Russians squeeze U.S. troops in Syria amid uproar over Trump’s dealings with Moscow

[Condor060]

This is all fine. Russia stopped being our "greatest geopolitical foe" when the 2016 nominee was Trump rather than Romney, and if you call them on that you're a hypocrite because Obama once noted that the Cold War was over, so really it's all OK if they put bounties on and threaten our troops.

And there's Condor, with the usual stupid farting noises.

The fact that you went and told a bunch of lies in another thread does not make assertions in RV's thread false.

(Note how, because I know English, I used the correct word - "false" - rather than the stupid-ass Trumpist word "fake". This is because the thread is a real thread. If it were a fake thread, you could not have opened and posted in it.)

Why do you hate our troops so much, Condor?

Why do you hate America?

For all of those with IQ levels below a Giraffe, this is what is public information that those who do have IQ's over a Giraffe would know.

1. All classified briefs to the WH are kept by each Intel community for future reference. It is a federal felony to destroy classified material presented to the WH.

2. If such a brief existed, Schiff, head of the Intelligence Committee would have access to such information and could request a copy of it himself.

3. The Intel community has PUBLICLY STATED that they NEVER provided any brief to Trump or the WH as the information was not accurate of credible and didn't warrant any further attention

4. Pelosi is already making additional PUBLIC STATEMENTS as to why Trump wasn't briefed claiming the Intel community kept the information from Trump because they feared he would tell Putin.

Which happens to be the dumbass comment of the year as of course he would tell Russia as to why he is taking a certain action. What a loon.

5. Bolton was even quoted as saying

Bolton said he didn’t know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.

Which means he wasn't briefed, doesn't know if Trump was briefed, and knows nothing about any such brief.

Bolton: ‘Remarkable’ Trump Says He Wasn’t Briefed on Russian Bounties | Time

So why do you hate America so much as to knowingly continue to publish and push this known lie about killing America service personnel?

Does everyone but you now know this is fake news, or are you just continuing to push the lie because you hate this country and want to see it fail?

 

[element94]

Well I guess the Intel community picked up on my (so called) assertions. :lamo





House Dems attend White House briefing on Russian bounty reports | Fox News

Any other ASSERTIONS you want to claim?

Not to mention, Bolton NEVER claimed Trump was briefed and he wasn't briefed either. You just made that up from other post you read.

What he did say was



Bolton: ‘Remarkable’ Trump Says He Wasn’t Briefed on Russian Bounties | Time

So you can stop with your fake story about what Bolton said.

I'll believe the AP over you, if you don't mind.

Bolton reportedly told Trump about Russian bounties for killing U.S. troops in early 2019\

Yeah, no need to tell the president about this:

Russian Bounty Suspicions Were Supported by Financial Data - The New York Times

:roll:

 

[Condor060]

I'll believe the AP over you, if you don't mind.

Bolton reportedly told Trump about Russian bounties for killing U.S. troops in early 2019\

Yeah, no need to tell the president about this:

Russian Bounty Suspicions Were Supported by Financial Data - The New York Times

:roll:

So what are you going to do about Boltons statement in the Times. Ignore it?

Bolton said he didn’t know the quality of the intelligence on the Russian bounty plan, or the extent of it. And not all information that flows through the many U.S. intelligence agencies is passed on to the commander in chief, Bolton noted.

Clearly stating he never saw it and doesn't even know if it exist.

And then you will have to explain why the Chair of the Select Intelligence community (Adam Schiff) can't review the intelligence report that was supposedly provided to Trump.

Then you can explain why Pelosi is stating now, that the only reason Trump wasn't briefed is becasue he would have told Putin.

When you get those problems fixed, Give me a heads up. :lamo

 

[element94]

So what are you going to do about Boltons statement in the Times. Ignore it?



Clearly stating he never saw it and doesn't even know if it exist.

And then you will have to explain why the Chair of the Select Intelligence community (Adam Schiff) can't review the intelligence report that was supposedly provided to Trump.

Then you can explain why Pelosi is stating now, that the only reason Trump wasn't briefed is becasue he would have told Putin.

When you get those problems fixed, Give me a heads up. :lamo

How do you explain the statement that Bolton told colleagues he briefed Trump about it in 2019.

 

[Condor060]

How do you explain the statement that Bolton told colleagues he briefed Trump about it in 2019.

You mean all the way to the last comment of the article?

Bolton declined to comment to AP. :lamo

Yeah, thats some real reporting right there :lamo

Too bad they couldn't get Bolton to confirm it. :lamo

 

[element94]

You mean all the way to the last comment of the article?

Bolton declined to comment to AP. :lamo

Yeah, thats some real reporting right there :lamo

Too bad they couldn't get Bolton to confirm it. :lamo

Bolton is pushing his book, and has been talking out of both sides of his mouth, you can't cherry-pick what you like and claim victory. There's enough there to report on it. The colleagues need to be named. Until then, I'm afraid no victory.

 

[Condor060]

Bolton is pushing his book, and has been talking out of both sides of his mouth, you can't cherry-pick what you like and claim victory. There's enough there to report on it. The colleagues need to be named. Until then, I'm afraid no victory.

And you don't get to claim (Bolton said X) when the report clearly states Bolton had no comment in your own provided link.

 

[Thoreau72]

Did the Syrian Government commit genocide?

I doubt it.

 

[element94]

And you don't get to claim (Bolton said X) when the report clearly states Bolton had no comment in your own provided link.

The report said Bolton told colleagues that he briefed Trump on the Russian bounties to kill American soldiers last year, so apparently the information is there, and I said these colleagues' names should be made public, but I understand they may be in compromising positions for now.
Since your are so dogged for the truth, explain Trump's statement for the last 4 months that the Coronavirus is going to go away, and magically disappear, which he said again a few days ago while the country continues to set records for cases and deaths? I guess it's OK with you that he can claim that without any rational evidence when in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[element94]

I doubt it.

OK. Question # 2: Did the U.S. go to the moon in 1969?

 

[Thoreau72]

OK. Question # 2: Did the U.S. go to the moon in 1969?

I think that it did.

 

[element94]

Did the Syrian Government commit genocide?

I doubt it.

Why do you doubt that Assad's government is committing genocide despite firsthand reports, and evidence that it is?

 

[Thoreau72]

Why do you doubt that Assad's government is committing genocide despite firsthand reports, and evidence that it is?

Because those "firsthand reports" come from the White Helmets.

He too is legitimately elected, several times.

The WH are notorious propagandists and more.

 

[element94]

Because those "firsthand reports" come from the White Helmets.

He too is legitimately elected, several times.

The WH are notorious propagandists and more.

Do you also doubt the number of deaths?

 

[Thoreau72]

Do you also doubt the number of deaths?

I am most skeptical of ANY claims made by western media. The number of deaths are mostly irrelevant. Shameful whatever the number, but irrelevant.

Propaganda is practiced 24/7

Russia and Syria have the legal and moral high ground, even as those committing military aggression carry on.

 

[element94]

Surely if you believe in democracy you would at least be alarmed by such an excessive response from a totalitarian government.

 

[bluesmoke]

The US routinely overthrows legitimate governments all over the world, including Syria. It does that in Syria because we are doing Israel's dirty work for them, sacrificing US soldiers so that Israelis won't have to die, and to advance the Zionist notion of Greater Israel.

The US and Israel, in moral terms, occupy the moral sewer.

Russia is by comparison, very much on the moral high ground regarding their actions in Syria.

Define "Greater Israel".

What is the "moral sewer", comparatively, to what it is Syria and Russia occupy? And, thereby, please describe this "moral high ground" by what actions Russia has taken in Syria.

 

[Thoreau72]

Define "Greater Israel".

What is the "moral sewer", comparatively, to what it is Syria and Russia occupy? And, thereby, please describe this "moral high ground" by what actions Russia has taken in Syria.

On a simple level, call it a legal level, international law to which we are signatory proscribes military aggression. What we do in the mideast including Syria is military aggression.

In this case the legal status parallels the moral status. In this case what is illegal is also immoral.

Syria is and has been a country recognized by the UN and the world. Our attempting to overthrow it is, therefore, illegal. We overthrow legitimate governments around the world all the time. We did it in Bolivia, most of central and south america, and we are doing it in Venezuela.

Russia was invited to defend its ally Syria, and Putin appeared before the UN to make public his lawful plans to assist their ally.

Can you see the moral and legal differences between the Russian actions and ours?

Greater Israel is a term some Israelis use to describe their goal of incorporating adjacent and nearby real estate into their country, just as they are planning to do with the west bank right now.

 

[bluesmoke]

On a simple level, call it a legal level, international law to which we are signatory proscribes military aggression. What we do in the mideast including Syria is military aggression.

