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.

(New Europe)   The finger pointing game is taking an interesting turn as Russia says it has proof Syria rebels used chemicals   (neurope.eu) divider line 60
    More: Followup, Russia, U.N. Security Council, chemicals, Syrian opposition  
•       •       •

3369 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2013 at 8:43 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-19 08:43:03 AM
Assad admitted he had them last night on FOX news.  So lets just take his and see if the continue to be used.
 
2013-09-19 08:44:15 AM
If only there was some place United where all nations could come together to discuss this thing and present the information, debate and then come to a reasoned well thought out solution.
 
2013-09-19 08:46:52 AM
"In Soviet Syria, rebels shell YOU!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA!!!!

ahem....
 
2013-09-19 08:48:16 AM
Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?
 
2013-09-19 08:48:32 AM

EvilEgg: Assad admitted he had them last night on FOX news.  So lets just take his and see if the continue to be used.


That he has chemical weapons has never, ever been in question.
 
2013-09-19 08:51:23 AM
chemical weapons near Damascus, the Syrian capital, on August 21 that killed millions

Their editor must be on vacation.
 
2013-09-19 08:53:34 AM
Guys, this is huge!  The Russians have:

proof that the opposition used chemical weapons near Damascus, the Syrian capital, on August 21 that killed millions

How can we support the opposition or doubt the power of chemical weapons now?  That's over 10% of the population of Syria, killed in a single day!  That's at least 8x more than were killed when we nuked Japan!
 
2013-09-19 08:57:38 AM
We're gonna need a planet-sized bucket of popcorn for this one.
 
2013-09-19 08:58:11 AM

freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?


Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.
 
2013-09-19 09:06:18 AM

freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?


I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.
 
2013-09-19 09:09:26 AM

maddermaxx: I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.


Russia asks him to give them up and in return they will offer more logistical support, war materials, fuel, and weapons

Great plan everyone!
 
2013-09-19 09:27:56 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: maddermaxx: I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.

Russia asks him to give them up and in return they will offer more logistical support, war materials, fuel, and weapons

Great plan everyone!


Hey, if it gets the chemical weapons out of Syria, that works out for the best. Honestly, since it looks like whoever wins won't A) be someone we like or B) be much of a threat from their rubble pile, the worst fallout from the war, besides the already terrible civilian casualties in Syria itself, would be the distribution of chemical weapons to groups who would use it to attack other countries (not just Israel, but various moderate countries in the region and even Russia).
 
2013-09-19 09:30:14 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: maddermaxx: I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.

Russia asks him to give them up and in return they will offer more logistical support, war materials, fuel, and weapons

Great plan everyone!


What is the United States interest here? Is it a concern that if the Assad government collapses, which it might, that those weapons would fall into the hands of those who would have no compunction about using them as weapons of terror against Americans? Is it to reinforce the principle that this sort of weapon is Not Used, Ever? Or is it to rebuild Syria into some sort of kumbayah democracy?

Because the plan as presented accomplishes the first two goals rather well and that plan would not be on the table right now if we had not threatened to drop a bunch of explosives on the Assad regime.
 
2013-09-19 09:36:38 AM

CheatCommando: What is the United States interest here?


Region instability near two key allies in that region. But here is the issue with what is going on. Now Russia provides more weapons and tech for Assad so he can get this civil war under control which would help create a little more stability, perhaps even allow refugees to return home which would lessen the burden on some of our allies and yes it sucks people would die but the long term goal of a region stabilized and without chemical weapons could be achieved.

Yet we are also giving weapons to the rebels

o_0
 
2013-09-19 09:37:00 AM
How convenient that this "evidence," completely contradictory to all that presented to and found by UN weapons inspectors, was unavailable until AFTER the formal report was issued that all but damned the Syrian regime for gassing its own people.
 
2013-09-19 09:38:55 AM

maddermaxx: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.


Except Gaddaffi did give up his chemical weapons, and ended up like Gaddafi anyway. I would be surprised if Assad didn't try to keep them, as they're his only diplomatic defense against American bombing.

Assad: "Sure, go ahead and bomb the palace. That's where I keep my chemical weapons stored, and you'd better hope not a single barrel tips over when you blow it up, or the resulting poison cloud will be all your fault."

Obama: "No it won't."

