Jump to content


Photo

Syria


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#61 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2013 - 03:52 PM

Put it this way, imagine if Russia had this type of power and Syria was Mexico?


Nuff said, we would want Russia, a, to fuck off and the b, to at least be honest.
  • GC90 likes this

#62 ODK

ODK

    Lab Cook

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Within The Multiverse
  • Interests:Socks, Toilet Rolls, and Vegetable Samosas!
  • Soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/i-am-heisenberg

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:21 PM

Well answer me this, why is the America government so eager to step beyond international law and strike a country illegally? Why not wait for the UN report? Why not determine if it was indeed Assad or the rebels, who, have so much more to gain by carrying out such an attack?

They will not wait for the UN because that does not suit the agenda that has been laid out many many years ago, they have dates, and Moon cycles that they have to work towards for their little rituals, it's all about keeping us in fear to control us globally, how many people are probably stressed frightened and worried this is going to kick off. They love that negative energy, they make us build it up then unleash it, when they have created the manufactured event. About time the Masons get mentioned really who pull the strings, there is no USA, UK, French, Australian goverment, there is only bloodlines put in place to bring in this One world Army One World Bank bullshit, Obama is a salesman, they all have been, not one leader anywhere has ever been honest. The lies in the media get easier to see through day by day, when you know how they try and put something in motion, you can see where it is going. It's the groundwork for a Mega Ritual, and the BBC I wouldn't believe, they protect child abusers.
  • mangoes cash likes this

#63 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2013 - 06:44 PM

^ good call, good call

#64 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:29 PM

Here is a great report.




#65 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 09 September 2013 - 05:26 PM

My hat is off to Swamp Thing for bringing a clear head, facts and logic to this discussion. Every post you put up is so excellent man!

Samantha Power is not in anyway shape or form a comparable figure to Paul Wolfowitz and the other Bushists. Forget PNAC and read 'A Problem From Hell'. Not every person in a position of influence in the US government is the devil incarnate.

#66 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2013 - 05:59 PM

No, but me thinks the American Government is working in the interest of the Saudis and not it's own people. Pretty devilish. America is a kick ass place with kick ass people but they got some fucked up policies.

#67 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:58 PM

No, but me thinks the American Government is working in the interest of the Saudis and not it's own people. Pretty devilish. America is a kick ass place with kick ass people but they got some fucked up policies.


Not everything is a conspiracy cash.

There's a reason the saying goes 'Politics makes strange bedfellows'. They weren't just talking about the interns.
  • SwampThing likes this

#68 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:28 PM

My hat is off to Swamp Thing for bringing a clear head, facts and logic to this discussion.


lmao :big sigh: thanks man, it's an uphill battle sometimes.

And just as a little Ray-of-Sunshine update here:
John Kerry made an offhand comment at a news conference in London on Monday (the 9th) in response to the question "Could Assad Avoid a Strike?":

“Sure. He could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay,” Kerry responded with a shrug. “But he isn’t about to.”

Well it turns out... Mid-air after the conference, almost immediately, Kerry received a call from Moscow:

"We are calling on the Syrian authorities [to] not only agree on putting chemical weapons storages under international control but also for its further destruction and then joining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," Lavrov said, adding, "We have passed our offer to [Syrian Foreign Minister] Walid al-Moualem and hope to receive a fast and positive answer."

Moualem, who was in Moscow meeting with Lavrov, followed with a statement that his government "welcomes Russia's initiative, based on the Syrian government's care about the lives of our people and security of our country."


Kerry's comment was, like I said, offhand, and no way intended as an actual official diplomatic statement, but the surprisingly quick response from Russia and Syria has everybody all aflutter. Obama's obviously been taken by surprise, but he's warming up to the idea, conceding that the idea of monitoring and destroying Syria's arsenal "could potentially be a significant breakthrough. We're going to run this to ground, we're going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are."

So it looks like the framework for a potential diplomatic solution is shockingly, suddenly closer at hand. The questions of...

