If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Social Reader)   UN says Syrian snipers have thoughtfully perforated the strongly-worded letter they were delivering to Assad   (socialreader.com) divider line 174
    More: Followup, snipers, Secretary-General, Syrians  
•       •       •

6314 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 10:06 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-26 10:09:42 AM
Now are we talking Marines in Fallujah sniper fire or Hillary in Bosnia sniper fire?
 
2013-08-26 10:12:54 AM
Ah have always relied on the "Kindness of Strangers Excuse of the Rebels."

www.doctormacro.com
 
2013-08-26 10:20:12 AM
I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.
 
2013-08-26 10:22:26 AM
Speed holes.
 
2013-08-26 10:24:36 AM

mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.


I don't think so.  Military forces usually keep very close tabs on these kind of "special weapons".  I can't imagine them being released and used without permission.  Especially since in this case they've already been warned a couple of times.
 
2013-08-26 10:27:14 AM
Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.
 
2013-08-26 10:28:29 AM
Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.
 
2013-08-26 10:28:57 AM

mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.


Neither is a really good excuse is it? I mean that the fark are they doing with them in the first place? And where did they come from? Some people say they are from Iraq, some say they are from Iran what are the odds the Syrians made them?
 
2013-08-26 10:29:11 AM
Good god UN, SUVs?  Really?

If only there were some surplus of more suitable vehicles for driving around in Syria...

static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-08-26 10:31:10 AM

Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.


And be replaced with what?
 
2013-08-26 10:33:22 AM

Click Click D'oh: Good god UN, SUVs?  Really?

If only there were some surplus of more suitable vehicles for driving around in Syria...

[460x276 from http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/25/13 64238522180/American-MRAP-vehicles-in-010.jpg image 460x276]


Three problems with that:

1) you think they know what they are doing
2) they don't want to look like an armed force
3) their egos won't let them believe that people dont fear and respect them.
 
2013-08-26 10:33:39 AM
Don't worry subby, Powers should be back from her vacation soon at which time a new strongly worded letter will be sent.
 
2013-08-26 10:33:54 AM

generallyso: Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.

And be replaced with what?


At this point, a pop tart would be an improvement.
 
2013-08-26 10:34:37 AM

generallyso: Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.

And be replaced with what?


Democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood of course.
 
2013-08-26 10:37:41 AM
I find myself hoping that the chemical analysis shows the sarin to have come from outside Syria, pointing to a non-gov't attack, meaning some rebel faction is happily gassing kids to garner sympathy... because  it's the only way I can see the US refraining from diving headlong into yet another unwinnable mideast conflict.What a depressing state of affairs that is.
 
2013-08-26 10:39:19 AM
Submittard:

The UN, nor the article, hasn't claimed that Syrian snipers fired on them. The nationality of the snipers is unknown, especially if it was rebels.
 
2013-08-26 10:41:52 AM

Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.


Rifles and plane tickets are cheap. Goodbye.
 
2013-08-26 10:43:31 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 2) they don't want to look like an armed force


img509.imageshack.us

It's more of a situation of the local widget in charge not fully understanding the danger his men are in.
 
2013-08-26 10:43:34 AM

socodog: Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.


Its a farking war zone. People have been shooting shiat at anything that moves for over half a year. Why do people insist on the most complicated and convoluted explanation?
 
2013-08-26 10:44:55 AM

MyRandomName: generallyso: Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too.

Fark what Russia thinks.

And be replaced with what?

Democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood of course.


That's Sunni. Hizb Allah and Iran would never allow that--expect a proxy civil war topple any MB-allied regime.
 
2013-08-26 10:45:26 AM
This is supposedly a picture of the UN vehicle that came under fire.
 
2013-08-26 10:46:22 AM

Click Click D'oh: Good god UN, SUVs?  Really?

If only there were some surplus of more suitable vehicles for driving around in Syria...

[static.guim.co.uk image 460x276]


it's OK, there's a Trojan sticker on the SUV...it's protected.
 
2013-08-26 10:46:34 AM

Ready-set: Assad has to go. And his biatch wife needs to be slapped around a bit, too...Fark what Russia thinks.



i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-26 10:46:34 AM
Blue and white - you know who else uses blue and white ?

THE JEWS.
 
2013-08-26 10:48:26 AM

Click Click D'oh: The Stealth Hippopotamus: 2) they don't want to look like an armed force

[512x325 from http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7947/33014579oy0.jpg image 512x325]

It's more of a situation of the local widget in charge not fully understanding the danger his men are in.


So either 1 and/or 3?
 
2013-08-26 10:48:59 AM
Snipers? In a farking WAR ZONE?

Shocking!

Could this possibly be the reason that AssadCo was hesitant to allow inspectors into the area in the first place?
 
2013-08-26 10:54:53 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.

Neither is a really good excuse is it? I mean that the fark are they doing with them in the first place? And where did they come from? Some people say they are from Iraq, some say they are from Iran what are the odds the Syrians made them?


The odds are very good that Syria makes them. Syria has a small, homegrown arms industry, and manufacturing sarin is something that a few Japanese religious fanatics managed. They have them because they're a non-signatory to the international treaty banning them, because they make very effective battlefield weapons. They originally got them from the Soviets.
 
2013-08-26 10:56:52 AM

Click Click D'oh: Good god UN, SUVs?  Really?

If only there were some surplus of more suitable vehicles for driving around in Syria...

[460x276 from http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/25/13 64238522180/American-MRAP-vehicles-in-010.jpg image 460x276]


It was an armored SUV, and it did its job; nobody got hurt.
 
2013-08-26 10:58:08 AM
Great, the American tax payers get to liberate another country.
 
2013-08-26 10:58:22 AM
Have John Kerry and his slow thinking sidekick Chuck Hagel decided that the US needs to spend money on Syria ?

I read that they appear willing to meddle in Syrias civil war now.     How nice.     More debt for the US to incur.

/just say no
//let the EU spend
///not our turn
 
2013-08-26 10:58:27 AM
Is Trojan a UN sponsor?
 
2013-08-26 10:59:44 AM

ArkPanda: mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.

I don't think so.  Military forces usually keep very close tabs on these kind of "special weapons".  I can't imagine them being released and used without permission.  Especially since in this case they've already been warned a couple of times.


WESTERN military forces do that. I'm not talking about a company commander, I'm talking about a brigadier or a divisional commander, who would have the authority to use any assets he has. I'm just trying to explain why Assad and his cabinet would authorize something like this, when they're winning and they want to avoid international interference. It makes sense only if someone overstepped his authority at a lower level for tactical reasons.
 
2013-08-26 11:04:31 AM

Your Company's Computer Guy: Is Trojan a UN sponsor?


I can just imagine it: "This Resolution is brought to you by Trojan, official sponsor of the United Nations!"
 
hej
2013-08-26 11:12:27 AM
Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?
 
2013-08-26 11:15:25 AM

mbillips: ArkPanda: mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.

I don't think so.  Military forces usually keep very close tabs on these kind of "special weapons".  I can't imagine them being released and used without permission.  Especially since in this case they've already been warned a couple of times.

WESTERN military forces do that. I'm not talking about a company commander, I'm talking about a brigadier or a divisional commander, who would have the authority to use any assets he has. I'm just trying to explain why Assad and his cabinet would authorize something like this, when they're winning and they want to avoid international interference. It makes sense only if someone overstepped his authority at a lower level for tactical reasons.


IIRC Soviet forces had very tight controls on those kinds of things too. Of course the Syrian military may have degraded to the point where they're not even on the Soviet model anymore.  Regardless I can't imagine any field commander using chemical weapons without clearance from the top.  A general who decided to do something like that on his own would have to be aware of the strategic consequences of it.
 
2013-08-26 11:18:06 AM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now are we talking Marines in Fallujah sniper fire or Hillary in Bosnia sniper fire?


FTA:  Nesirky said one of the cars used by the team was "no longer serviceable" after the shooting, forcing the team to return to a government checkpoint to replace the vehicle.

That sounds pretty real to me. If someone shoots your car up to the point where you can't use it, I'd say that counts as getting shot at. As opposed to being 'somewhere near some people who are shooting'.
 
2013-08-26 11:21:39 AM
images4.static-bluray.com
 
2013-08-26 11:22:37 AM

Amos Quito: Snipers? In a farking WAR ZONE?

Shocking!

Could this possibly be the reason that AssadCo was hesitant to allow inspectors into the area in the first place?


You sure it wasn't Mossad snipers?
 