Putin: "Yes it will, biatch." *slap*

Obama: "Why does this always happen to me? It has to be Bush's fault, somehow! Run another news story blaming it on the wreckers."

Ted Turner: "Uh, we use the term 'one percenters' now."

Obama: "JUST RUN IT BIATCH!" *slap*
 
2013-09-19 09:39:50 AM
So Russia is outing one of their customers.
 
2013-09-19 09:54:43 AM

maereth: We're gonna need a planet-sized bucket of popcorn for this one.


Not really. Its a short story with an obvious ending.
Plain and simple fact is they are lying.

Assad is a dictator trying to retain power and he already admits to owning chemical weapons (He might as well, because we have the receipts he signed for the components).  He's also in the habit of using week long artillery barrages to deal with "terrorism".  He shows no remorse for slaughtering his own people.
They found traces of the kind of gas he owns in the bodies of his victims, shells used by his types of launchersat the scene of the attack, and counter battery radar traces them back to a launch site inside one of this strongholds.
His cover story is that any insurgent could have used the gas, but not his own forces because using gas requires special equipment and training he can't afford. Its also, conveniently, the reason its going to take a long time and alot of outside money to deliver those weapons to the UN.

The Russians are rejecting all that's transpired and substitute their own reality.
Don't hold your breath for any persuasive arguments tho, just take their word for it.

We will say Assad is a monster and come to the UN with our twenty seven eight-by-tenColour glossy pictures (with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one) to prove it. We will ask for a right to bomb that guy if he doesn't live up to his agreements.
The Russians will laugh and say no. Then they'll say we can't be trusted, which is damn ironic but everyone will buy it.
Then we sit around for a few years and wait for a box of "chemical weapons" to turn up, with no way to verify where it came from or if Assad is disarmed.

Its going to be one long, dull, drawn out story.

/Meanwhile the war goes on.
 
2013-09-19 09:55:15 AM

factoryconnection: How convenient that this "evidence," completely contradictory to all that presented to and found by UN weapons inspectors, was unavailable until AFTER the formal report was issued that all but damned the Syrian regime for gassing its own people.


How is it contradictory?
 
2013-09-19 09:59:33 AM
I just can't see where we got a dog in this fight.
 
2013-09-19 10:02:54 AM
Doesn't matter, fartbongo needs to shoot off some missiles to cover up the crap he's been pulling on the region.
 
2013-09-19 10:03:07 AM

Tatterdemalian: maddermaxx: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.

Except Gaddaffi did give up his chemical weapons, and ended up like Gaddafi anyway. I would be surprised if Assad didn't try to keep them, as they're his only diplomatic defense against American bombing.

Assad: "Sure, go ahead and bomb the palace. That's where I keep my chemical weapons stored, and you'd better hope not a single barrel tips over when you blow it up, or the resulting poison cloud will be all your fault."

Obama: "No it won't."

Putin: "Yes it will, biatch." *slap*

Obama: "Why does this always happen to me? It has to be Bush's fault, somehow! Run another news story blaming it on the wreckers."

Ted Turner: "Uh, we use the term 'one percenters' now."

Obama: "JUST RUN IT BIATCH!" *slap*


Sarin gas isn't kept mixed but in precursor chemicals, and destroying it's component parts with bombs is quite possible. Plus these things need to be dispersed properly to be highly effective. Basically, it is possible to air-strike them quite effectively, but finding them is the difficult part, which is why punitive strikes were threatened as well, to make Assad give up the weapons.

However, you do kind of sound like an idiot with that rant of yours, so I don't think anything I say will matter to you.
 
2013-09-19 10:22:38 AM

generallyso: chemical weapons near Damascus, the Syrian capital, on August 21 that killed millions

Their editor must be on vacation.


This site feels distinctly like the Quibbler.

It's not hard. The collected evidence implicates the Syrian government, and the chain of evidence has been maintained. Chemical weapons were DEFINITELY used by Assad's forces, so you remove those.
 
2013-09-19 10:31:20 AM
It's possible both sides have used chemical weapons at this point although neither will admit it. Anything we can get them to give up without having to go in there is a win.
 
2013-09-19 10:31:59 AM
Well, maybe not a win but it's progress. The Syrian people are still screwed though.
 