1) Will Assad come through on this, and in a timely manner, or is this just a smokescreen placating for more delays (as he's done for years)?
2) Will Obama give up on the idea of an air-strike, which he spent the past 48 hours pushing incredibly hard, or will he send one over regardless of a resolution in a "you-don't-pick-your-punishment" type deal?
3) Why the hell did Syria and Russia suddenly pull a 180 and agree to this at the slightest mention of a possible way out for them (responding to John Kerry answering a question at a news conference for fuck's sake? The reporter who asked that question must be feeling incredibly powerful right now), when all along they've been asserting that Assad is not responsible and indignantly/dismissively claiming that any American attack will be met with crushing retaliation?
(and before anyone says it's out of the genuine goodness of Assad's heart and his real desire to destroy the evil chemical weapons he would never actually use on his people, he has had ample time, many years, to sign the Anti-Chemical Weapons Convention)

...remain to be answered.

#69 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:51 PM

Shouts out to James Frank. This could go in the Cringe Worthy thread. It is part one of Vice's documentary on the war in Syria. Warning, it is very graphic, so don't watch if you are sensitive to seeing spleens. For real.


In the video, there is among many, a great perspective, but one moment at 23:10 where an FSA rebel is talking of his opinion on the world leaders. He basically spits in their face because they have said that "bombing the fuck out of the population is ok, but if you use chemical weapons, boy you better watch out." And so, his people were slaughtered and the world watched.

My argument against any action is this.
1. Funding the rebels only prolonged a stalemate. Prolonged the suffering, the instability.
2. I find it very ironic that a 100 000 deaths by bombs and guns were ok, but 350 by chemicals, a red line.
3. Why would Assad use chemical weapons when he had a green light to bomb away?
4. Would you not think that the rebels have much more to gain from using chemical weapons, as a means to draw in outside military action? Was this not the tactic used by one Osama Bin Laden, the spiritual leader of many of the foreign jihadi rebels?

It makes me sick, to think that the White House, is just so sure that it was Assad and are so dismissive of any other scenario. They are willing to push a button that could set off World War III. Even if no war breaks out, the world population is strongly against any action. Is America not a democracy? It makes me think that there are other goals at play here. Mainly, a bunch of rich men wanting to get richer.



Again, video is deep, and grotesque.



#70 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:27 AM

I truly believe Obama isn't even trying to go through with the air strikes. The posturing of the last couple weeks is mostly due to the fact that he painted himself into a corner with his off the cuff remark last year about the CW 'red line'. Legally he could have just started bombing by just informing Congress that was his intention. I really see his going to Congress as a subtle way for him to shift the blame for inaction unto the Republican controlled House. And then this whole 'diplomatic solution' that Russia and Syria are trying to paint Kerry and Obama into is just another 'out' for the administration. This whole political aspect is definitely intriguing although its not going to do shit for the 2 million displaced refugees, the neighboring countries facing a massive influx of refugees, or the thousands of innocents that are bound to still be caught in the cross fire of this terrible un-civil war.

Cash, the use of WMDs has to be an international red line otherwise there is no need to use conventional warfare. 'Skip GO and collect $200', if you can wipe out a massive amount of your opposition through the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare in one fell swoop than its only logical that those are going to be the weapons of choice; especially if the the international community can only shake their fingers.

#71 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:50 PM

My point is that people are indescriminently killed by bombs, just as gas. Granted gas is cheaper and more potent, but death is death.



On a semi light note, anyone watch Obama's speech? He still has not put forth any evidence it was Assad. Just here say. Why does he act like he has got a slam dunk? Reminds me of a little Colin Powell action. Also, Obama is claiming that Assad should be punished for breaking international law, but is willing to break it himself??!
Posted Image

#72 Beatronome

Beatronome

    STMB Official

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 502 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Soundcloud:http://soundcloud.com/beatronome

Posted 14 September 2013 - 01:36 PM

I truly believe Obama isn't even trying to go through with the air strikes. The posturing of the last couple weeks is mostly due to the fact that he painted himself into a corner with his off the cuff remark last year about the CW 'red line'. Legally he could have just started bombing by just informing Congress that was his intention. I really see his going to Congress as a subtle way for him to shift the blame for inaction unto the Republican controlled House. And then this whole 'diplomatic solution' that Russia and Syria are trying to paint Kerry and Obama into is just another 'out' for the administration.

Exactly.

