- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 5,910
- Reaction score
- 5,230
- Location
- lotusland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
O J Simpson is running the shadow government?
Evidently.....he's really slashing the opposition to ribbons.
O J Simpson is running the shadow government?
Weren't we supposed to believe that the Great Putin took all of little boy Assad's chem toys away?
This man has truly lost his mind:
Ron Paul Thinks Syrian Chemical Attack Was A 'False Flag' | The Daily Caller
[/QUOTE]:lol: Why would it be a blunder? Given that it has never resulted in backlash for him - but only ever helped him achieve victory on the battle field - why would he assume that doing so again would have any different results?
The only time Assad ever deliberately took a risk with Chemical weapons was when he deliberately crossed the Red Line and dared the US to enforce it. Since then, every time he's done it he's done so safely in the knowledge that we did not really care, or, at least, we weren't willing to do anything about it.
Then he bombed someone who managed to go viral. What changed wasn't the use of WMD in Syria. What changed was the fact that it got wide, sympathetic, media coverage, highlighting innocents suffering due to Assad's abuses.
That latter is generally true. He saw it on TV, and he reacted. When earlier attacks happened, he reacted differently. The use of Gas hasn't changed - the television coverage has.
Sure. Maybe it's the illuminati. Or the Jews. Or The 33rd Degree Jewminati Masons who secretly control Bannon, who secretly controls Trump, despite his just getting yanked off of the NSC.
Oh..... Occam's Razor is generally correct, and Trump saw some sympathetic images on Television, got upset, and reacted accordingly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Evidently.....he's really slashing the opposition to ribbons.
Is Al Cowlings the shadow Secy of Transportation?
I was under the impression there were significant measures taken after the 2013 Chem attacks, of which the perpetrators are still disputed
I am extremely skeptical of a government that routinely lies about the Middle East to beat the war drums. You'd think we learned our lesson from the Cheney years.
I don't think it's the Rothschilds/Bilderbergers etc. who are behind this. I think it's in plain sight. The Pentagon is given preferential treatment and it will go unquestioned as we continue to pretend "freedom fight" across the Middle East. McMaster is likely the one who advised Trump to attack and likely represents the interests of the DoD. Any national security talking point or humanitarian concern is 100% fabrication, playing on people's emotions, to nip in the bud, public opposition to a war in Syria.
:lol: yeah. The "Significant Measures" were that we got the Russians to agree to take Syrian Chemical Weapons. They didn't take them all, and we knew that they weren't going to, and we didn't care, we just wanted to be seen as "doing something", which was more important than, you know, actually doing something. They have used chemical weapons since multiple times, with no backlash other than Strongly Worded Letters Decrying The Whole Thing. They had no reason to believe this time would be any different.
inches bridge of nose: sure. Dick Cheney, who is a super-evil-genius, has been secretly controlling the Obama and the Trump administrations.
Or. Assad is genuinely actually a murderous dictator who doesn't care about civilian casualties, which is why he indiscriminately bombs civilian populaces with both conventional and non-conventional munitions.
Bro if you want to insist it's all a Conspiraceh, there's nothing anyone can offer you - every piece of evidence that disagrees with your preferred conclusion "is just more evidence about how deep this really goes / how good they are". It's a non-falsifiable position.
America has proven that they will use the press as a propaganda tool, to push false narratives that excuse American intervention in the Middle East. That's not a conspiracy that's a fact.
What percent of Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved with 9/11, way past an acceptable year?
People were worried HRC would push a war in Syria, with her "no-fly zone". Some chose Trump because he bashed the Iraq war and was perceived as a person that would deescalate tensions. What happened? Either HRC or Trump, the American people get a war in Syria, so you tell me, who calls the shots? The President or the Pentagon?
This man has truly lost his mind:
Ron Paul Thinks Syrian Chemical Attack Was A 'False Flag' | The Daily Caller
No, that's a conspiracy. And it's a laughable one, because the U.S. government isn't that competent. Russia controls it's media in order to control narratives in it's country and shape them abroad - our media has zero problem acting in opposition to US government preferences. Nor does the US "lie our way into war in the ME". We have been wrong about particulars, but the idea that "any time the US is involved in kinetics in the middle east, it's because Dick Cheney is secretly lying to us all from behind the Big Green Curtain" is laughable.
No idea. Nor did the Bush administration control the media to force them to push that narrative, making it a non sequitur.
the President does. Had DoD been able to call the shots, the last 8 years would have looked very different. There has been a lot of chafing under a President whose instinct was to do nothing, and who sought excuses to do so.
This man has truly lost his mind:
Ron Paul Thinks Syrian Chemical Attack Was A 'False Flag' | The Daily Caller
He did and the U.S. and EU confirmed it. Then the CIA gave the rebels millions in chemical weapons so that they could stage their false flag operation.Weren't we supposed to believe that the Great Putin took all of little boy Assad's chem toys away?
Ron Paul is an isolationist and that's a great philosophy right up to the point that you have to fight a war on your own soil.
No, that's a conspiracy. And it's a laughable one, because the U.S. government isn't that competent. Russia controls it's media in order to control narratives in it's country and shape them abroad - our media has zero problem acting in opposition to US government preferences. Nor does the US "lie our way into war in the ME".
This man has truly lost his mind:
Ron Paul Thinks Syrian Chemical Attack Was A 'False Flag' | The Daily Caller
The government can't do it all on it's own. It had a lot of help from the MSM.
While I admire Ron Paul's pacifism...he isn't exactly known for his military expertise.
Some officials are saying that Assad used chemical weapons as revenge for what happened in Hama...and to clear the way for the regimes push to take Idlib.
“This is vengeance for the regime for what happened in Hama,” the official said. “This is them saying that they are the most ruthless force in the game, that they will hit 10 times harder than anyone who hits them. It is also about trying to open up a path to Idlib, for the eventual ground attack there...."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-home-to-jets-allegedly-used-in-sarin-attacks
Ron Paul is an isolationist and that's a great philosophy right up to the point that you have to fight a war on your own soil.
We have profound disagreement here. I don't see either of us getting anywhere, but I'm stubborn as hell. I would raise the "throwing babies on the ground" headline from the 1st gulf war as evidence supporting my position.
It was 43% in 2006. I looked it up after wondering. 43% of Americans thought Saddam did 9/11, five years after, because the press accepted the narrative coming out of the WH.
I don't see it that way. Obama did the bidding of the defense contractors and weapons manufacturers, and in a lot of ways continued Bush era policy. Obama bombed in Yemen and Somalia as well.
Why do people keep saying this kind of stuff? Every time a libertarian speaks on military matters people either mistake them for pacifists or isolationists. An isolationist won't trade with anyone or be friends with anyone, but libertarians are not against either. What libertarians are against is using the military as a tool of aggression and being the world police/protector. Libertarians believe the military is meant to be used for defense and defense only. That means that the only reason they will ever call on the military to do anything is if it is a matter needed to defend the country from foreign aggression.
Assasd makes no distinction between rebels and ISIS.
Yeah. If there is anything we know about the MSM, it's that they are slavishly loyal to whatever Donald Trump wants them to say :mrgreen: