Syria Gas Attack: Assad's Doing... Or False Flag? [VIDEO]...

[dannyboys]

Let's see, while Obama mumbled Assad must go all of his actions actually empowered Assad, and now Tillerson is saying Assad doesn't necessarily have to go, so where do you get the idea the West is so invested in regime change?

They're trying to suck Trump in. Hopefully he won't take the bait. But i suspect Trump is gonna escalate our involvement. This False Flag event makes it very difficult for him. I see a bigger bloodier intervention coming.

Trump has shown no indication of wanting to take down Assad. He is talking about destroying ISIS only and that will actually strengthen Assad.

Yes, but this False Flag event puts a lot of pressure on him to escalate the war. I hope he doesn't get sucked in, but i'm afraid he is gonna take the bait.

To escalate what war? The US is only fighting ISIS in Syria.

No, the goal is 'Regime Change.' That's why we're there. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Otherwise, war there will be endless.

FOR FUCK SAKE TELL US WHAT REGIME CHANGE MEANS!!!!! What "regime" are you claiming wants to take over Syria!!!!!!
This should be hilarious!

 

[Dschrute3]

They're trying to suck Trump in. Hopefully he won't take the bait. But i suspect Trump is gonna escalate our involvement. This False Flag event makes it very difficult for him. I see a bigger bloodier intervention coming.

Trump has shown no indication of wanting to take down Assad. He is talking about destroying ISIS only and that will actually strengthen Assad.

Yes, but this False Flag event puts a lot of pressure on him to escalate the war. I hope he doesn't get sucked in, but i'm afraid he is gonna take the bait.

To escalate what war? The US is only fighting ISIS in Syria.

No, the goal is 'Regime Change.' That's why we're there. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Otherwise, war there will be endless.

FOR FUCK SAKE TELL US WHAT REGIME CHANGE MEANS!!!!! What "regime" are you claiming wants to take over Syria!!!!!!
This should be hilarious!

'Regime Change' was declared by the US/West and Saudi Arabia. But they have no right to do so. We have no business being in Syria.

 

[radical right]

It's just political talk. Everyone will express outrage but no one will be willing to do anything about it, and that makes sense because using chemical weapons of civilians is no worse than dropping barrel bombs on them and the world seems quite content for that to continue.

The most difficult fighting is like we faced in Mosul. Where the enemy digs in, and we have to fight them, house to house, block by block, facing large casualities to take back the town. What better way for Assad to defeat the rebels, than to just drop nerve gas, and kill everybody no matter where they hid, no matter how fortified they were, or how well armed, or how many booby traps they set. The ultimate way to get rid of the people, while leaving the city intact.

 

[Dschrute3]

It's just political talk. Everyone will express outrage but no one will be willing to do anything about it, and that makes sense because using chemical weapons of civilians is no worse than dropping barrel bombs on them and the world seems quite content for that to continue.

The most difficult fighting is like we faced in Mosul. Where the enemy digs in, and we have to fight them, house to house, block by block, facing large casualities to take back the town. What better way for Assad to defeat the rebels, than to just drop nerve gas, and kill everybody no matter where they hid, no matter how fortified they were, or how well armed, or how many booby traps they set. The ultimate way to get rid of the people, while leaving the city intact.

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Let's see, while Obama mumbled Assad must go all of his actions actually empowered Assad, and now Tillerson is saying Assad doesn't necessarily have to go, so where do you get the idea the West is so invested in regime change?

They're trying to suck Trump in. Hopefully he won't take the bait. But i suspect Trump is gonna escalate our involvement. This False Flag event makes it very difficult for him. I see a bigger bloodier intervention coming.

Trump has shown no indication of wanting to take down Assad. He is talking about destroying ISIS only and that will actually strengthen Assad.

Yes, but this False Flag event puts a lot of pressure on him to escalate the war. I hope he doesn't get sucked in, but i'm afraid he is gonna take the bait.

To escalate what war? The US is only fighting ISIS in Syria.

No, the goal is 'Regime Change.' That's why we're there. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Otherwise, war there will be endless.

Whose goal is it? We are there to fight ISIS not for regime change. There is no disengagement policy possible from the ME. When Obama pulled out of Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon and then refused to act to end the war in Syria, the whole ME went up in flames and flooded Europe with refugees who are about to bring down the EU. When America leaves, other countries like Russia and Iran move in to fill the power vacuum we leave behind and we have just seen how an American disengagement from Iraq is threatening to take down the EU.

There are no simple answers. America first doesn't mean disengagement for the rest of the world; it means we only become engaged in foreign problems only when they effect American interests, but today American interests are so widespread and intricately intertwined with the interests of many other nations, that America first requires a very nuanced analysis of when American interests are threatened.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its just a fact. The US economy is set up for war. The Russian gdp is similar to Italy. All of the wealth in Russia is stashed off shore in Panama and London mansions. How long would they be able to carry on ?

First Russia has the home field advantage, ie they're a lot closer, and don't have to fly their forces half way around the world. They don't have to fight a sustained war, just make it impossible for the US to get a foot hold, and see if America has the will to launch another D-day.