I think the only good solution for Syrian people is a full on UN-backed, not outsourced to NATO (<=> Russia), ground force intervention to keep the parties apart. It will be hard, it will be cost inefficient, but if you care about the people it is the only way. This will never come into effect because of suspicion between the several international 'players' and because every UN-casualty will only strengthen opposition to an intervention back home. Because this option isn't really realistic, I think the bloodshed will only stop when the parties tire and die out.

Also, think about this: Syria was/is a dictatorship. What is the first thing dictators do? Ban guns. How do the rebels get their weapons then? This conflict only escalated due to intervention by Qatar and the Saudi's in the first place. The percentage of deaths by chemical attacks (which some sources also attribute to Saudi-backed rebels/terrorists) is really really small in comparison to deaths by conventional weapons. A lot of countries have blood on their hands already. The only thing we can attribute by a half ass intervention is to have blood on our hands too, because if it isn't done right, it will end nothing and the only result will be more people will have died.
  • SunnyMeadowz likes this

#73 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 14 September 2013 - 01:58 PM

Holy Shit! Syria joined the UN Chemical Weapons convention!!

Diplomacy is working!

#74 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2013 - 03:16 PM

Holy Shit! Syria joined the UN Chemical Weapons convention!!

Diplomacy is working!


Amen! We'll see how Assad progresses on his responsibilities for joining the convention (full disclosure of basically all his CW secrets within a week), but things are tentatively looking up in terms of American intervention (or lack there-of). I'll bet Obama's pissed he couldn't get all that Syrian oil, not to mention establish the puppet-regime full of Al-Qaeda like he wanted. The ghost of Aleister Crowley who sleeps in the Lincoln Bedroom also probably upset.

Anybody catch Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT? Hilariously manipulative hypocrisy, a masterful trolling of Obama. If it had been written by Ban Ki-Moon, would have been a level-headed plea for American restraint, even. Seeing many people quoting Putin without realizing who he is and what he's actually about and why he doesn't want America to interfere in the Syrian Civil War. Had me cracking up though. Thought I felt that Cold War chill blowing around again the past week. Spooky stuff.

Really curious to see what the Russian/Syrian/international reaction will be if (when) the UN report is presented on Monday and the Syrian government is blamed for the attack though. Just read this interesting article examining the potential up-sides for Assad's regime in unexpectedly joining the convention.
  • SunnyMeadowz likes this

#75 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2013 - 05:14 PM

Exactly.

I think the only good solution for Syrian people is a full on UN-backed, not outsourced to NATO (<=> Russia), ground force intervention to keep the parties apart. It will be hard, it will be cost inefficient, but if you care about the people it is the only way. This will never come into effect because of suspicion between the several international 'players' and because every UN-casualty will only strengthen opposition to an intervention back home. Because this option isn't really realistic, I think the bloodshed will only stop when the parties tire and die out.

Also, think about this: Syria was/is a dictatorship. What is the first thing dictators do? Ban guns. How do the rebels get their weapons then? This conflict only escalated due to intervention by Qatar and the Saudi's in the first place. The percentage of deaths by chemical attacks (which some sources also attribute to Saudi-backed rebels/terrorists) is really really small in comparison to deaths by conventional weapons. A lot of countries have blood on their hands already. The only thing we can attribute by a half ass intervention is to have blood on our hands too, because if it isn't done right, it will end nothing and the only result will be more people will have died.



The only way to see an end to it would be if the parties funding this proxy war ceased supplies. So, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, stop funding Assad while Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the US, UK and France stop funding the rebels. If neither side has bullets, how can either side fight? Then a UN peace brokerage between FSA (only native Syrians, no Saudi Jihadis) and Assad. Hopefully the outcome would be a new democracy.

That's most likely a pipe dream tho.


It is refreshing tho to see diplomacy at work tho. Now, both sides can just get back to killing each other the legal way!!








Thought this was funny. America. Fuck Yah!!!
Posted Image



It will be interesting to see the UN report, but many articles claim it was the rebels. And like I said before, it makes sense for the rebels to have used them and insanity for Assad to have.This article claims a Belgian hostage overheard the rebels discuss the attack.
http://rt.com/op-edg...ad-hostage-822/

#76 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 14 September 2013 - 05:23 PM

Anybody catch Putin's op-ed piece in the NYT? Hilariously manipulative hypocrisy, a masterful trolling of Obama. If it had been written by Ban Ki-Moon, would have been a level-headed plea for American restraint, even. Seeing many people quoting Putin without realizing who he is and what he's actually about and why he doesn't want America to interfere in the Syrian Civil War. Had me cracking up though. Thought I felt that Cold War chill blowing around again the past week. Spooky stuff.


Godamn Alec Holland I wish someone on NPR would have said this earlier this week!

#77 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 06:52 AM

According to NATO, 70% of Syrians support Assad. That's a pretty sizable chunk. 10% support the rebels. Hm. Again, people would rather have stability. I do not believe Assad was a tyrant to his people, he was just not giving them things they wanted. In the day of the Internet.

So, if this is true, the funding of the rebels is the real crime here.
http://www.worldtrib...arts-and-minds/

#78 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:34 AM

Cash get over yourself and just admit all parties are at fault, that includes Assad as well as the foreign backed rebels. 100,000 people didn't all die at the hands of Saudi Arabia's proxy agents.

#79 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 12:12 PM

I am not, not over myself here bra. I ain't tripping. I have said, Assad, had a population who was unhappy with his lack of modernization. They protested peacefully. For too long according to him. He WAY over reacted. Factions of his own army broke off, triggering the armed rebellion.

Foreign fighters including a major faction of Al Qaida has flooded into Syria to topple his non Islamic government.

My point is, stability would be much more likely, an end to the war, if one side was dominant. Instead we have a stalemate.


I am not sure where you think I am high on myself here. Help me out.

#80 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 15 September 2013 - 02:23 PM

Kerry's comment was, like I said, offhand, and no way intended as an actual official diplomatic statement, but the surprisingly quick response from Russia and Syria has everybody all aflutter.


Don't believe the hype. Russia and the US have been negotiating for the better part of a year over these exact details.

#81 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2013 - 02:53 PM

Don't believe the hype. Russia and the US have been negotiating for the better part of a year over these exact details.


lmao I just read that as well! I think you were right all along, Obama straight up playing chess with this airstrike threat. he may not have been played by Putin at all, as now Russia is essentially on the hook for getting Syria to comply to all these grand promises of chemical weapon destruction.

#82 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 16 September 2013 - 07:50 AM

lmao I just read that as well! I think you were right all along, Obama straight up playing chess with this airstrike threat. he may not have been played by Putin at all, as now the Russia is essentially on the hook for getting Syria to comply to all these grand promises of chemical weapon destruction.


I'll be the first to admit I did not vote for Barack, my candidate is a little guy by the name of Nobody, but gawdamn Obama is playing this shit so well! Fucking good cop bad cop in this bitch with Kerry too! These motherfuckers can think Putin won all he wants but I heard an excellent quote last week from some policy wonk on the radio, essentially he said it should be the objective of the US to win Putin a Nobel Peace Prize by manipulating his behavior and having him do good things that actually benefit all of mankind in the long run. If the Obama administration can't 'officially' take credit who gives a fuck!

#83 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:25 PM

So the UN report came back, and while it cannot assert blame, the facts are kind of speaking for themselves. The size/quality of the missiles, their trajectory, and the extremely high potency of the gas all indicate they were launched by forces loyal to the regime.
If the rebels are responsible for the attack, it would have to have gone down like this:
These were not DIY missiles, and they cannot be fired without the proper, large, military grade launching system. The quality of this gas was higher even than Saddam Hussein's stockpile, not "homemade". So the rebels would have had to obtain the missiles, the gas, and the launchers (which they have not ever been observed to possess, but hypothetically MAYBE could have secretly stolen in a raid). They would have then had to move this conspicuous equipment into a Syrian Army-controlled area (in fact, the Human Rights Watch and the New York Times independently plotted the data in the report, and both found the origin to probably be a Syrian military complex), launch a sustained (loud), professional attack on the population of rebel-held suburbs, timed expertly with the weather conditions for maximum death, and then sneak the equipment back out again, all without being discovered/caught.

