

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
Do you see it yet?

No. Care to be a little more forthcoming with a theory and a lot less cryptic?

I'm not being cryptic really.

But behold how so few are willing to entertain that Assad is responsible. If Assad is responsible, then that means he is getting away with murder - literally. The results? Pitting former Trump supporters against Trump and pitting Putin against Trump, therefore improving his power through initiative.

Very easy to see the value of such a tactic.

I would be willing to entertain that theory if there was a shred of hard & verifiable evidence. Thus far, there's more hard evidence to show ISIS has CWs than Assad. That is not hyperbole, either.

Well Daesh tried to attack the air base that got hit by the US but to their surprise they were obliterated because the runway was still intact. It's a pretty good tactic to hit them were it hurts in my book . If this was deliberate then Daesh got played....hard. People still think that Daesh is funded by rogue elements of the US and with the surgical strike in place there was no way they could've known that this was all a ruse. I would have done the same in that situation to be honest. Now the war mongers are satisfied and Trump exposed a lot of people who don't care about the american people in the process. It's a win/win for him.

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP
MIC

and all, they still run shiz!

Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, gave a wide-ranging interview in New York Thursday where she called on the U.S. to carry out airstrikes on Syrian airfields in order to prevent more chemical attacks on its citizens.
“I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them,” Clinton made the comment during an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof at a women’s summit.

You really need to cite that.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That's just it. I don't see and advantage to be made in their war effort nor politically. Victim or aggressor using CW.

The use of CW on anyone, let alone civilians, would throw the whole thing into a much bigger and observable mess and whomever is responsible, IMO, knew exactly that and exactly what response they would get.

Some people know more about regional politics than we do and some people have agendas we can't see!

Sure, couldn't agree more. Perhaps someone will go on record soon or we can dig up a few quotes. At this point, it is very unclear.

However, I would gather that the motive that makes the most sense it perpetual war and chaos in the middle east.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That's just it. I don't see and advantage to be made in their war effort nor politically. Victim or aggressor using CW.

The use of CW on anyone, let alone civilians, would throw the whole thing into a much bigger and observable mess and whomever is responsible, IMO, knew exactly that and exactly what response they would get.

Some people know more about regional politics than we do and some people have agendas we can't see!

Sure, couldn't agree more. Perhaps someone will go on record soon or we can dig up a few quotes. At this point, it is very unclear.

However, I would gather that the motive that makes the most sense it perpetual war and chaos in the middle east.

And I disagree. I believe that if nobody had done anything regarding the use of chemical weapons the world, this very day, would be a much scarier place.

Go figure, we disagree.

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP
MIC

and all, they still run shiz!

Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, gave a wide-ranging interview in New York Thursday where she called on the U.S. to carry out airstrikes on Syrian airfields in order to prevent more chemical attacks on its citizens.
“I really believe we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them,” Clinton made the comment during an interview with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof at a women’s summit.

Perhaps HIllary got ahead of herself so her Daesh minions could use the airstrike as cover to attack Assad. I don't trust that Leprechaun. Trump countered a false flag with his own false flag and people like Hillary jumped the gun.

I'm glad that y'all are starting to think strategically instead of optimistically now.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Who is to say what anyone else would have done?

Who is to say that this alone sits in Assads lap?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Jonjonj

Who is to say what anyone else would have done?

Who is to say that this alone sits in Assads lap?

Sure it isn't only in Assad's lap. Tactics are devised to produce an imperfect reaction. Therefore, the imperfect response is the fault of the enemy, but a desired and calculated fault. That's what makes the tactic perfect.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Perhaps I should back up.

Are you in agreement with the official narrative?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Jonjonj

Who is to say what anyone else would have done?

Who is to say that this alone sits in Assads lap?

Who is to say!!!

Damn man, wake the f*** up!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OR WHAT!

It only matters that there shall be no allowance of the use of chemical weapons and this shall be clear! Do you not understand that?

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Jonjonj

Who is to say what anyone else would have done?

Who is to say that this alone sits in Assads lap?

Who is to say!!!

Damn man, wake the f*** up!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO OR WHAT!

It only matters that there shall be no allowance of the use of chemical weapons and this shall be clear! Do you not understand that?

Oh but it does matter. Who did it and who investigates and who tries and who convicts and who decides and deals the sentence. Or do we stop all that because of propaganda and feels?

ETA: You wake the #)(*$ up. You're being manipulated.