2013-09-19 10:33:01 AM
The US has this proof as well. It just doesn't do them any good in achieving their goals. So what if Assad has the chems? The US has substantially more. Assad stood to gain nothing, while the rebels stood to gain everything. The civilians are not involved in this from a government point of view - they just want normalcy. Even with the evidence aside, logic should lead in only one direction. I still don't understand how people can sit there and say to themselves "Well, my government has lied about every war in the past X number of years, but they're probably telling the truth this time."

Bah.
 
2013-09-19 10:56:47 AM

JonnyG: The US has this proof as well. It just doesn't do them any good in achieving their goals. So what if Assad has the chems? The US has substantially more. Assad stood to gain nothing, while the rebels stood to gain everything. The civilians are not involved in this from a government point of view - they just want normalcy. Even with the evidence aside, logic should lead in only one direction. I still don't understand how people can sit there and say to themselves "Well, my government has lied about every war in the past X number of years, but they're probably telling the truth this time."

Bah.


Actually logically it was just some low level colonel who ignored the higher ups and decided he wanted to be done w/ killing civilians by lunch time.
 
2013-09-19 11:02:12 AM

JonnyG: The US has this proof as well. It just doesn't do them any good in achieving their goals. So what if Assad has the chems? The US has substantially more. Assad stood to gain nothing, while the rebels stood to gain everything. The civilians are not involved in this from a government point of view - they just want normalcy. Even with the evidence aside, logic should lead in only one direction. I still don't understand how people can sit there and say to themselves "Well, my government has lied about every war in the past X number of years, but they're probably telling the truth this time."

Bah.


I don't know if Assad did this either. He's winning the conflict conventionally. Why would he do this to provoke other powers while there were UN chemical weapons inspectors in the country? It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying I'm sure he didn't do it, but there is reasonable doubt.

Plus I don't think our government is lying, they just don't know any better. This whole debacle has cast them as bumbling fools in foreign policy. I'm not saying this as an Obama hater.

If the US is smart about this current situation it'll take the Russian deal, grab the weapons, then just

cdn.chud.com
 
2013-09-19 11:19:04 AM

Rapmaster2000: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.


By asking congress to authorize the strike, since they criticized him last time and whined that he needed congressional approval. Did congress authorize the strike? No? So how does that make Obama an empty suit? Was he an empty suit when he struck Libya without congressional authorization? No, he was a war criminal then, right?

Do you have any opinions that show you might have gotten an education of some sort at some point in your life that wasn't provided by the pundits at Fox?
 
2013-09-19 11:19:37 AM
bomb somebody
anybody
i need my war porn
 
2013-09-19 11:23:59 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Rapmaster2000: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.

By asking congress to authorize the strike, since they criticized him last time and whined that he needed congressional approval. Did congress authorize the strike? No? So how does that make Obama an empty suit? Was he an empty suit when he struck Libya without congressional authorization? No, he was a war criminal then, right?

Do you have any opinions that show you might have gotten an education of some sort at some point in your life that wasn't provided by the pundits at Fox?


/thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-09-19 11:37:48 AM
Rapmaster2000

Freak7
:   Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.


I have no doubt the Assad regime and their Russian allies will use this to delay the issue and even if there are inspectors, cause problems like Sadaam did in Iraq.

But why wouldn't he just give it up?  It lends his regime credence or legitimacy.  It gives the US even less reason to interfere or any western power for that matter.  A

nd for giving up what?  Chemical weapons are often of dubious strategic use. This war has resulted in well over a 100,000 deaths by use of conventional means.  Assad doesn't really need chemicals to kill rebels.
 
2013-09-19 11:43:14 AM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: Rapmaster2000: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.

By asking congress to authorize the strike, since they criticized him last time and whined that he needed congressional approval. Did congress authorize the strike? No? So how does that make Obama an empty suit? Was he an empty suit when he struck Libya without congressional authorization? No, he was a war criminal then, right?

Do you have any opinions that show you might have gotten an education of some sort at some point in your life that wasn't provided by the pundits at Fox?


He had the power (legal authorization) to do it and had made threats to attack. His failure to act makes his threats hollow in the eye of Assad and now he's playing 2nd string to Russia over Syria. If you threaten to attack you either have to or you look like a) you lack the political clout to back up your threats (weak president) and / or b)you make empty threats

Congress will always criticize and whine; that's what they do. Even now they criticize and whine. His handing it to congress also gave Assad time to move his assets into heavily populated areas to stave off air strikes. Now air strikes are either going to be against worthless targets or with huge collateral casualties. He screwed the pooch when he didn't attack.