OR, someone in the Syrian military just decided to use some of the powerful chemical weapons it has lying around. One of the missiles had Cyrillic characters on it. Wouldn't it be interesting if these chemical weapons originated in Russia, the Syrian military's prime patron?

Again, there hasn't been any official finger-pointing from the UN, probably out of a desire to get the diplomacy rolling. Russia and Syria are sticking to their guns (the facts aren't all in or some such thing), China's said they are gonna seriously mull over this report. Unfortunately, the data's not as conclusive as it could have been given the inspectors limited access to the sites, and the mysterious disappearances of a few of the missiles.

#84 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:55 PM

So the UN report came back, and while it cannot assert blame, the facts are kind of speaking for themselves. The size/quality of the missiles, their trajectory, and the extremely high potency of the gas all indicate they were launched by forces loyal to the regime.
If the rebels are responsible for the attack, it would have to have gone down like this:
These were not DIY missiles, and they cannot be fired without the proper, large, military grade launching system. The quality of this gas was higher even than Saddam Hussein's stockpile, not "homemade". So the rebels would have had to obtain the missiles, the gas, and the launchers (which they have not ever been observed to possess, but hypothetically MAYBE could have secretly stolen in a raid). They would have then had to move this conspicuous equipment into a Syrian Army-controlled area (in fact, the Human Rights Watch and the New York Times independently plotted the data in the report, and both found the origin to probably be a Syrian military complex), launch a sustained (loud), professional attack on the population of rebel-held suburbs, timed expertly with the weather conditions for maximum death, and then sneak the equipment back out again, all without being discovered/caught.

OR, someone in the Syrian military just decided to use some of the powerful chemical weapons it has lying around. One of the missiles had Cyrillic characters on it. Wouldn't it be interesting if these chemical weapons originated in Russia, the Syrian military's prime patron?

Again, there hasn't been any official finger-pointing from the UN, probably out of a desire to get the diplomacy rolling. Russia and Syria are sticking to their guns (the facts aren't all in or some such thing), China's said they are gonna seriously mull over this report. Unfortunately, the data's not as conclusive as it could have been given the inspectors limited access to the sites, and the mysterious disappearances of a few of the missiles.


Here's a little diddy. Did you know, no rebels were killed in the chemical attacks? This according to the Russian Ambassador to the UN, it has not been disputed. That's some bad aim, if fired by Assad. However, I will say the link posted by Swap Thing is interesting. To me tho, guilty or not, for Assad to launch them makes no sense. At all.

#85 SunnyMeadowz

SunnyMeadowz

    The Royal Dutch of Dukes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,147 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denver
  • Interests:Weed, Pussy, Records (In no particular order)

Posted 18 September 2013 - 03:43 AM

To me tho, guilty or not, for Assad to launch them makes no sense. At all.


Most people don't suspect Assad actually gave the go ahead but think that rogue elements within the military were responsible.

#86 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 04:22 AM

Rouge elements like Al Quaida inspired FSA faction operating with in the Army to incite western intervention for their benefit? So, again, if true, all this strong talk that it was was undeniably Assad is foolish and sounds like an agenda, not a fact.

Also, to dispute Swamp Things claim the rockets were not homemade, the UN report said the rockets could have been either. http://rt.com/news/w...improvised-942/ edit, however, after looking at the images, the report, it says the rockets have soviet hallmarks.

#87 Quadrewple

Quadrewple

    Rookie

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 09:07 AM

US used depleted uranium on Fallujah and other cities in Iraq, making kids get born with mutations. The "world's policeman" doesn't have any moral authority to condemn the Syrian government.

#88 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:17 AM

Who's got the authority?

#89 mangoes cash

mangoes cash

    STMB Deluxe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,717 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:21 AM

The UN.

America claims to be a moral authority, but I reccomended you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman". America's foriegn polciy is based on major corporate interests. Not its people's, nor the people of the land it invades.

Posted Image

#90 SwampThing

SwampThing

    To Serve Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 September 2013 - 10:27 AM

oh wow, I never thought about it like that before. And if Russia protects the dictatorial regime it's allied with by vetoing any UN resolutions in the security council, essentially rendering the UN impotent to act, as that regime gasses its own civilians, what then?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users