2013-08-26 11:24:04 AM

vygramul: Amos Quito: Snipers? In a farking WAR ZONE?

Shocking!

Could this possibly be the reason that AssadCo was hesitant to allow inspectors into the area in the first place?

You sure it wasn't Mossad snipers?


Maybe it was a private mercenary force hoping to drum up some business by instigating regional instability?
 
2013-08-26 11:26:59 AM

mbillips: ArkPanda: mbillips: I'm getting the sense that some lower-level Syrian commander was tired of his guys getting hit by snipers in areas they'd shelled really hard, and decided, "Hey, I've got these sarin shells, let's use 'em!" I can't imagine the decision was made at the top.

There's also a question of how much conventional ammo the Syrian army has left. They've resorted to dropping land mines from helicopters, so they may be shooting chemical weapons because they're short on HE.

I don't think so.  Military forces usually keep very close tabs on these kind of "special weapons".  I can't imagine them being released and used without permission.  Especially since in this case they've already been warned a couple of times.

WESTERN military forces do that. I'm not talking about a company commander, I'm talking about a brigadierbrigade or a divisional division commander, who would have the authority to use any assets he has. I'm just trying to explain why Assad and his cabinet would authorize something like this, when they're winning and they want to avoid international interference. It makes sense only if someone overstepped his authority at a lower level for tactical reasons.


Fixed it for you.
 
2013-08-26 11:27:06 AM
I knew it... the US is trying to start another civil war to lure the Predators in so we can capture and study them.  I knew it!!
 
2013-08-26 11:27:43 AM

ManicParroT: FTA: Nesirky said one of the cars used by the team was "no longer serviceable" after the shooting, forcing the team to return to a government checkpoint to replace the vehicle.

That sounds pretty real to me. If someone shoots your car up to the point where you can't use it, I'd say that counts as getting shot at. As opposed to being 'somewhere near some people who are shooting'.


Those look like Toyotas.

No longer serviceable could mean the dome light was out.
 
2013-08-26 11:28:52 AM
Reports say that the chemical weapons arrived on homemade rockets, hardly something the Syrian government would use. Besides that, the Syrian government has no real reason to use them, since they're winning.

Most likely it's the rebels or some third party that initiated the incident. However, who did it really doesn't matter much who did it, since the US is starting to get involved.

I mean come on, the US still has little idea about Benghazi, and it concludes (with no evidence) that the attack was done by the Syrian govt?
 
2013-08-26 11:29:04 AM

Somacandra: socodog: Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.

Its a farking war zone. People have been shooting shiat at anything that moves for over half a year. Why do people insist on the most complicated and convoluted explanation?



Not to speak for socodog, but I suspect he was referring to the GAS ATTACK ITSELF when hementioned "false flag".


Here's an interesting article from January, 2013

Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

QUOTE:

"On Saturday, Cyber War News released a cache of e-mails allegedly hacked by someone in Malaysia from a British private defense contractor called Britam Defence.

"One of the e-mails contains a discussion between Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding and Philip Doughty, company founder. In the exchange, it's revealed that there is a plan to unleash chemical weapons in Syria in order to blame it on the Bashar Al Assad regime to justify a direct intervention by U.S. and NATO forces in the country's civil war. The plan, thought up by the government of Qatar according to the e-mail, is "approved by Washington."

END QUOTE


It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time
 
2013-08-26 11:29:59 AM

Your Company's Computer Guy: Is Trojan a UN sponsor?


The SUVs are protected against attacks of gonorrhea and aids.
 
2013-08-26 11:32:03 AM
I can hardly wait for USA: World Police to get involved in another Middle East quagmire.
 
2013-08-26 11:33:31 AM

Amos Quito: Somacandra: socodog: Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.

Its a farking war zone. People have been shooting shiat at anything that moves for over half a year. Why do people insist on the most complicated and convoluted explanation?


Not to speak for socodog, but I suspect he was referring to the GAS ATTACK ITSELF when hementioned "false flag".


Here's an interesting article from January, 2013

Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

QUOTE:

"On Saturday, Cyber War News released a cache of e-mails allegedly hacked by someone in Malaysia from a British private defense contractor called Britam Defence.

"One of the e-mails contains a discussion between Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding and Philip Doughty, company founder. In the exchange, it's revealed that there is a plan to unleash chemical weapons in Syria in order to blame it on the Bashar Al Assad regime to justify a direct intervention by U.S. and NATO forces in the country's civil war. The plan, thought up by the government of Qatar according to the e-mail, is "approved by Washington."

END QUOTE


It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time


The emails that you are referring to were shown to be forgeries - the email headers were cut and pasted
 
2013-08-26 11:34:46 AM
This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.
 
2013-08-26 11:43:50 AM

21-7-b: Amos Quito: Somacandra: socodog: Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.

Its a farking war zone. People have been shooting shiat at anything that moves for over half a year. Why do people insist on the most complicated and convoluted explanation?


Not to speak for socodog, but I suspect he was referring to the GAS ATTACK ITSELF when hementioned "false flag".


Here's an interesting article from January, 2013

Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

QUOTE:

"On Saturday, Cyber War News released a cache of e-mails allegedly hacked by someone in Malaysia from a British private defense contractor called Britam Defence.

"One of the e-mails contains a discussion between Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding and Philip Doughty, company founder. In the exchange, it's revealed that there is a plan to unleash chemical weapons in Syria in order to blame it on the Bashar Al Assad regime to justify a direct intervention by U.S. and NATO forces in the country's civil war. The plan, thought up by the government of Qatar according to the e-mail, is "approved by Washington."

END QUOTE


It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time

The emails that you are referring to were shown to be forgeries - the email headers were cut and pasted



So you're going with  prophecy, then?
 
2013-08-26 11:44:33 AM

Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.


The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here
 
2013-08-26 11:48:52 AM

garkola: Reports say that the chemical weapons arrived on homemade rockets, hardly something the Syrian government would use. Besides that, the Syrian government has no real reason to use them, since they're winning.

Most likely it's the rebels or some third party that initiated the incident. However, who did it really doesn't matter much who did it, since the US is starting to get involved.

I mean come on, the US still has little idea about Benghazi, and it concludes (with no evidence) that the attack was done by the Syrian govt?



Evidence?

www.auburnmedia.com

We don't need no stinking evidence!

Vamanos!
 
2013-08-26 11:51:18 AM
The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.
 
2013-08-26 11:54:23 AM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Amos Quito: Somacandra: socodog: Or it could be a false flag like many experts are saying.

Its a farking war zone. People have been shooting shiat at anything that moves for over half a year. Why do people insist on the most complicated and convoluted explanation?


Not to speak for socodog, but I suspect he was referring to the GAS ATTACK ITSELF when hementioned "false flag".


Here's an interesting article from January, 2013

Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

QUOTE:

"On Saturday, Cyber War News released a cache of e-mails allegedly hacked by someone in Malaysia from a British private defense contractor called Britam Defence.

"One of the e-mails contains a discussion between Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding and Philip Doughty, company founder. In the exchange, it's revealed that there is a plan to unleash chemical weapons in Syria in order to blame it on the Bashar Al Assad regime to justify a direct intervention by U.S. and NATO forces in the country's civil war. The plan, thought up by the government of Qatar according to the e-mail, is "approved by Washington."

END QUOTE


It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time

The emails that you are referring to were shown to be forgeries - the email headers were cut and pasted


So you're going with  prophecy, then?


I'm going with the fact that the documents that you are relying on as evidence of the west planning a false-flag chemical weapon incident have been shown to be obvious fakes. The fact that conspiracy nuts continue to try to use them as evidence of a conspiracy, despite their having been shown to be forgeries, only shows how the problem with conspiracy nuts is that they are unwilling or unable to filter information properly
 
2013-08-26 11:54:59 AM

21-7-b: The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here


10 years and 14 UN resolutions and they said we rushed into Iraq!

2.5 years? That damn near instant response!
 
2013-08-26 11:57:09 AM

21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.


The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here



Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.

We've been committed to involvement for a long time.
 
2013-08-26 11:57:53 AM

pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.


I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen
 
2013-08-26 12:00:24 PM

Sentient: I find myself hoping that the chemical analysis shows the sarin to have come from outside Syria, pointing to a non-gov't attack, meaning some rebel faction is happily gassing kids to garner sympathy... because it's the only way I can see the US refraining from diving headlong into yet another unwinnable mideast conflict.What a depressing state of affairs that is.