Who said he was a war criminal in Libya? Now you're getting into straw argument areas as I haven't seen a single person on this thread, much less the person you're responding to, accuse him of being a war criminal.

He should have launched a few cruise missiles and told Assad through back channels to knock it off before it gets serious. BO would've presented himself as credible and Assad would've gotten anti-west propaganda.

'm saying this as someone who voted for him the 2nd time around.  BO is an idiot in this situation.

Also, personal attacks make you look foolish, not the person you're attacking.
 
2013-09-19 11:57:28 AM

Rapmaster2000: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.


Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

\So trying diplomacy in the Syria situation is cowardly, but sending in the Seals after Bin Laden is, what, exactly?
 
2013-09-19 12:08:47 PM

freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?


The Totsl Fark left
 
2013-09-19 12:08:58 PM

IdBeCrazyIf: If only there was some place United where all nations could come together to discuss this thing and present the information, debate and then come to a reasoned well thought out solution.


Yeah, too bad it doesn't exist.
 
2013-09-19 12:10:45 PM

factoryconnection: How convenient that this "evidence," completely contradictory to all that presented to and found by UN weapons inspectors, was unavailable until AFTER the formal report was issued that all but damned the Syrian regime for gassing its own people.


It was Obama who gave the keys to Putin. Last week you concluded this a win for Obama and we laughed at you.
 
2013-09-19 12:12:13 PM
edmprod.com
 
2013-09-19 12:23:22 PM

MadMattressMack: squirrelflavoredyogurt: Rapmaster2000: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

Exactly.  It's like I've been saying all along - Obama needs to strike now.  This cowardly, empty-suit has let an opportunity to strike go right through his hands.

By asking congress to authorize the strike, since they criticized him last time and whined that he needed congressional approval. Did congress authorize the strike? No? So how does that make Obama an empty suit? Was he an empty suit when he struck Libya without congressional authorization? No, he was a war criminal then, right?

Do you have any opinions that show you might have gotten an education of some sort at some point in your life that wasn't provided by the pundits at Fox?

He had the power (legal authorization) to do it and had made threats to attack. His failure to act makes his threats hollow in the eye of Assad and now he's playing 2nd string to Russia over Syria. If you threaten to attack you either have to or you look like a) you lack the political clout to back up your threats (weak president) and / or b)you make empty threats



Err, no, that's not how threats work.  See, threats are conditional.  For example, A tells B, "Do X or I will punch you."  That's a threat.  Then if B actually goes and does X, then A not punching B doesn't make A's threat look empty.  In fact, if A did punch B after B did X, that would make A look like a stupid bully.

In this particular scenario, X was "get rid of your chemical weapons" and Syria seems to be complying, however reluctantly or calculatingly, so not "punching" them in no way makes the threat empty.
 
2013-09-19 12:25:29 PM
"Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who is in Syria, said the proof that the opposition used chemical weapons near Damascus, the Syrian capital, on August 21 that killed millions has been given to the UN experts who worked in the country."

Ah, nyet.   See my post here regarding the UN report and why it's pretty clear some element of the dictatorship fired those sarin rounds.

/also, "killed millions"?
 
2013-09-19 12:30:51 PM
Well obviously Russia is right because look how white Putin is.

/go read CNN comments.  I dare you.
 
2013-09-19 12:31:03 PM

way south: maereth: We're gonna need a planet-sized bucket of popcorn for this one.

Not really. Its a short story with an obvious ending.
Its going to be one long, dull, drawn out story.



I'm confused.  Popcorn or no popcorn?
 
2013-09-19 12:34:50 PM
Putin can beat the sun in a staring contest.
 
2013-09-19 12:38:32 PM

Deep Contact: Putin can beat the sun in a staring contest.