America would have to do very little. Putin punches above his weight but in reality they have fuck all.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Let's see, while Obama mumbled Assad must go all of his actions actually empowered Assad, and now Tillerson is saying Assad doesn't necessarily have to go, so where do you get the idea the West is so invested in regime change?

Just last week Trump through both Rex Tillerson and Nicky Barber said that regime change is off the table. We're leaving it to the Russians to do anything about Assad. And all the Russians will do is veto a UN security counsel resolution to do anything about it.

So why would Assad fuck up the good will by cooking babies fromthe sky? Why would Assad want to enrage the whole world? It makes no sense at all.

But those who are out there and have been involved in wanting to overthrow Assad all these years, they needed the world to be enraged. They need the planet pissed off.

This 'Chemical Weapons Attack' only benefits the 'Regime Change' folks. It's clearly a False Flag event.

No one is calling for regime who isn't already in the war.

Who does this 'Chemical Weapons Attack' benefit the most? Think on it some. Why would Assad do it?

I already explained why. Assad cannot gain or keep control of Syria anymore without surrendering much of this authority and Syria's sovereignty to Iran and Russia. Chemical weapons are no more effective in killing people than conventional bombs are, but they are uniquely effective in demoralizing populations, so the fear of falling victim to a chemical attack could allow Assad to keep control of his country without being so heavily dependent on Iran and Russia.

 

[radical right]

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

Sometimes it's all about right to life. Protecting the innocent from being killed during their 40th trimester.

 

[Dschrute3]

They're trying to suck Trump in. Hopefully he won't take the bait. But i suspect Trump is gonna escalate our involvement. This False Flag event makes it very difficult for him. I see a bigger bloodier intervention coming.

Trump has shown no indication of wanting to take down Assad. He is talking about destroying ISIS only and that will actually strengthen Assad.

Yes, but this False Flag event puts a lot of pressure on him to escalate the war. I hope he doesn't get sucked in, but i'm afraid he is gonna take the bait.

To escalate what war? The US is only fighting ISIS in Syria.

No, the goal is 'Regime Change.' That's why we're there. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Otherwise, war there will be endless.

Whose goal is it? We are there to fight ISIS not for regime change. There is no disengagement policy possible from the ME. When Obama pulled out of Iraq against the advice of the Pentagon and then refused to act to end the war in Syria, the whole ME went up in flames and flooded Europe with refugees who are about to bring down the EU. When America leaves, other countries like Russia and Iran move in to fill the power vacuum we leave behind and we have just seen how an American disengagement from Iraq is threatening to take down the EU.

There are no simple answers. America first doesn't mean disengagement for the rest of the world; it means we only become engaged in foreign problems only when they effect American interests, but today American interests are so widespread and intricately intertwined with the interests of many other nations, that America first requires a very nuanced analysis of when American interests are threatened.

Let's get out. We don't belong in Syria. It isn't, and never has been a threat to the US. We had no right to invade. What if other nations treated out nation like that? It's time for a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Enough is enough.

 

[Dschrute3]

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

Sometimes it's all about right to life. Protecting the innocent from being killed during their 40th trimester.

Ok.

 

[radical right]

I already explained why. Assad cannot gain or keep control of Syria anymore without surrendering much of this authority and Syria's sovereignty to Iran and Russia. Chemical weapons are no more effective in killing people than conventional bombs are, but they are uniquely effective in demoralizing populations, so the fear of falling victim to a chemical attack could allow Assad to keep control of his country without being so heavily dependent on Iran and Russia.

Chemical weapons, like all weapons of mass destruction are very effective at indiscriminately killing large numbers of people. They're banned because they're so effective, but without any safeguards for non-combatants. They're at the mercy of the wind, so they're not accurately targetable like bullets or bombs. They are great when you don't care about civilians.

 

[EverCurious]

Who knows. Thanks to the fucking morons in this country the world at large thinks that half the US is now Russian, maybe some dipshit thought they'd not get their balls in a vice because of that.

This is the kind of shit that happens when you let biased media run the news. You lose face in the world. No longer seen as America beacon of freedom because liberal twats have to lie and throw tantrums over power and control - despite the voice of America in the election...

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's just political talk. Everyone will express outrage but no one will be willing to do anything about it, and that makes sense because using chemical weapons of civilians is no worse than dropping barrel bombs on them and the world seems quite content for that to continue.

The most difficult fighting is like we faced in Mosul. Where the enemy digs in, and we have to fight them, house to house, block by block, facing large casualities to take back the town. What better way for Assad to defeat the rebels, than to just drop nerve gas, and kill everybody no matter where they hid, no matter how fortified they were, or how well armed, or how many booby traps they set. The ultimate way to get rid of the people, while leaving the city intact.

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

It's not that simple. What would have happened if we had never gone into Iraq? Sadam would have continued his conquests down the Gulf Coast conquering much of the world's oil supply and holding the global economy the the balls. This would clearly have threatened American interests. The question about going into the second Iraq war comes down to this: how long would it have been possible to contain Iraq with sanctions enforced by the UN?

As for Syria, we are only in Syria to fight ISIS and we are only doing that because it was not politically feasible to watch the ISIS videos and not respond.

