Was Russia just bombed because Russia kills children in Syria?

[Theowl32]

And, Iran has been attacking countries since the Mullahs took over, moron; they're just chickenshit about it and use proxies.

Do not fall for this lie. If an attack on any country can be justified by claiming that country is using "proxies" to attack you, then we are at the mercy of Intel, because that is where the proof would have to come from and they can provide "proof" of anything. If nothing else, Trump's election has shown us that patriotism is not the guiding principle when it comes to the actions of Intel. Recall, these are the same people who fed Bush II the phony intelligence that tricked George W Bush, may his name live in infamy, to launch the war on Iraq in the first place.

Hezbollah is Iranian funded and trained. Iranian officers are stationed permanently and liaisons and advisors with them, and also with various Shia gangs in Iraq, so no, it isn't a lie, it's a certainty has has been for for at least 20 years. As for Bush, he did make a mistake looking around for some reason to finish off the Saddam animal, but he didn't need one, since Saddam violated the cease fire agreements almost daily for years, far more than enough reason to crush the vermin, so the 'fake intel' is a moot issue. A better CinC would have crushed him on the second violation if not the first.

Fake intel is not a moot issue. Fake intel is what was given to the dupe, Colin Powell, with which he gave the speech before the UN, which launched the war. Even if it weren't crucial to the declaration of war, the fact that our so-called ally, Israel, was behind it is enough to prove to any American with the integrity to look that there is a fox in the hen house.

Do you even know who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs?

Do you know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by your beloved NY Times?

Do you know saddams own son in laws revealed his intentions and they were both executed?

Oh back to that beloved NY Times article that you will ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...mical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html?_r=0

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND
BY AMERICAN FORCES IN IRAQ
Between 2004 and 2011, American
forces in Iraq encountered thousands of
chemical munitions. In several cases,
troops were exposed to chemical agents.

-----------------
All of you liberals are fucking miserable piles of shit. You all lie about everything. None of you are worth my time.

You stupid fucking liars.

 

[Doc1]

Think outside of the box, I think it was a Deep State warning to Trump, play a long or else.

 

[cnelsen]

And, Iran has been attacking countries since the Mullahs took over, moron; they're just chickenshit about it and use proxies.

Do not fall for this lie. If an attack on any country can be justified by claiming that country is using "proxies" to attack you, then we are at the mercy of Intel, because that is where the proof would have to come from and they can provide "proof" of anything. If nothing else, Trump's election has shown us that patriotism is not the guiding principle when it comes to the actions of Intel. Recall, these are the same people who fed Bush II the phony intelligence that tricked George W Bush, may his name live in infamy, to launch the war on Iraq in the first place.

Hezbollah is Iranian funded and trained. Iranian officers are stationed permanently and liaisons and advisors with them, and also with various Shia gangs in Iraq, so no, it isn't a lie, it's a certainty has has been for for at least 20 years. As for Bush, he did make a mistake looking around for some reason to finish off the Saddam animal, but he didn't need one, since Saddam violated the cease fire agreements almost daily for years, far more than enough reason to crush the vermin, so the 'fake intel' is a moot issue. A better CinC would have crushed him on the second violation if not the first.

Fake intel is not a moot issue. Fake intel is what was given to the dupe, Colin Powell, with which he gave the speech before the UN, which launched the war. Even if it weren't crucial to the declaration of war, the fact that our so-called ally, Israel, was behind it is enough to prove to any American with the integrity to look that there is a fox in the hen house.

Do you even know who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs?

Do you know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by your beloved NY Times?

Do you know saddams own son in laws revealed his intentions and they were both executed?

Oh back to that beloved NY Times article that you will ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...mical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html?_r=0

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND
BY AMERICAN FORCES IN IRAQ
Between 2004 and 2011, American
forces in Iraq encountered thousands of
chemical munitions. In several cases,
troops were exposed to chemical agents.

-----------------
All of you liberals are fucking miserable piles of shit. You all lie about everything. None of you are worth my time.

You stupid fucking liars.

Calm down, Mabel. In the first place, the hated New York Times has an agenda, doesn't it, and was just caught sitting on the Susan Rice story, so hardly the authoritative source. In the second place, weapons of mass destruction isn't the same thing as chemical weapons. Who knows how many countries have stockpiles of mustard gas?

Iraq had nothing that could have threatened us. We were lied into the war. It was an enormous blunder for which our descendants will pay.