I would like to see what the UN would do if they did find evidence that the weapons were brought in and used by Qatari and Saudi Mercenary forces backed by the US and Isreal.  Would they place sanctions and invade them?
 
2013-08-26 12:02:40 PM
Only surprise is it took that long.
 
2013-08-26 12:03:05 PM

21-7-b: I'm going with the fact that the documents that you are relying on as evidence of the west planning a false-flag chemical weapon incident have been shown to be obvious fakes. The fact that conspiracy nuts continue to try to use them as evidence of a conspiracy, despite their having been shown to be forgeries, only shows how the problem with conspiracy nuts is that they are unwilling or unable to filter information properly


Are they as obvious as the OSB faked video's/death photo's.

\COINTELPRO much.
 
2013-08-26 12:05:44 PM
Every week, I see these silly threads full of silly people making silly comments about the US getting caught up in another ME war.

And every week, nothing happens and they look stupid and people overlook that and take them seriously in the next series of threads that come out prophesying the same silly things again.

Is it a case of "If I make the predictions often enough, eventually I'll be right!"  or "I really want this to happen, so I'll lay out my wishful thinking in a semi-coherent way and when people point out how stupid it is, I'll call them naive sheeple!"?

Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?
 
2013-08-26 12:07:33 PM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.


The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here


Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.

We've been committed to involvement for a long time.


And the fruition of this insidious plan:  we will finally have their oil!  No, wait, they have very little oil.  Gold?  No, no gold either.  Cocaine?  Nope, none of that.  I give up.  We're going after their strategic baklava reserves?
 
2013-08-26 12:11:57 PM

Amos Quito: Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time


Or, Assad KNEW people like you would go for C) and it would give him cover to use that date. After all, Israel is too stupid to choose a date that wouldn't signal the false flagness. (As if such a date exists.)
 
2013-08-26 12:13:17 PM

Amos Quito: Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack


Hmmm... I wonder why you linked to an article about the claim rather than to the claim itself?
 
2013-08-26 12:17:43 PM

21-7-b: Amos Quito: It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time

The emails that you are referring to were shown to be forgeries - the email headers were cut and pasted


So you're going with prophecy, then?

I'm going with the fact that the documents that you are relying on as evidence of the west planning a false-flag chemical weapon incident have been shown to be obvious fakes. The fact that conspiracy nuts continue to try to use them as evidence of a conspiracy, despite their having been shown to be forgeries, only shows how the problem with conspiracy nuts is that they are unwilling or unable to filter information properly



You may be right. The emails may be fakes (a cite for that would be nice), but that doesn't detract from the FACT that the article was published on January 28, 2013, long before the FIRST allegations of AssadCo using CW's was floated.

Remember, Obama told Syria in July of 2012 that using CW's would be "crossing the red line"

IN OTHER WORDS:

images.tribe.net

The evidence-free scenario that Bibi Netanyahu, France, England, Germany, Obama (and apparently YOU) are floating insists that AssadCo said "FARK YOU!" and launched the Sarin - knowing FULL WELL what the consequences would be.

And of course ALL of these immediately discount the possibility that "interested parties" may have set up a false-flag scenario to bring down the wrath of the Dynamite Monkey - giving the US and the "international community" the excuse they needed to rain HELL on AssadCo with public support.

I remember the bullshiat spewed by BushCo in the run-up to Iraq, and I have serious doubts that AssadCo is responsible.

That bullshiat smells all too familiar.

I'm also not to thrilled about ANY involvement in the Syria mess - because the fall of Assad will NOT be the "end", but the beginning, and it will no doubt spread like wildfire.
 
2013-08-26 12:18:18 PM

Infernalist: Every week, I see these silly threads full of silly people making silly comments about the US getting caught up in another ME war.

And every week, nothing happens and they look stupid and people overlook that and take them seriously in the next series of threads that come out prophesying the same silly things again.

Is it a case of "If I make the predictions often enough, eventually I'll be right!"  or "I really want this to happen, so I'll lay out my wishful thinking in a semi-coherent way and when people point out how stupid it is, I'll call them naive sheeple!"?

Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?


www.viralfoto.com
 
2013-08-26 12:25:06 PM

flynn80: Sentient: I find myself hoping that the chemical analysis shows the sarin to have come from outside Syria, pointing to a non-gov't attack, meaning some rebel faction is happily gassing kids to garner sympathy... because it's the only way I can see the US refraining from diving headlong into yet another unwinnable mideast conflict.What a depressing state of affairs that is.

I would like to see what the UN would do if they did find evidence that the weapons were brought in and used by Qatari and Saudi Mercenary forces backed by the US and Isreal.  Would they place sanctions and invade them?


No, the US, Britain and maybe France would veto any UN action.
 
2013-08-26 12:25:42 PM

ArkPanda: Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.


The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here


Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.

We've been committed to involvement for a long time.

And the fruition of this insidious plan:  we will finally have their oil!  No, wait, they have very little oil.  Gold?  No, no gold either.  Cocaine?  Nope, none of that.  I give up.  We're going after their strategic baklava reserves?


'Divide and Conquer' is the strategy, and then perpetual war will follow.
 
2013-08-26 12:26:34 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Click Click D'oh: Good god UN, SUVs?  Really?

If only there were some surplus of more suitable vehicles for driving around in Syria...

[460x276 from http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/25/13 64238522180/American-MRAP-vehicles-in-010.jpg image 460x276]

Three problems with that:

1) you think they know what they are doing
2) they don't want to look like an armed force
3) their egos won't let them believe that people dont fear and respect them.



People just pull shiat from their ass, post it to the internet, and walk away like they're telling the gospel truth. This guy seems to think that UN representatives, who probably face bombings and death threats daily, are driving around a war zone  oblivious to the possibility that they could be targetted. And he's saying it from the comfort of his desk/basement/stolen laptop, which makes it more ridiculous.
 
2013-08-26 12:30:26 PM

Sentient: I find myself hoping that the chemical analysis shows the sarin to have come from outside Syria, pointing to a non-gov't attack, meaning some rebel faction is happily gassing kids to garner sympathy... because  it's the only way I can see the US refraining from diving headlong into yet another unwinnable mideast conflict.What a depressing state of affairs that is.



Wouldn't be the first time?

JAPAN TIMES - July 10, 2013

Russia says Syrian rebels produced sarin, used it in attack

QUOTE:

UNITED NATIONS - Russia's U.N. ambassador said Tuesday that Russian experts determined that Syrian rebels made sarin nerve gas and used it in a deadly chemical weapon attack outside Aleppo in March.

Ambassador Vitaly Churkin blamed opposition fighters for the March 19 attack in the government-controlled Aleppo suburb of Khan al-Assal, which he said killed 26 people, including 16 military personnel, and injured 86 others.

The rebels have blamed the government for the attack. The U.S., Britain and France have said they have seen no evidence to indicate that the opposition has acquired or used chemical weapons.

In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "We have yet to see any evidence that backs up the assertion that anybody besides the Syrian government has had the ability to use chemical weapons or has used chemical weapons."


[LOL! Then they wanted "evidence". What about now?]

[...]


The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said.

He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon.

Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use."

The absence of chemical stabilizers, which are needed for long-term storage and later use, indicated its "possibly recent production," Churkin said.
"Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it was the armed opposition fighters who used the chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal," Churkin said.

"According to information at our disposal," he added, "the production of Basha'ir-3 unguided projectiles was started in February 2013 by the so-called Basha'ir al-Nasr brigade affiliated with the Free Syrian Army."

END QUOTE


But they're Russians, so what do they know.

Right?
 
2013-08-26 12:33:07 PM
I saw those nice pretty SUV's on the BBC this morning before they left and thought "Hope those got a little armor on them." I'm suprised they only lost one.


Lets just wall off Syria and let them kill themselves. At this point after the last 12 years of BS from the middle east I'm done wasting lives and money there.
 
2013-08-26 12:36:57 PM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Amos Quito: It goes on.

Make of it what you will, but considering the date - January 28, 2013, it would appear to be: A) A stunning coincidence; B) A modern day prophecy, or ; C) Evidence that a CW false flag op had been in the works for some time

The emails that you are referring to were shown to be forgeries - the email headers were cut and pasted


So you're going with prophecy, then?

I'm going with the fact that the documents that you are relying on as evidence of the west planning a false-flag chemical weapon incident have been shown to be obvious fakes. The fact that conspiracy nuts continue to try to use them as evidence of a conspiracy, despite their having been shown to be forgeries, only shows how the problem with conspiracy nuts is that they are unwilling or unable to filter information properly


You may be right. The emails may be fakes (a cite for that would be nice), but that doesn't detract from the FACT that the article was published on January 28, 2013, long before the FIRST allegations of AssadCo using CW's was floated.