 

[bodecea]

Love the righteous indignation coming out of the US on this issue.
How many Syrian "little children" did you bomb last week ?

False Flag...they used the same "little children" agency as they used for the Sandy Hook false flag.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Love the righteous indignation coming out of the US on this issue.
How many Syrian "little children" did you bomb last week ?

We like to refer to them as 'pre-terrorists'

Who's the 'we'? You and your bunker mates?

 

[Dschrute3]

It's just political talk. Everyone will express outrage but no one will be willing to do anything about it, and that makes sense because using chemical weapons of civilians is no worse than dropping barrel bombs on them and the world seems quite content for that to continue.

The most difficult fighting is like we faced in Mosul. Where the enemy digs in, and we have to fight them, house to house, block by block, facing large casualities to take back the town. What better way for Assad to defeat the rebels, than to just drop nerve gas, and kill everybody no matter where they hid, no matter how fortified they were, or how well armed, or how many booby traps they set. The ultimate way to get rid of the people, while leaving the city intact.

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

It's not that simple. What would have happened if we had never gone into Iraq? Sadam would have continued his conquests down the Gulf Coast conquering much of the world's oil supply and holding the global economy the the balls. This would clearly have threatened American interests. The question about going into the second Iraq war comes down to this: how long would it have been possible to contain Iraq with sanctions enforced by the UN?

As for Syria, we are only in Syria to fight ISIS and we are only doing that because it was not politically feasible to watch the ISIS videos and not respond.

Come on now, seriously? Iraq was decimated by years of sanctions and a 'No-Fly Zone.' It barely had a military. It was not a threat to the US. The invasion was a completely unnecessary catastrophic blunder. All it achieved was, killing Thousands of innocents and handing the country over to Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. It's time to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Enough is enough.

 

[bodecea]

What happened to BARRY'S RED LINE if Assad used Chemical Weapons from 2013?

He wasn't just full of shit and talking out of his ass, was he?



“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Last time I checked, Former President Obama is not the CinC anymore. Haven't you heard?

 

[bodecea]

It's just political talk. Everyone will express outrage but no one will be willing to do anything about it, and that makes sense because using chemical weapons of civilians is no worse than dropping barrel bombs on them and the world seems quite content for that to continue.

The most difficult fighting is like we faced in Mosul. Where the enemy digs in, and we have to fight them, house to house, block by block, facing large casualities to take back the town. What better way for Assad to defeat the rebels, than to just drop nerve gas, and kill everybody no matter where they hid, no matter how fortified they were, or how well armed, or how many booby traps they set. The ultimate way to get rid of the people, while leaving the city intact.

We shouldn't be in Iraq and Syria to begin with. That's what you misguided Warmongers don't get. Both nations were never a threat to the US. So why are we there?

It's not that simple. What would have happened if we had never gone into Iraq? Sadam would have continued his conquests down the Gulf Coast conquering much of the world's oil supply and holding the global economy the the balls. This would clearly have threatened American interests. The question about going into the second Iraq war comes down to this: how long would it have been possible to contain Iraq with sanctions enforced by the UN?

As for Syria, we are only in Syria to fight ISIS and we are only doing that because it was not politically feasible to watch the ISIS videos and not respond.

Come on now, seriously? Iraq was decimated by years of sanctions and a 'No-Fly Zone.' It barely had a military. It was not a threat to the US. The invasion was a completely unnecessary catastrophic blunder. All it achieved was, killing Thousands of innocents and handing the country over to Shiites who are aligned with Shiite Iran. It's time to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Enough is enough.

And now all the christians are gone from there too.

 

[Dschrute3]

Love the righteous indignation coming out of the US on this issue.
How many Syrian "little children" did you bomb last week ?

False Flag...they used the same "little children" agency as they used for the Sandy Hook false flag.

Yes, bring up Sandy Hook to distract from the horrific US foreign policy in the Middle East. Nice try, but no cigar.

 

[tinydancer]

They're trying to suck Trump in. Hopefully he won't take the bait. But i suspect Trump is gonna escalate our involvement. This False Flag event makes it very difficult for him. I see a bigger bloodier intervention coming.

Trump has shown no indication of wanting to take down Assad. He is talking about destroying ISIS only and that will actually strengthen Assad.

Yes, but this False Flag event puts a lot of pressure on him to escalate the war. I hope he doesn't get sucked in, but i'm afraid he is gonna take the bait.

To escalate what war? The US is only fighting ISIS in Syria.

No, the goal is 'Regime Change.' That's why we're there. It's a very sad tragic foreign policy. We need to adopt a disengagement policy in the Middle East. Otherwise, war there will be endless.

FOR FUCK SAKE TELL US WHAT REGIME CHANGE MEANS!!!!! What "regime" are you claiming wants to take over Syria!!!!!!
This should be hilarious!

It's been out there for forever. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and at one point Turkey were hoping to install a Sunni regime, the Muslim Brotherhood. The CIA has been involved in assisting the Gulf States right from the beginning by helping get cash and weapons to these so called rebels who were just paid mercenaries.