The real cause of that "war" was Jewish blood lust. You may not have the brains to see it or the integrity to admit it, but that doesn't change the the truth.

 

[Picaro]

And, Iran has been attacking countries since the Mullahs took over, moron; they're just chickenshit about it and use proxies.

Do not fall for this lie. If an attack on any country can be justified by claiming that country is using "proxies" to attack you, then we are at the mercy of Intel, because that is where the proof would have to come from and they can provide "proof" of anything. If nothing else, Trump's election has shown us that patriotism is not the guiding principle when it comes to the actions of Intel. Recall, these are the same people who fed Bush II the phony intelligence that tricked George W Bush, may his name live in infamy, to launch the war on Iraq in the first place.

Hezbollah is Iranian funded and trained. Iranian officers are stationed permanently and liaisons and advisors with them, and also with various Shia gangs in Iraq, so no, it isn't a lie, it's a certainty has has been for for at least 20 years. As for Bush, he did make a mistake looking around for some reason to finish off the Saddam animal, but he didn't need one, since Saddam violated the cease fire agreements almost daily for years, far more than enough reason to crush the vermin, so the 'fake intel' is a moot issue. A better CinC would have crushed him on the second violation if not the first.

Fake intel is not a moot issue. Fake intel is what was given to the dupe, Colin Powell, with which he gave the speech before the UN, which launched the war. Even if it weren't crucial to the declaration of war, the fact that our so-called ally, Israel, was behind it is enough to prove to any American with the integrity to look that there is a fox in the hen house.

Do you even know who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs?

Do you know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by your beloved NY Times?

Do you know saddams own son in laws revealed his intentions and they were both executed?

Oh back to that beloved NY Times article that you will ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...mical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html?_r=0

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND
BY AMERICAN FORCES IN IRAQ
Between 2004 and 2011, American
forces in Iraq encountered thousands of
chemical munitions. In several cases,
troops were exposed to chemical agents.

-----------------
All of you liberals are fucking miserable piles of shit. You all lie about everything. None of you are worth my time.

You stupid fucking liars.

Calm down, Mabel. In the first place, the hated New York Times has an agenda, doesn't it, and was just caught sitting on the Susan Rice story, so hardly the authoritative source. In the second place, weapons of mass destruction isn't the same thing as chemical weapons. Who knows how many countries have stockpiles of mustard gas?

Iraq had nothing that could have threatened us. We were lied into the war. It was an enormous blunder for which our descendants will pay.

The real cause of that "war" was Jewish blood lust. You may not have the brains to see it or the integrity to admit it, but that doesn't change the the truth.

So it was DA JOOOOS who ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait and then aim at Saudi Arabia? Fascinating stuff. they also ordered him to violate the cease fire almost daily for a long time as well? They're damn sneaky, aren't they? Real masterminds.

 

[cnelsen]

So it was DA JOOOOS who ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait and then aim at Saudi Arabia?

What is it about you people and lying? We were discussing the US invasion of Iraq, Shlomo.

 

[Picaro]

So it was DA JOOOOS who ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait and then aim at Saudi Arabia?

What is it about you people and lying? We were discussing the US invasion of Iraq, Shlomo.

I'm the Jew who gave the orders to go in, goy boy. You're a typical gentile moron and out of your league here. We rule everything, and you're only around because we don't like shining our own shoes or doing our own laundry, so pipe down.

 

[cnelsen]

So it was DA JOOOOS who ordered Saddam to invade Kuwait and then aim at Saudi Arabia?

What is it about you people and lying? We were discussing the US invasion of Iraq, Shlomo.

I'm the Jew who gave the orders to go in, goy boy. You're a typical gentile moron and out of your league here. We rule everything, and you're only around because we don't like shining our own shoes or doing our own laundry, so pipe down.

Rulers don't need to lie, pig.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Hello. As you may have heard, today a terrorist attack occurred in the subway of Saint Petersburg, Russia.
The culprits have not been identified yet, so let's be cautious. Anyway, I'd like to know if you think the fact that Russia has been killing lots of civilians in Syria (including children) has anything to do with their being targeted by terrorists. Thanks in advance.
‘Russian‘ bomb attacks kill 22 kids in Northern Syria as UK-funded schools are hit

I think you're a sick piece of shit. By trying to justify attacks on innocent civilians you indicate you have the same mindset and values as the terrorists who attacked the US on 911 or who carry out terror attacks in London or Paris or in Belgium. The kind of blind, stupid hatred you are expressing is Obama's legacy.

Same mentality?