In this case the legal status parallels the moral status. In this case what is illegal is also immoral.

Syria is and has been a country recognized by the UN and the world. Our attempting to overthrow it is, therefore, illegal. We overthrow legitimate governments around the world all the time. We did it in Bolivia, most of central and south america, and we are doing it in Venezuela.

Russia was invited to defend its ally Syria, and Putin appeared before the UN to make public his lawful plans to assist their ally.

Can you see the moral and legal differences between the Russian actions and ours?

Greater Israel is a term some Israelis use to describe their goal of incorporating adjacent and nearby real estate into their country, just as they are planning to do with the west bank right now.

On a legal level, the UN is the arbiter of what constitutes aggression that rises to the level of being determined illegal when considering all facts, as is stated in the UN definition of “aggression”. The US pointed-out that Syria’s use of chemical weapon constituted aggression in violation of the UN with no other fact to consider.

What the US did was not illegal. If you say ALL war is immoral, then call it an immoral action against a more immoral action by Syria’s use of chemical weapon.

What do you mean “overthrow”? What does the UN say?

Legal diff btx the US and Russia is Russia was invited but the US used aggression due to Syria’s use of chemical weapon. Both are legal as neither has been determined illegal by the UN. I think on balance, though, Russia has the edge.

The moral diff is that Russia was coming in to defend a nation that uses chemical weapon. The US was coming in to attack a nation.

Thx for your def of "Greater Israel."

 

[Thoreau72]

On a legal level, the UN is the arbiter of what constitutes aggression that rises to the level of being determined illegal when considering all facts, as is stated in the UN definition of “aggression”. The US pointed-out that Syria’s use of chemical weapon constituted aggression in violation of the UN with no other fact to consider.

What the US did was not illegal. If you say ALL war is immoral, then call it an immoral action against a more immoral action by Syria’s use of chemical weapon.

What do you mean “overthrow”? What does the UN say?

Legal diff btx the US and Russia is Russia was invited but the US used aggression due to Syria’s use of chemical weapon. Both are legal as neither has been determined illegal by the UN. I think on balance, though, Russia has the edge.

The moral diff is that Russia was coming in to defend a nation that uses chemical weapon. The US was coming in to attack a nation.

Thx for your def of "Greater Israel."

If you still believe that Assad was gassing his own people, you and I have nowhere to go.

OPCW made it all up about Douma, and numerous whistleblowers from within the organization made that clear a year ago or more.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

Congrats Bluesmoke, those disinformation efforts have formed your worldview. That you here defend military aggression proves it.

 

[bluesmoke]

If you still believe that Assad was gassing his own people, you and I have nowhere to go.

OPCW made it all up about Douma, and numerous whistleblowers from within the organization made that clear a year ago or more.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

Congrats Bluesmoke, those disinformation efforts have formed your worldview. That you here defend military aggression proves it.

I don’t believe Assad is gassing his own people, now. I only said so when he was doing so at a time that justified US entry to Syria.

I never said I supported entry to Syria. I only gave the facts that supported our entry to Syria.

I did not, in my post, defend military aggression as defined by the UN. In the case of Syria, IMO, the gassing was an excuse that the UN never supported. The UN just never condemned or said it was wrong.

I TOLD you that Russia had the legal edge as respects Syria compared to the US, and the US had the moral edge compared to Russia. I did not and do not defend either country for either reason.

So, you formed your opinion of my worldview based on your reading what I was saying to fit into your narrative. Your claim that I defend military aggression is a false claim, which you can’t prove, and w/o having brought forth any evidence is an unfounded claim and need not be debated further by me.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don’t believe Assad is gassing his own people, now. I only said so when he was doing so at a time that justified US entry to Syria.

I never said I supported entry to Syria. I only gave the facts that supported our entry to Syria.

I did not, in my post, defend military aggression as defined by the UN. In the case of Syria, IMO, the gassing was an excuse that the UN never supported. The UN just never condemned or said it was wrong.

I TOLD you that Russia had the legal edge as respects Syria compared to the US, and the US had the moral edge compared to Russia. I did not and do not defend either country for either reason.

So, you formed your opinion of my worldview based on your reading what I was saying to fit into your narrative. Your claim that I defend military aggression is a false claim, which you can’t prove, and w/o having brought forth any evidence is an unfounded claim and need not be debated further by me.

Thanks for elaborating.

 

[bluesmoke]

Thanks for elaborating.

You got it.