Why am I supposed to care about Chemical Weapons in Syria?

[gipper]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.

I think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

...and besides, if Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago, how could he use chemical weapons now?

 

[Camp]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

It was the key that prevented his military from being bombed from airstrikes. He had no choice.

 

[Camp]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.

I think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

...and besides, if Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago, how could he use chemical weapons now?

He did not give up his ability to produce new ones and you have to trust the Russians to believe he gave of the original weapons in full.

 

[Lewdog]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

 

[Lewdog]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.

I think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

...and besides, if Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago, how could he use chemical weapons now?

He did not give up his ability to produce new ones and you have to trust the Russians to believe he gave of the original weapons in full.

It actually ended up being several countries involved through the UN.

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons - Wikipedia

 

[easyt65]

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

1. When a superior force tells you they will kick your ass if you don't get rid of your chemical weapons then you get rid of your chemical weapons.

2. If al-Assad just gassed his people then it stands to reason he didn't get rid of all of his chemical weapons, right? (I guess when your protector is Putin / Russia you don't have to comply with the ultimatum...)
-- CAMP: He did not give up his ability to make more.

Good point.

 

[gipper]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

 

[Lewdog]

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

1. When a superior force tells you they will kick your ass if you don't get rid of your chemical weapons then you get rid of your chemical weapons.

2. If al-Assad just gassed his people then it stands to reason he didn't get rid of all of his chemical weapons, right?

Or they just made more. It's just like a meth head in Kentucky. They get busted for it and lose their stash...they go to jail for a few months and then are right back out cooking the shit again.

 

[Lewdog]

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

 

[gipper]

It is probably a false flag designed to entangle the USA in another useless expensive deadly war.

Fuck that.

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.

I think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

...and besides, if Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago, how could he use chemical weapons now?

He did not give up his ability to produce new ones and you have to trust the Russians to believe he gave of the original weapons in full.

I do not believe anything Assad says. I also do not believe anything Obama or his people say.

 

[Camp]

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

After the invasion, we discovered Saddam had in fact gotten rid of his WMD's.

 

[gipper]

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.YeaI think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

 

[Camp]

I remember at the time Obama drew his famous red line in the sand, promising to attack if they used WMD's. Then once Syria used them, it got 24/7 media attention as the media was used to generate support for the war effort. Then something inexplicable happened. Poll numbers did not increase for support for the war. The media's effort to generate support for war failed.

Agreed, but it was worse than that.

It is likely that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons attack in 2012. Notice how the media since then continues to claim Assad did the attack in 2012, but never has proved Assad guilty.

I think it more likely ISIS (then supported by Obama with arms from Libya) or other rebel groups are the culprit for the attack in 2012. Their intention was to bring in the USA to help remove Assad. Thankfully that did not happen.

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

...and besides, if Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago, how could he use chemical weapons now?

He did not give up his ability to produce new ones and you have to trust the Russians to believe he gave of the original weapons in full.

I do not believe anything Assad says. I also do not believe anything Obama or his people say.

Do you believe that lying dufus trump?

 

[Lewdog]

If he wasn't guilty then why did he have to turn over the chemical weapons, chemical weapons that it is against international law to make and have, to Russia?

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

 

[TNHarley]

I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going.

As far as the Nazis. They were after world domination and should have been stopped much sooner. We learned that in WW2. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

So you think it should be up to us how other countries run? Frankly, we cant even run ours correctly.
Trust me, you (not you specifically) don't know whats better for someone else.

 

[gipper]

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

BS...no legitimate proof has EVER been provided proving Assad used chemical weapons in 2012.

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah...cause guilty people gladly expose themselves. Do you fail to recognize how dumb that is?

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

can I get a link to that? Just one would suffice. I would like to know which one it was. The rebels have captured ALOT of weapons from the Syrian govt.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm not reading the whole tirade but chemical wmd should be a concern of everybody. The world decided on it in WW1 after so many suffered so horribly. It only leads to even greater chemical, then biological. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see where that's going.

As far as the Nazis. They were after world domination and should have been stopped much sooner. We learned that in WW2. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

So you think it should be up to us how other countries run? Frankly, we cant even run ours correctly.
Trust me, you (not you specifically) don't know whats better for someone else.

I don't know if chemical weapons or Nazis aren't good for other countries? WTF?

 

[Lewdog]

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

can I get a link to that? Just one would suffice. I would like to know which one it was. The rebels have captured ALOT of weapons from the Syrian govt.

There's several out there. It was even in the UN report. And yes there was a caveat about rebels having some of those captured rockets, but they also added that the rockets came from a direction that was under Assad regime backed controlled area. Rebels shouldn't have been in that area to fire the rockets in that direction.

 

[TNHarley]

You've never dealt with criminals much have you? Or you don't really understand the "end game."

Syria ADMITTED they made and had chemical weapons they were not supposed to have under international law. FACT

The UN set up a plan to get their chemical weapons and destroy them. FACT

Several countries got involved and helped to get them and destroy them. FACT

Saddam did too....W really duped you too didn't he.

So I just proved you wrong and you changed the subject. How about you refute what I said instead?

So because Assad had chemical weapons he used them in 2012...that is your conclusion. That is nonsense.

He had chemical weapons he was not supposed to make or have... and reports from 3 different countries that investigated the attack said that the rockets were surface to surface from the Syrian government.

can I get a link to that? Just one would suffice. I would like to know which one it was. The rebels have captured ALOT of weapons from the Syrian govt.

I found it. It was the m-14. Which the rebels also have.