Well, terrorists go and kill a dozen people, the US goes in and kills hundreds of thousands.

What is it they say? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And, Iran has been attacking countries since the Mullahs took over, moron; they're just chickenshit about it and use proxies.

Do not fall for this lie. If an attack on any country can be justified by claiming that country is using "proxies" to attack you, then we are at the mercy of Intel, because that is where the proof would have to come from and they can provide "proof" of anything. If nothing else, Trump's election has shown us that patriotism is not the guiding principle when it comes to the actions of Intel. Recall, these are the same people who fed Bush II the phony intelligence that tricked George W Bush, may his name live in infamy, to launch the war on Iraq in the first place.

Hezbollah is Iranian funded and trained. Iranian officers are stationed permanently and liaisons and advisors with them, and also with various Shia gangs in Iraq, so no, it isn't a lie, it's a certainty has has been for for at least 20 years. As for Bush, he did make a mistake looking around for some reason to finish off the Saddam animal, but he didn't need one, since Saddam violated the cease fire agreements almost daily for years, far more than enough reason to crush the vermin, so the 'fake intel' is a moot issue. A better CinC would have crushed him on the second violation if not the first.

Fake intel is not a moot issue. Fake intel is what was given to the dupe, Colin Powell, with which he gave the speech before the UN, which launched the war. Even if it weren't crucial to the declaration of war, the fact that our so-called ally, Israel, was behind it is enough to prove to any American with the integrity to look that there is a fox in the hen house.

Do you even know who signed the Iraq Liberation Act for WMDs?

Do you know wmds were in fact found in Iraq as reported by your beloved NY Times?

Do you know saddams own son in laws revealed his intentions and they were both executed?

Oh back to that beloved NY Times article that you will ignore.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...mical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html?_r=0

Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company, joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”

CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND
BY AMERICAN FORCES IN IRAQ
Between 2004 and 2011, American
forces in Iraq encountered thousands of
chemical munitions. In several cases,
troops were exposed to chemical agents.

-----------------
All of you liberals are fucking miserable piles of shit. You all lie about everything. None of you are worth my time.

You stupid fucking liars.

None of that says that Bush didn't have intelligence go make stuff up though, and we know they did, because the Senate has proven this to be the case.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hello. As you may have heard, today a terrorist attack occurred in the subway of Saint Petersburg, Russia.
The culprits have not been identified yet, so let's be cautious. Anyway, I'd like to know if you think the fact that Russia has been killing lots of civilians in Syria (including children) has anything to do with their being targeted by terrorists. Thanks in advance.
‘Russian‘ bomb attacks kill 22 kids in Northern Syria as UK-funded schools are hit

I think you're a sick piece of shit. By trying to justify attacks on innocent civilians you indicate you have the same mindset and values as the terrorists who attacked the US on 911 or who carry out terror attacks in London or Paris or in Belgium. The kind of blind, stupid hatred you are expressing is Obama's legacy.

Same mentality?

Well, terrorists go and kill a dozen people, the US goes in and kills hundreds of thousands.

What is it they say? One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

If you justify acts of terrorism then, yes, you have the same mentality as the terrorists. The US does kill large numbers of innocent civilians during wars, but it does not target them. The wars are fought to effect critical changes and sometimes we succeed in effecting those changes, but acts of terrorism never bring about political change. They are purely hate crimes.

 

[cnelsen]

What drivel.

If you justify acts of terrorism then, yes, you have the same mentality as the terrorists.

Yes, and if you justify war, you have the same mentality as a warmonger. And if you justify child abuse you have the same mentality as a child abuser. And if you justify Madonna, you have the same mentality as a cum dump. So what? What's that supposed to prove? "Mentality" never killed anyone. Only actions kill.

The US does kill large numbers of innocent civilians during wars, but it does not target them.

Well, I'm sure the victims will be glad to hear they weren't "targeted". And the scale isn't even close. Here is an eight minute video of us "not targeting" some civilians. Real footage. I challenge you to stomach watching to the end (unless you are Jewish, in which case you'll masturbate to it).

The wars are fought to effect critical changes and sometimes we succeed in effecting those changes, but acts of terrorism never bring about political change. They are purely hate crimes.

Really? Is that the difference between war and terrorism? Wars are fought to effect "critical change" and terrorism is not? Buffoon. And as long as the goal of the war is to win some kind of "critical change", then it's bombs away? Jackass. Do you think the terrorist blows up a train because he hates the commuters? Whereas when we bomb civilians, it's an act of benevolence?