Remember, Obama told Syria in July of 2012 that using CW's would be "crossing the red line"

IN OTHER WORDS:



The evidence-free scenario that Bibi Netanyahu, France, England, Germany, Obama (and apparently YOU) are floating insists that AssadCo said "FARK YOU!" and launched the Sarin - knowing FULL WELL what the consequences would be.

And of course ALL of these immediately discount the possibility that "interested parties" may have set up a false-flag scenario to bring down the wrath of the Dynamite Monkey - giving the US and the "international community" the excuse they needed to rain HELL on AssadCo with public support.

I remember the bullshiat spewed by BushCo in the run-up to Iraq, and I have serious doubts that AssadCo is responsible.

That bullshiat smells all too familiar.

I'm also not to thrilled about ANY involvement in the Syria mess - because the fall of Assad will NOT be the "end", but the beginning, and it will no doubt spread like wildfire.


The documents are fakes - not may be. The headers were cut and pasted and the content had nothing to do with Britam. You can search google for that. You brought them up, with much fanfare. You should have checked whether they were genuine
 
2013-08-26 12:39:36 PM
I'm still waiting for an explanation why we're going on week 50 of the weekly Syria/US threads and we're still not neck-deep in a ME quagmire.
 
2013-08-26 12:40:30 PM

Amos Quito: But they're Russians, so what do they know.

Right?


Are you saying the Russians have a more developed spy agency than the US?

Interesting.
 
2013-08-26 12:42:26 PM

Infernalist: I'm still waiting for an explanation why we're going on week 50 of the weekly Syria/US threads and we're still not neck-deep in a ME quagmire.


As I said earlier: Iran being 5 years away from a nuke for the last 25 years is proof they're NOT going for a nuke. The US being 5 months away from invading Iran for the last 25 years is proof that we ARE going to invade them.

It's a nice cognitive dissonance if you can compartmentalize your brain the way some people around here seem to be able to do.
 
2013-08-26 12:43:22 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: People just pull shiat from their ass, post it to the internet, and walk away like they're telling the gospel truth. This guy seems to think that UN representatives, who probably face bombings and death threats daily, are driving around a war zone oblivious to the possibility that they could be targetted. And he's saying it from the comfort of his desk/basement/stolen laptop, which makes it more ridiculous.


Read the article:Nearly an hour before the team left, several mortar shells fell about 700 meters (yards) from their hotel, wounding three people. One of the shells struck a mosque and damaged its minaret, according to an AP reporter on the scene.

So you have mortars flying around but you roll up in a Toyota Land Cruiser?! Stupid or arrogant, take your pick. That electrical tape on your car door isn't going to stop shiat.
 
2013-08-26 12:52:14 PM
Why don't we send in the Chinese?  They need to pony up and deal with some of this nonsense instead of just loaning money to the US to let us have to deal with it.
 
2013-08-26 12:55:38 PM

TheGreatGazoo: Why don't we send in the Chinese?  They need to pony up and deal with some of this nonsense instead of just loaning money to the US to let us have to deal with it.


So long as we keep doing it, no one else will develop the power-projection capability themselves. And so long as they can't project power, they can't really do all that much with which we disagree.
 
2013-08-26 12:58:42 PM

Infernalist: I'm still waiting for an explanation why we're going on week 50 of the weekly Syria/US threads and we're still not neck-deep in a ME quagmire.


rlv.zcache.com
 
2013-08-26 01:00:05 PM
Amos made the mistake of actually believing the Russian government on ANYTHING.
 
2013-08-26 01:01:36 PM

vygramul: TheGreatGazoo: Why don't we send in the Chinese?  They need to pony up and deal with some of this nonsense instead of just loaning money to the US to let us have to deal with it.

So long as we keep doing it, no one else will develop the power-projection capability themselves. And so long as they can't project power, they can't really do all that much with which we disagree.


China opposes action against Assad's government, like Russia, because they sell arms to him. They also (like Russia) are very leery of Sunni jihadis, because they have their own Muslim separatist problem. The UN can't get involved, because Russia and China would just veto any resolution at the Security Council, so it's going to have to be NATO, the EU or the US. Looks like we're leaning toward NATO, with Turkey in the lead.
 
2013-08-26 01:02:04 PM

21-7-b: The documents are fakes - not may be. The headers were cut and pasted and the content had nothing to do with Britam. You can search google for that. You brought them up, with much fanfare. You should have checked whether they were genuine



A quick google search for Britam emails fakes produces no immediate hits to bolster your claim.

Are you incapable of providing cites?

Do you accept what others tell you at face value? Do you expect others to take your every utterance as gospel?

Again, even if they ARE "fakes", it does NOT change the fact that these stories hit in late January of 2013 - long before the first allegations that CW's had been used in Syria - AND they point to a false-flag scenario.

Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?
 
2013-08-26 01:05:04 PM

tripleseven: Your Company's Computer Guy: Is Trojan a UN sponsor?

The SUVs are protected against attacks of gonorrhea and aids.


Trojan's the name of the security contractor who supplies the trucks, drivers and bodyguards. Sort of like Blackwater, with less murder and buttsechs.
 
2013-08-26 01:07:40 PM

mbillips: tripleseven: Your Company's Computer Guy: Is Trojan a UN sponsor?

The SUVs are protected against attacks of gonorrhea and aids.

Trojan's the name of the security contractor who supplies the trucks, drivers and bodyguards. Sort of like Blackwater, with less murder and buttsechs.


Condoms aren't 100% effective.  For instance, one time in Syria, some UN contractors were in a Trojan and still got sniped.
 
2013-08-26 01:08:44 PM
Are they still wearing blue helmets?
 
2013-08-26 01:10:32 PM

ManicParroT: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Now are we talking Marines in Fallujah sniper fire or Hillary in Bosnia sniper fire?

FTA:  Nesirky said one of the cars used by the team was "no longer serviceable" after the shooting, forcing the team to return to a government checkpoint to replace the vehicle.

That sounds pretty real to me. If someone shoots your car up to the point where you can't use it, I'd say that counts as getting shot at. As opposed to being 'somewhere near some people who are shooting'.


I'm sorry, but you misunderstood the explanation.

As others have said, the car has "Trojan" on the side, so, obviously you can only use it once.

*rimshot*

/weren't there allegations that the UN inspectors in Iraq were actually spies to canvas the area?
//if so, the "Trojan" thing would be ironic. Also explains why the Syrian gov wouldn't want them there.
///ironic?! we have hipsters in military now?!
////as depressing as the situation is, I can't help but imagine it as one of those dark Whodunnit comedies, where everyone has a motive and a weak alibi
//i wonder who the butler is?
//*turns off the light then turns it on again quickly*
 
2013-08-26 01:11:50 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.

I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen


Turkey could wipe Iran's military off the map without taking its eye off Syria. Iran is a paper tiger made of out of paper, with extra paper trimming. There's absolutely no way Iran would do anything to Turkey other than give arms to the Kurdish terrorists. Israel doesn't play ball with NATO; they use their armed forces for Israel, and nobody else. If they wanted to hit Assad, they'd already have done it. Turkey is a NATO member; if NATO decides to hit Syria the way they hit Serbia and Libya, Turkey will be in the lead, with U.S. carrier aircraft doing most of the rest.
 
2013-08-26 01:13:44 PM

tarvuz: Amos made the mistake of actually believing the Russian government on ANYTHING.



I don't "believe" anything ANY government says - especially if they are "interested parties" - and Russia IS an ally of Assad - but then again, the US and Israel have have already committed themselves to supporting Assad's enemies, haven't they?

But at least the Russians PRETENDED to gather evidence and do tests before proclaiming guilt - unlike the Israelis, the French, the Germans and the US - ALL of whom are simply declaring AssadCo GUILTY and commencing the execution process long before the first shred of evidence has been gathered, let alone analyzed.


Who do YOU believe, tarvuz? And why do you believe them?
 
2013-08-26 01:16:05 PM
China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.
 
2013-08-26 01:17:54 PM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: The documents are fakes - not may be. The headers were cut and pasted and the content had nothing to do with Britam. You can search google for that. You brought them up, with much fanfare. You should have checked whether they were genuine


A quick google search for Britam emails fakes produces no immediate hits to bolster your claim.

Are you incapable of providing cites?

Do you accept what others tell you at face value? Do you expect others to take your every utterance as gospel?