Last I heard instead of using plutonium as a fissile source for their missiles they use his sperm, apparently they increased the yield amount by 50%
 
2013-09-19 12:53:24 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-19 12:58:29 PM

ShadowKamui: JonnyG: The US has this proof as well. It just doesn't do them any good in achieving their goals. So what if Assad has the chems? The US has substantially more. Assad stood to gain nothing, while the rebels stood to gain everything. The civilians are not involved in this from a government point of view - they just want normalcy. Even with the evidence aside, logic should lead in only one direction. I still don't understand how people can sit there and say to themselves "Well, my government has lied about every war in the past X number of years, but they're probably telling the truth this time."

Bah.

Actually logically it was just some low level colonel who ignored the higher ups and decided he wanted to be done w/ killing civilians by lunch time.


I concede that you could very well be correct.

MadMattressMack: JonnyG: The US has this proof as well. It just doesn't do them any good in achieving their goals. So what if Assad has the chems? The US has substantially more. Assad stood to gain nothing, while the rebels stood to gain everything. The civilians are not involved in this from a government point of view - they just want normalcy. Even with the evidence aside, logic should lead in only one direction. I still don't understand how people can sit there and say to themselves "Well, my government has lied about every war in the past X number of years, but they're probably telling the truth this time."

Bah.

I don't know if Assad did this either. He's winning the conflict conventionally. Why would he do this to provoke other powers while there were UN chemical weapons inspectors in the country? It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying I'm sure he didn't do it, but there is reasonable doubt.

Plus I don't think our government is lying, they just don't know any better. This whole debacle has cast them as bumbling fools in foreign policy. I'm not saying this as an Obama hater.

If the US is smart about this current situation it'll take the Russian deal, grab the weapons, then just

[cdn.chud.com image 500x375]


I also concede that everything you have said could indeed be the case and agree with your closing statement.
 
2013-09-19 01:14:18 PM

Tatterdemalian: maddermaxx: freak7: Is there anybody out there that actually believes Syria is going to give up their chemical weapons?

I give it fairly good odds, as Assad doesn't want to end up like Gaddaffi, as would probably happen if the US brought air power against him. IIRC, he's "winning" the war at the moment (as much as winning a giant rubble heap is winning), so he probably wouldn't risk holding much of his stocks of them (if any), and certainly couldn't risk using any, so he'll just try to push out a "win" with conventional weapons.

Except Gaddaffi did give up his chemical weapons, and ended up like Gaddafi anyway. I would be surprised if Assad didn't try to keep them, as they're his only diplomatic defense against American bombing.

Assad: "Sure, go ahead and bomb the palace. That's where I keep my chemical weapons stored, and you'd better hope not a single barrel tips over when you blow it up, or the resulting poison cloud will be all your fault."

Obama: "No it won't."

Putin: "Yes it will, biatch." *slap*

Obama: "Why does this always happen to me? It has to be Bush's fault, somehow! Run another news story blaming it on the wreckers."

Ted Turner: "Uh, we use the term 'one percenters' now."

Obama: "JUST RUN IT BIATCH!" *slap*


Trying way too hard.
 
2013-09-19 01:45:55 PM

EvilEgg: Assad admitted he had them last night on FOX news.  So lets just take his and see if the continue to be used.


What is your point? Yes we know Assad/Syria posseses sarin gas, that´s not news.

You don´t find it odd that Assad would decide to use sarin gas against civilians the same farking day the UN inspectors arrived?

Sure, the Syrian army might have done so. I have no knowledge or information to know one way or the other.

But it just seems like the most boneheaded moronic thing to do.

For the rebels however, that would be very smart. If they had access to some of those sarin gas depots, to use them at precisely at that moment, to provoke USA to bomb Assad.
 
2013-09-19 01:53:58 PM

factoryconnection: How convenient that this "evidence," completely contradictory to all that presented to and found by UN weapons inspectors, was unavailable until AFTER the formal report was issued that all but damned the Syrian regime for gassing its own people.


Well yeah.

Though the UN never attempted to place blame, they just were there to verify the use of sarin gas.

As of now the UN inspectors have voiced no opinions on who did it.

But yeah, they could have come with this evidence a bit earlier.

But maybe it will be clearer when Russia presents whatever they´re going to present.
 
2013-09-19 01:57:45 PM
My theory:

Assads soldiers have often defected to the rebels (the non-AlQaida ones).

Someone from a chemical unit defected at one point. Presto, rebels have sarin gas, and use it just as the UN inspectors arrive to fark things up for Assad. Damn the civilians etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report