 

[toomuchtime_]

What drivel.

If you justify acts of terrorism then, yes, you have the same mentality as the terrorists.

Yes, and if you justify war, you have the same mentality as a warmonger. And if you justify child abuse you have the same mentality as a child abuser. And if you justify Madonna, you have the same mentality as a cum dump. So what? What's that supposed to prove? "Mentality" never killed anyone. Only actions kill.

The US does kill large numbers of innocent civilians during wars, but it does not target them.

Well, I'm sure the victims will be glad to hear they weren't "targeted". And the scale isn't even close. Here is an eight minute video of us "not targeting" some civilians. Real footage. I challenge you to stomach watching to the end (unless you are Jewish, in which case you'll masturbate to it).

The wars are fought to effect critical changes and sometimes we succeed in effecting those changes, but acts of terrorism never bring about political change. They are purely hate crimes.

Really? Is that the difference between war and terrorism? Wars are fought to effect "critical change" and terrorism is not? Buffoon. And as long as the goal of the war is to win some kind of "critical change", then it's bombs away? Jackass. Do you think the terrorist blows up a train because he hates the commuters? Whereas when we bomb civilians, it's an act of benevolence?

In other words you think gassing Syrian civilians is as legitimate an act as taking down nazi Germany.

 

[cnelsen]

In other words you think gassing Syrian civilians is as legitimate an act as taking down nazi Germany.

Are you going to argue that between fire-bombing German civilians in Dresden and gassing civilians in Syria there is a moral distinction?

 

[toomuchtime_]

In other words you think gassing Syrian civilians is as legitimate an act as taking down nazi Germany.

Are you going to argue that between fire-bombing German civilians in Dresden and gassing civilians in Syria there is a moral distinction?

Ok, so you are saying that gassing civilians in Syria is as legitimate an act as bringing down nazi Germany.

 

[cnelsen]

Ok, so you are saying that gassing civilians in Syria is as legitimate an act as bringing down nazi Germany.

No I'm not. I'm saying there is moral equivalence between gassing civilians in Syria and fire-bombing civilians in Dresden.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok, so you are saying that gassing civilians in Syria is as legitimate an act as bringing down nazi Germany.

No I'm not. I'm saying there is moral equivalence between gassing civilians in Syria and fire-bombing civilians in Dresden.

No, there isn't. It's not a question of how many people were killed but why were they killed. Taking down nazi Germany was a feasible goal, and Churchill unfortunately believed that bombing the cities would undermine the moral of the German people and hasten the end of the war. It was a ghastly error in judgement, but not a hate crime. No rational person would believe bombing a subway in Russia would change Russia's policies in Syria, so this was a crime that could achieve no real end other than the deaths of innocent civilians, hence, just a hate crime.

 

[cnelsen]

That may be your take, but the people placing the bombs don't believe they can achieve no real end. And if Islam and the West are locked in an existential struggle, Islam with its terrorism is closer to eradicating the West than the West is to eradicating Islam.

 

[GaryDog]

That may be your take, but the people placing the bombs don't believe they can achieve no real end. And if Islam and the West are locked in an existential struggle, Islam with its terrorism is closer to eradicating the West than the West is to eradicating Islam.

That's a dubious claim.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That may be your take, but the people placing the bombs don't believe they can achieve no real end. And if Islam and the West are locked in an existential struggle, Islam with its terrorism is closer to eradicating the West than the West is to eradicating Islam.

There is a conflict of cultures but it is not and existential struggle. If the people planting the bombs, detonating himself in this case, believe these acts will change anything in the world, then they are either stupid or crazy. It they are not stupid or crazy, then they can only be motivated by hate and not any expectation of achieving a political goal.

 

[cnelsen]

That may be your take, but the people placing the bombs don't believe they can achieve no real end. And if Islam and the West are locked in an existential struggle, Islam with its terrorism is closer to eradicating the West than the West is to eradicating Islam.

That's a dubious claim.

France is gone. Much of England is gone. Sweden is gone. Canada is gone. Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, Greece, and Belgium are nearly gone. Meanwhile, Islam grows stronger everywhere, and we still demonstrate against efforts to impose the merest whisper of a curtailing, our treasonous judiciary is throwing open the city gates while we sleep, our treasonous media outright lies to us to keep those gates open, and our stealth enemies in Hollywood poison our people with a false history and a false religion and a false culture to the point we can't even resist anymore. Yeah, if I had to bet, my money is on Islam.