Again, even if they ARE "fakes", it does NOT change the fact that these stories hit in late January of 2013 - long before the first allegations that CW's had been used in Syria - AND they point to a false-flag scenario.

Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?


let's deal with one issue at a time. Seeing as you are having problems discounting the emails, search google for:


with ESMTP id nWRHL2NRVdAP for ;;
Thu, 16 Oct 2012 23:57:18 +0800 (SGT)
Received: from smtp.clients.netdns.net (smtp.clients.netdns.net [202.157.148.149])
by titanium.netdns.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D5F523A0E
for ;; Thu, 16 Oct 2012 23:57:18 +0800 (SGT)
 
2013-08-26 01:18:28 PM
The war drive against Syria

Before any proof of a chemical attack had emerged, and before any investigation had even begun-indeed, in less time than police departments take to issue an indictment in a routine street crime-French and British officials were calling for war with Assad. The day after the alleged attack, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius insisted that "force" was the only appropriate response.


Just an opinion piece but still it seems Paris and London are pushing harder for war than U.S. Of course we will do all the heavy lifting and they will tut tut at our warlike nature.
 
2013-08-26 01:18:29 PM

EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.


What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.
 
2013-08-26 01:19:49 PM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: The documents are fakes - not may be. The headers were cut and pasted and the content had nothing to do with Britam. You can search google for that. You brought them up, with much fanfare. You should have checked whether they were genuine


A quick google search for Britam emails fakes produces no immediate hits to bolster your claim.

Are you incapable of providing cites?

Do you accept what others tell you at face value? Do you expect others to take your every utterance as gospel?

Again, even if they ARE "fakes", it does NOT change the fact that these stories hit in late January of 2013 - long before the first allegations that CW's had been used in Syria - AND they point to a false-flag scenario.

Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?


If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.
 
2013-08-26 01:21:25 PM

vygramul: Amos Quito: 21-7-b: The documents are fakes - not may be. The headers were cut and pasted and the content had nothing to do with Britam. You can search google for that. You brought them up, with much fanfare. You should have checked whether they were genuine


A quick google search for Britam emails fakes produces no immediate hits to bolster your claim.

Are you incapable of providing cites?

Do you accept what others tell you at face value? Do you expect others to take your every utterance as gospel?

Again, even if they ARE "fakes", it does NOT change the fact that these stories hit in late January of 2013 - long before the first allegations that CW's had been used in Syria - AND they point to a false-flag scenario.

Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


I'm with the school of thought that Assad is trying to use CW and pin its use on the rebels.  He's trying for a twofer.
 
2013-08-26 01:26:28 PM

Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?


What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat
 
2013-08-26 01:26:43 PM
Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality
 
2013-08-26 01:29:23 PM
As Infernalist mentions, another motive Assad had was to blame the rebels. Assad has from day one sort to classify the rebels as terrorists
 
2013-08-26 01:31:21 PM

mbillips: IdBeCrazyIf: pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.

I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen



mbillips: Turkey could wipe Iran's military off the map without taking its eye off Syria.


It's a shame that Israel made an enemy out of Turkey with that whole Mavi Mara flotilla incident then, isn't it? Otherwise Netanyahu could tell Turkey to take out Iran - in stead of sniveling and whining to the US forever.

mbillips: Israel doesn't play ball with NATO; they use their armed forces for Israel, and nobody else.

If they wanted to hit Assad, they'd already have done it.


Of course! Why would Israel risk their own lives and resources when idiots like the US can be so easily conned into doing their dirty work for them?


/Selfish little bastards, aren't they?
 
2013-08-26 01:31:48 PM

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat


Now now.  That's not fair.

Democrats are quite able to go to war in a hurry when the circumstances are there.  Look at Libya.
 
2013-08-26 01:32:43 PM

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.


Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.
 
2013-08-26 01:33:19 PM

Amos Quito: mbillips: IdBeCrazyIf: pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.

I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen


mbillips: Turkey could wipe Iran's military off the map without taking its eye off Syria.


It's a shame that Israel made an enemy out of Turkey with that whole Mavi Mara flotilla incident then, isn't it? Otherwise Netanyahu could tell Turkey to take out Iran - in stead of sniveling and whining to the US forever.

mbillips: Israel doesn't play ball with NATO; they use their armed forces for Israel, and nobody else. If they wanted to hit Assad, they'd already have done it.


Of course! Why would Israel risk their own lives and resources when idiots like the US can be so easily conned into doing their dirty work for them?


/Selfish little bastards, aren't they?


It hasn't worked with Syria thus far.  I don't like the Israeli government anymore than anyone else, but let's try to stay realistic here.
 
2013-08-26 01:34:33 PM
Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_pro v e_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
 
2013-08-26 01:34:51 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.


So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay
 
2013-08-26 01:38:52 PM

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay


Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.
 
2013-08-26 01:42:45 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.


Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.
 
2013-08-26 01:44:01 PM

21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja


There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.
 
2013-08-26 01:45:26 PM

garkola: 21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.


Not every regime.  And I'm still on the fence about this one, but even I know that Assad has major motivation to pin CW attacks on the rebels.
 
2013-08-26 01:46:01 PM

neversubmit: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_pro v e_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran


Rumsfeld was in Iraq talking to the Iraqi administration on the same day that the UN reported to the press that Iraq had used mustard gas on Iranian soldiers. That was in 1984. Your "foreign policy exclusive" is an "exclusive" revealing what everybody knew thirty years after they knew it. Are you really this clueless?
 
2013-08-26 01:47:26 PM

garkola: 21-7-b: Saddam's attack on Halabja

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in.

These sort of distinctions are easy to ignore when you're an advocate of action.

Again, Assad has no real reason to use chemical weapons. His conventional weapons have been very effective. His longevity in this particular situation shows that he's a smart guy, and smart guys don't do dumb things on the eve of victory.

It's romantic to believe that rebels are always in the right, and that every regime needs to fall. But in real life, when rebels win everybody loses.


Assad isn't on the "eve of victory," where the hell do you get that idea from?
 
2013-08-26 01:49:37 PM

HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat


Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.
 
2013-08-26 01:50:50 PM

vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.



So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.
 
2013-08-26 01:51:18 PM

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.


So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.
 
2013-08-26 01:54:39 PM
garkola

There's a big difference between using chemical weapons on Kurds in a far-away place and using chemical weapons on a suburb of your capital city...which is also the city that you live in

What is the difference?
 
2013-08-26 01:57:40 PM

Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?


Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.
 
2013-08-26 01:58:50 PM

hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?


You're annoyed by nouns and adjectives?
 
2013-08-26 01:59:08 PM

Infernalist: Amos Quito: mbillips: IdBeCrazyIf: pag1107: The administration's idea of letting the Turks handle this as a NATO action is good up to the point where the Shia powers (Iran et al.) decide they don't want another Sunni domino to drop on their border, then we get dragged into it under Article 5.

I don't think it'll be proxy Turk, we know where that could go. I will be proxy Israel IMHO, they already have struck weapons facilities....whats another five....dozen


mbillips: Turkey could wipe Iran's military off the map without taking its eye off Syria.


It's a shame that Israel made an enemy out of Turkey with that whole Mavi Mara flotilla incident then, isn't it? Otherwise Netanyahu could tell Turkey to take out Iran - in stead of sniveling and whining to the US forever.

mbillips: Israel doesn't play ball with NATO; they use their armed forces for Israel, and nobody else. If they wanted to hit Assad, they'd already have done it.


Of course! Why would Israel risk their own lives and resources when idiots like the US can be so easily conned into doing their dirty work for them?


/Selfish little bastards, aren't they?


It hasn't worked with Syria thus far.  I don't like the Israeli government anymore than anyone else, but let's try to stay realistic here.


What?

The "international community" is all fired up - the US already has ships loaded with cruise missiles sailing for Syria - all over evidence free allegations that are more than likely the result of a false-flag operation.

Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.
 
2013-08-26 01:59:26 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.

So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.


You're not so...Republican, I hope, as to mistake 'intervening in an active war' with 'going in with UN forces after the fact to find out if war crimes/atrocities were committed and by whom', I hope.
 
2013-08-26 02:00:39 PM

21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality


Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.
 
2013-08-26 02:00:56 PM

Kahabut: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.


Well, how many more years do you think before we stop being 'on the verge of hostilities' with Syria and actually get involved?  We've already spent most of 2012 and 2013 being on 'that red line'.  A rough number will suffice.  Two more years, three more years?
 
2013-08-26 02:01:59 PM

swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.


He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?
 
2013-08-26 02:02:27 PM

mbillips: /Served under every president from Carter to date.



You must go through a lot of this

63games.com
 
2013-08-26 02:04:51 PM
Bill Hicks - Iraq Weapons Conversion (NSFW) Language

Uploaded on Feb 1, 2008

The clip from Revelations in which Bill talks about Iraqis converting "machine tools" and "farming equipment" into military equipment


What farmer doesn't need a flamethrower rake?
 
2013-08-26 02:05:02 PM

hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?


Probably.  What other term should we use for "marksman who attacks from a hiding place far away"?
 
2013-08-26 02:07:25 PM

Amos Quito: Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.


Those sneaky Jews, and their "doing just fine" ways.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:00 PM

Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?


Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.
 
2013-08-26 02:08:01 PM

mbillips: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.


farm1.staticflickr.com

Who me?
 
2013-08-26 02:09:52 PM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.


So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol
 
2013-08-26 02:13:34 PM

swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.


http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-dama s cus
 
2013-08-26 02:14:24 PM

Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol


So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.
 
2013-08-26 02:15:03 PM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol

So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.


Well, if I was actually concerned with the opinion of strangers on the internet, I wouldn't be on Fark, that's for certain.
 
2013-08-26 02:15:47 PM

muck4doo: Amos Quito: Seems to me that Israel is doing just fine.

Those sneaky Jews clever Zionists and their "doing just fine" ways.



Why pay retail when you can buy wholesale?

Don't work harder, work smarter!

Never put off until tomorrow what you can trick someone else into doing for you today.

Never give a sucker an even break!

Fool you once, shame on you! Fool you twice, laugh in your farking face!


/We're the suckers
//They're just playing us for the suckers that we are
///Can you blame them - REALLY?
 
2013-08-26 02:19:33 PM
Actually, the Bush doctrine was more subtle than "install western-style democracy."

The Bush doctrine was about removing the ability of the state in question to engage in power projection. Specifically, the goal was to ensure that the entity in question was incapable of taking any global or regional action that would negatively affect the USA.

In that light, the Iraq and Afghan war was very effective. They can hardly shiat in a pot, much less sponsor terrorist groups.
 
2013-08-26 02:29:40 PM

Carousel Beast: hej: Am I the only one who finds the term "sniper" to be just as annoying as "assault rifle"?

You're annoyed by nouns and adjectives?


Strictly speaking, the word "assault" in "assault rifle" is a noun adjunct, not an adjective --- unless you see "assault rifle" as a single compound noun, in which case "assault" is a stem (and not a word in its own right).
 
2013-08-26 02:30:06 PM

Infernalist: Kahabut: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

Well, as we haven't yet invented a way to clone soldiers and teleport equipment you might be a tiny bit premature in your ranting.

Or it could be the good old public outrage campaign that is generally required in the USA to instigate hostilities.

I really have no prediction what is going to happen, but I'm at least not stupid enough to think anything is going to happen over night.

We aren't talking about the internet or video games here kiddo, shiat takes a while to shuffle around in the real world.

Well, how many more years do you think before we stop being 'on the verge of hostilities' with Syria and actually get involved?  We've already spent most of 2012 and 2013 being on 'that red line'.  A rough number will suffice.  Two more years, three more years?


We aren't on the same rail line friend.  I literally have no opinion on when anyone might get involved.

Do I believe that it's a good idea, fark no.  Do I think it might happen anyway, yes, yes it might, when isn't something I would care to  speculate about.

I'm just trying to point out that even if the USA is moving to get involved, these kinds of things rarely happen quickly, and generally they happen only after sufficient public outrage has been generated.  The news cycle of war comes first, then the missiles, then the troops.  This isn't debatable, it's how it's done.  If and when a significant portion of the US citizenry is calling for intervention, you'll see some action.  Not before.
 
2013-08-26 02:30:07 PM
Is Bashar al-Assad winning the civil war in Syria? 8:00PM BST 23 May 2013

Seems to say yes but not a total win.

Senior Israeli minister: Assad may win Syria war, with help of Iran and Hezbollah  Jun. 10, 2013 | 4:36 PM

Winning, but not a popular thing to admit.

Syria's Assad lauds his army, says he will win war 08.01.13, 11:07

All but declares victory.

It seems we must go now because he is winning.
 
2013-08-26 02:44:15 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them? Because once you start, you don't stop.
 
2013-08-26 02:44:27 PM

neversubmit: Is Bashar al-Assad winning the civil war in Syria? 8:00PM BST 23 May 2013

Seems to say yes but not a total win.

Senior Israeli minister: Assad may win Syria war, with help of Iran and Hezbollah  Jun. 10, 2013 | 4:36 PM

Winning, but not a popular thing to admit.

Syria's Assad lauds his army, says he will win war 08.01.13, 11:07

All but declares victory.

It seems we must go now because he is winning.



Assad won't "win", no matter what.

Israel wants him out, and like good little toadies, we are going to make sure that Israel gets what she wants - as always.

So "we" have committed to siding with the "rebels", for now.

But it IS to "our" advantage to let AssadCo beat the "rebels" as much as possible - as when he falls, there WILL be a power vacuum, and "we" must take care to see that it is filled by those that best serve "our" interests.

It's a tricky game, with many unpredictable variables, but with patience, time, (US) money and (American) blood, it'll all work out.

As long as "we" keep "our" priorities straight.
 
2013-08-26 02:47:18 PM

vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them?



Blather WHUT?


Because once you start, you don't stop.

See the bolded above.
 
2013-08-26 02:51:03 PM

swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: Infernalist: swahnhennessy: 21-7-b: Look at Saddam's attack on Halabja. Most of the victims were women and children. The motive was revenge - to teach the Kurdish people a lesson. That's a real-world example of a dictator using chemical weapons to try to stamp out internal discontent. People saying "Assad had no motive" are ignoring reality

Assad is winning the war and knows full-well that by using CM he invites NATO to come and take a walk all over him. Furthermore, UN inspectors were present in Syria at the time of the attack. It makes zero sense.

He's winning?  Seriously?  The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?

Yes. This is a pretty common opinion. Don't act too shocked.

So, it's a case of..

"Sir, we're surrounded!"

"Excellent, now we've got them exactly where we want them!"

Wow.  lol

So the rebels cover Syria? Or because they have strongholds near Damascus they must have Assad surrounded? If you're not even up-to-date on the situation in Syria you have no business participating in this debate. It is embarrassing.


Link

It's called a war of attrition. Assad's forces are now completely surrounded in Aleppo. Stating he is "winning" because his side has made some recent gains off of 1000s of foreign (Hezbollah) fighters is way overstating his position.  He'll never rule a united Syria again.
 
2013-08-26 02:51:35 PM

mbillips: HAMMERTOE: Infernalist: Because, honestly, this is like the 50th thread regarding Syria and the US getting into another war there and it's just not happening.

What gives, yo?

What you're seeing here is the fundamental difference between Bush and Obama. Bush, for all his liberal leanings, became a virtual cowboy when he got the slightest excuse to go after the man who threatened his daddy.

Obama, on the other hand, subscribes to the Democrat method of going to war:

Spaghetti > Wall
See what sticks.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

Here's a fact-based analysis:

Bush doctrine: Identify states that are potential terrorist supporters, and use "preemptive war" to take out their political leadership and transform their countries into pro-Western democracies. Use allies only as a figleaf for unilateral U.S. action. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

Obama doctrine: Use air power and special forces to directly target terrorists, giving a small footprint and an instant exit strategy. In cases of rogue-state action tantamount to genocide, use multinational force whenever possible, through the UN if possible, and NATO if not. Maximize use of signals surveillance, despite privacy concerns.

/Served under every president from Carter to date.


I like the analysis.  Concise, and it clearly explains the similarities and differences between the two doctrines, at least from the large/macro level.  I like that you didn't label one as better than the other, and I can't even guess from your phrasing which one you beleive to be more effective.  So many people get caught up in bashing the "other" side, it is refreshing to see some content that moves the conversation forward, instead of shiat-flinging in place.

Just thought I would share my appreciation for a non-inflammatory comment.

As far as potential action in Syria goes, this is about as complex of a situation as you could ever have.  Opposing factions, from the global superpower level (US/UK vs Russia/China), through the regional player level (Iran/Hezbollah vs. Saudi/Turkey), to the on-the-ground factions (Syrian state vs. Nusrah vs. FSA vs. Kurdish seperatists), with a nice mix of religious ideaology mixed in (Sunni/Shia (and Allawhite)/Kurd), plus confirmed WMDs, constantly fluctuating battlefronts, missions in Syrian lands by Israel and Hezballah/Iran, and a huuuuuuge refugee problem.  Nobody knows who to trust, and it seems like things only get worse and more muddied as the months drag on.

I would rather be cautious and deliberate with the involvement of the US military, than to run in guns ablazin' just because there is a fight going on, and we are damned effective at fighting.  There is no clear exit strategy, or even a clear desireable outcome that I have realisitcally heard.  Of course the status quo is terrible for the average Syrian who has had to endure years of war and escalating brutality...

/Have no choice but to trust the international inspectors and reputable news sources for information on CW use
//And even then there needs to be a mountain of hard evidence before deciding to bloody someone's nose
 
2013-08-26 02:57:48 PM
I still think the solution is to split Syria with a wall. This war is decades from being over. The best we can hope for is to send the children to their rooms until they are too old to blow one another up and their offspring loses interest.
 
2013-08-26 03:04:02 PM

Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: Infernalist: EdNortonsTwin: China and Russia can reject a resolution for the West to us force, and we can go back to making sure each side of this cival war have just enough ammo to drag this out another 5 years.

Farking with the middle-east, it's American as Baseball.

What's your solution?  You get bonus points if it's based in reality.

Solution??? Bwaa ha haa ha.  There's no "solution" we will provide.

So, you just want to sit around and complain.  Okay

Well, yea I am certainly sitting around at my computer - but I'm not really complaining.

Both feuding sides have legit gripes - so unless it really starts spilling over in to other countries the US will likely, and wisely limit it's involvement.

I didn't realize we were here offering solutions, but I'll be looking for yours.

Well, here's mine: Stay out of it.  Don't support either side.  Whoever wins, we go in and investigate for war crimes and atrocities.

Simple, clean.

But, you go ahead and keep sitting over there being snarky and acting superior.  You have a talent for it.

So you want us to "go in" and "stay out of it".  Good plan.

You're not so...Republican, I hope, as to mistake 'intervening in an active war' with 'going in with UN forces after the fact to find out if war crimes/atrocities were committed and by whom', I hope.


Well first of all we are already intervening - thankfully no boots on the ground.  I personally beleive we should probably provide intel and non weaponized support to the moderates/secular opposition forces only.  Let other countries give the rebels weapons.  This, especially since Israel just releast a bunch of Sunni jihadists from their prisons who are probably hot foot straight over to Syria.  As far as sending in inspectors after the fact?  Sure, why not, inspectors are already there.  But, it's not like the US Gov pays head inspectors at all times anyway.  The Gov sure blew off UN WMD inspectors work in Iraq. But hey, who knows what the right answer is, as a matter of fact there's so much blowback from all of our meddling, it's hard to say what's right anymore.  Foreign policy is a dark game, so being snarky and somewhat nihlist about it when we are sitting on the sidelines is not an unreasonable coping mechanism.  The Vietnam War turned my entire family upside down.  Between KIAs, Agent Orange and Camp Lejeune water contamination we're lucky any our  family are still alive - so don't mind me if I snark away at interventionism.
 
2013-08-26 03:05:30 PM
Kerry: chemical attack undeniable, 'there must be accountability'Kerry's remarks are unambiguous as to what the US believes has occurred and he says the "cowardly crime" cannot be allowed to let pass.
"The use of chemical weapons is a moral obsecenity," he says. Kerry says evidence of chemical weapons use "is undeniable."
After extensive remarks which we'll excerpt in a moment, Kerry said the US would act.
"The president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons," Kerry says.
"There must be accountability."
 
2013-08-26 03:09:00 PM

Amos Quito: vygramul: Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


So Israel didn't use them?


Blather WHUT?


Because once you start, you don't stop.

See the bolded above.


So if Israel wanted a credible false flag, they'd make sure to keep using them. Since it's not, it can't be a false flag, unless your contention is that they're stupid.
 
2013-08-26 03:18:47 PM
Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."
 
2013-08-26 03:22:30 PM

oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."


80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.
 
2013-08-26 03:26:58 PM

AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.


Pretty much.

Funny, all the debate on acting without UN approval. Very little debate about congressional approval.
 
2013-08-26 03:34:19 PM
Russia, meanwhile, said Western nations calling for military action have no proof the Syrian government was behind any chemical attacks.


I don't think that Russia has any business being on the Security Council anymore. Instead of "let's investigate," all they seem to be good for is "Nuh uh!" and obstructionism.
 
2013-08-26 03:37:31 PM

AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.


Hmmm... strange. It's almost like there's a difference between committing 150,000 ground troops to a 7-year mission and lobbing a few cruise missiles for a couple of weeks. The American people are such simpletons that way.
 
2013-08-26 03:39:24 PM

BigNumber12: Russia, meanwhile, said Western nations calling for military action have no proof the Syrian government was behind any chemical attacks.


I don't think that Russia has any business being on the Security Council anymore. Instead of "let's investigate," all they seem to be good for is "Nuh uh!" and obstructionism.


It was the U.S. that tried to obstruct the U.N. investigators today. Told them it was too dangerous, go home.
 
2013-08-26 03:45:53 PM

Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.

The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here

Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.


We've been committed to involvement for a long time.


Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.


Friends, we have someone among us here who knows how policy is made in both Washington and Damascus.  I'm impressed.
 
2013-08-26 03:48:47 PM
Harf distinguishes between the US determination that chemical weapons have been used - that's "clear," she says - and the question of who used them - there's "very little doubt", she says.
"It's clear that chemical weapons were used," Harf says. "There's very little doubt that they were used by the regime.
 
2013-08-26 03:49:20 PM

oregon fubaralas: Kerry: chemical attack undeniable, 'there must be accountability'Kerry's remarks are unambiguous as to what the US believes has occurred and he says the "cowardly crime" cannot be allowed to let pass.
"The use of chemical weapons is a moral obsecenity," he says. Kerry says evidence of chemical weapons use "is undeniable."
After extensive remarks which we'll excerpt in a moment, Kerry said the US would act.
"The president will be making an informed decision about how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons," Kerry says.
"There must be accountability."



Respond against who?

Who will we pretend to hold accountable when we don't know who did it? (or do we?)

There is ZERO evidence that AssadCo committed this atrocity, Mr. Kerry. I suggest you manufacture some evidence ASAP.

The American public is st00pid (just look at this thread), so I'm sure that claiming "undisclosed intelligence resources" as your "proof" will work just fine.


/Fill you gas tanks now, folks
 
2013-08-26 03:49:23 PM

AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.


The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist.

That is to say, you never had control of your government, and the fact you believe otherwise just proves how effective the propaganda is.  (the fact you don't know your entire media culture is propaganda is another nice trick)

"If you get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about the answers" - Thomas Pynchon
 
2013-08-26 03:51:48 PM

vygramul: AngryDragon: oregon fubaralas: Kerry calls the attack "human suffering that we can never ignore or forget." Furthermore, he makes the case that the Assad regime carried out the attack, and anyone who argues that they did not happen "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass."

80% of the American people want nothing to do with military action in Syria.
Within a week we will have conducted military action in Syria.
Bush was lambasted for military action in Iraq (rightfully so)
I predict Obama will get a total pass for this.

We have lost control of our government.

Hmmm... strange. It's almost like there's a difference between committing 150,000 ground troops to a 7-year mission and lobbing a few cruise missiles for a couple of weeks. The American people are such simpletons that way.


Or it could be that we're sick and tired of warfare.  Some of us are sick of attending military funerals.  None of us want to see an escalation and we realize that "lobbing a few cruise missiles" could very well be like kicking a hornet's nest.  Once we are engaged, we will be engaged until it's resolved.  Not many of us want ANOTHER 10 years of conflict.
 
2013-08-26 03:54:17 PM

BigNumber12: Russia, meanwhile, said Western nations calling for military action have no proof the Syrian government was behind any chemical attacks.


I don't think that Russia has any business being on the Security Council anymore. Instead of "let's investigate," all they seem to be good for is "Nuh uh!" and obstructionism.


Wait... you mean bullshiat allegations are now "proof"?


/Good enough for the Farktards, I guess
 
2013-08-26 04:02:50 PM
Carney:
He says the UN inspectors are on a mission to investigate chemical weapons use but that that question already has been settled.
"The UN team does not have a mandate to establish culpability. It is our belief... that the regime in Syria has made obvious their attempts to preclude an investigation."


That explains why they weren't allowed to inspect or remove the actual shells today. We don't care who actually did it.
 
2013-08-26 04:12:12 PM

oregon fubaralas: Carney:
He says the UN inspectors are on a mission to investigate chemical weapons use but that that question already has been settled.
"The UN team does not have a mandate to establish culpability. It is our belief... that the regime in Syria has made obvious their attempts to preclude an investigation."


That explains why they weren't allowed to inspect or remove the actual shells today. We don't care who actually did it.


It's funny how easily you can read what you want to read, despite nothing of the kind actually being in the text.
 
2013-08-26 04:15:19 PM

tirob: Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.

The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here

Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.


We've been committed to involvement for a long time.

Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.

Friends, we have someone among us here who knows how policy is made in both Washington and Damascus.  I'm impressed.



You forgot Tel Aviv.
 
2013-08-26 04:23:55 PM
Merkel supports Syria Intervention

Kerry sort of said we are going to war


Anyone know where I can get that 5k sunblock?
 
2013-08-26 04:26:13 PM

Infernalist: He's winning? Seriously? The rebels are in the suburbs around Damascus...and he's winning?


The CSA army spent 1861-1865 all over the Washington DC suburbs, and was never a serious threat to win the war

The German army spent two years in the suburbs of Stalingrad and Moscow, which is right where the Russian army wanted them.

Actually taking a city is much harder than being in its suburbs.
 
2013-08-26 04:31:21 PM
anushayspoint.files.wordpress.com


I volunteer to invade Assad's wife.

/For the good of mankind.
 
2013-08-26 04:33:54 PM

Kahabut: oregon fubaralas: Carney:
He says the UN inspectors are on a mission to investigate chemical weapons use but that that question already has been settled.
"The UN team does not have a mandate to establish culpability. It is our belief... that the regime in Syria has made obvious their attempts to preclude an investigation."


That explains why they weren't allowed to inspect or remove the actual shells today. We don't care who actually did it.

It's funny how easily you can read what you want to read, despite nothing of the kind actually being in the text.


The group went to the site of a chemical rocket strike:
They took samples of the soil and some affected animals. They took a chicken. They refused to take the chemical rocket. It seems they are not allowed to take the rocket with them.
 
2013-08-26 04:34:44 PM
They took a chicken.
 
2013-08-26 04:50:54 PM

AngryDragon: Or it could be that we're sick and tired of warfare.  Some of us are sick of attending military funerals.  None of us want to see an escalation and we realize that "lobbing a few cruise missiles" could very well be like kicking a hornet's nest.  Once we are engaged, we will be engaged until it's resolved.   Not many of us want ANOTHER 10 years of conflict.


Which is what you would expect from an intervention that looks like Libya.
 
2013-08-26 04:52:13 PM

scubamage: [595x425 from http://anushayspoint.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/424373_10151375660990 858_585115857_23436350_181230901_n2.jpg image 595x425]


I volunteer to invade Assad's wife.

/For the good of mankind.


I'd liberate the hell out of that...
 
2013-08-26 04:52:17 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.

The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here

Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.


We've been committed to involvement for a long time.

Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.

Friends, we have someone among us here who knows how policy is made in both Washington and Damascus.  I'm impressed.


You forgot Tel Aviv.


They have to be, of course, brilliant enough to pull it off and stupid enough to be obvious about it. Which is pretty much what some kinds of people think of Jews.
 
2013-08-26 04:59:14 PM

oregon fubaralas: Kahabut: oregon fubaralas: Carney:
He says the UN inspectors are on a mission to investigate chemical weapons use but that that question already has been settled.
"The UN team does not have a mandate to establish culpability. It is our belief... that the regime in Syria has made obvious their attempts to preclude an investigation."


That explains why they weren't allowed to inspect or remove the actual shells today. We don't care who actually did it.

It's funny how easily you can read what you want to read, despite nothing of the kind actually being in the text.

The group went to the site of a chemical rocket strike:
They took samples of the soil and some affected animals. They took a chicken. They refused to take the chemical rocket. It seems they are not allowed to take the rocket with them.


Again, you seem to be making assumptions from facts not in evidence.

They refused to take a chemical weapon of unknown vintage and unknown stability with them?  HOW DARE THEY!

I can see it now.  The UN people elaborately transporting an unstable chemical ordinance, and presenting it to their weapons expert for analysis.  The weapons expert says "why didn't you just take pictures, get this farking thing out of my lab".

You are really really stretching yourself to come to conclusions that aren't supported by anything more than your fantasies.  No matter if they remove, or don't, actual chemical weapons from a site that may or may not be relevant to anything is immaterial to the investigation at hand (assuming there is an investigation at all, and not just a cataloging of events).

They took samples to determine the nature of the chemical weapon.  I'm certain they also took a lot of pictures.  Why would they need to take weapons themselves at all?  Seriously, do you have an answer for that?  It makes no sense what so ever.
 
2013-08-26 05:11:11 PM

Amos Quito: tirob: Amos Quito: 21-7-b: Deep Contact: This is perfect. One side blames the other when it could be a 3rd party sniping.
Anything for a new war.
Sick of it.

The uprising in Syria began two and a half years ago and has torn the country to bits. You can't claim there is some rush to jump into a war here

Last week's CW incident is just a firebrand to build international public outrage in support of the war.


We've been committed to involvement for a long time.

Amos Quito: vygramul: Stick to the point, 21-7-b: Who had the most to gain - and the most to LOSE - by setting off CW's in Syria?

AssadCo? Or his enemies?

If Assad believes he will lose the war without them, then Assad had most to gain by using them.


So you're saying that you don't think he used them yet?

Because that's the thing with this kind of weapon - and under the circumstances you described above - once you start, you DON'T stop.

It's all or nothing, baby.

Friends, we have someone among us here who knows how policy is made in both Washington and Damascus.  I'm impressed.


You forgot Tel Aviv.


Didn't want to spill the beans on you.
 
2013-08-26 05:26:35 PM

Kahabut: They took samples to determine the nature of the chemical weapon. I'm certain they also took a lot of pictures. Why would they need to take weapons themselves at all? Seriously, do you have an answer for that? It makes no sense what so ever.


For science stuff. Doing tests on photos of things just makes a mess.
 
2013-08-26 06:10:27 PM

vygramul: AngryDragon: Or it could be that we're sick and tired of warfare.  Some of us are sick of attending military funerals.  None of us want to see an escalation and we realize that "lobbing a few cruise missiles" could very well be like kicking a hornet's nest.  Once we are engaged, we will be engaged until it's resolved.   Not many of us want ANOTHER 10 years of conflict.

Which is what you would expect from an intervention that looks like Libya.


Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
 
2013-08-26 06:42:28 PM

oregon fubaralas: Kahabut: They took samples to determine the nature of the chemical weapon. I'm certain they also took a lot of pictures. Why would they need to take weapons themselves at all? Seriously, do you have an answer for that? It makes no sense what so ever.

For science stuff. Doing tests on photos of things just makes a mess.


You really need to read what is written, not what you want to see.
 
2013-08-26 07:20:44 PM

Kahabut: oregon fubaralas: Kahabut: They took samples to determine the nature of the chemical weapon. I'm certain they also took a lot of pictures. Why would they need to take weapons themselves at all? Seriously, do you have an answer for that? It makes no sense what so ever.

For science stuff. Doing tests on photos of things just makes a mess.

You really need to read what is written, not what you want to see.


Dummy, nobody has even been able to identify the rockets. Having one or two in hand could help.
Not a scud:
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 11:24:06 PM

AngryDragon: vygramul: AngryDragon: Or it could be that we're sick and tired of warfare.  Some of us are sick of attending military funerals.  None of us want to see an escalation and we realize that "lobbing a few cruise missiles" could very well be like kicking a hornet's nest.  Once we are engaged, we will be engaged until it's resolved.   Not many of us want ANOTHER 10 years of conflict.

Which is what you would expect from an intervention that looks like Libya.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.


Yes, but you kind of have to at least mould your expectations based on reality. Sure, your purchase of that penny stock didn't go anywhere. That doesn't mean Apple stock will be worthless in two weeks just like your Covad stock.

Unless we send boots on the ground, and there's zero reason to think we will, it's really rather absurd to think we're looking at a 10-year commitment.
 
2013-08-27 09:53:02 AM
Heh - the Arab league has formally blamed Assad. I guess they're all just Zionists, too.
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report