ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RaohNS said:
People indubitably voted for him. Same for Assad. Again, it was and is rigged and or marred by all manner of improprieties. No different than almost all elections.

You disagree with what he said.. Was that you disagree with his evidence or with his opinion
Click to expand...

I'd say elections where you are pretty much forced through fear of violence to vote for the leader are quite different than most elections actually.

He's misused the term "war criminal" Tony Blair, despite his failings, mistakes, whatever, is not a war criminal, hes committed no war crimes.
 
RaohNS said:
People indubitably voted for him. Same for Assad. Again, it was and is rigged and or marred by all manner of improprieties. No different than almost all elections.

You disagree with what he said.. Was that you disagree with his evidence or with his opinion. If something is verifiable, fact. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. If his opinion is backed by facts and you disagree then that's a foolish stance to take.

Fair enough, he doesn't need your custom I'm sure
Click to expand...

Johno doesn't do facts, he watches CNN. (´• ω •`)
 
StriderX said:
It's sad, but it's also how it works, every single time.
Click to expand...

Yep - standard US / CIA practice. Go to a country you want to destabilize, find a group that feels oppressed or wants independence (rightly or wrongly), give them money, training, intelligence and arms and tell them the USA has got their back. Then when all is chaos, US vanishes. Mission accomplished!

Mind you, in this instance Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been proxies as well, with US encouragement.

IronWarrior said:
Biggest false flag attack ever. Only a week ago, President Trump said he wanted to be out of Syria and was convinced to stay a little longer and now this gives a solid reason to stay. Oh, funny enough, today (tomorrow) is John Bolton first day as National Security Adviser, the guy who wanted to nuke North Korea and Iran.

This is on top that Assad is on the verge of victory and is destroying the terrorists and rebels on all sides. Makes no sense, especially at this late stage in the war.

There has been no ground attack following this "chemical attack" which makes no tactical sense.

Only few weeks ago, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergal Lavrov warned that the Syrian terrorists was planning to stage an chemcial attack to give the US-led coalition an reason to strike Damasus.
Click to expand...

Yep. It makes little sense. Bolton is also the person who led the push to oust Bustani - the head of the OPCW just before the Iraq war - who like David Kelly was inconveniently contradicting the Saddam-WMD narrative. Bustani is on record saying that Bolton made threats against his children if he didn't resign. Bustani was later compensated for his unfair removal, long after it ceased to matter for the Iraq war.

Tucker Carlson felt strongly enough about this to make a pretty good speech to the American people about these attacks. Most of Trump's support base just want American soldiers and American dollars to stop being thrown into ME wars. But there seems to be a major effort by the elites to get America embroiled in another war.

 
The previous lot of CW attacks in Syria were never successfully laid at the door of Assad and ten months after them, it was finally conceded there wasn't good evidence for it. But with Trump talking about getting out of there, like clockwork, another attack happens.
 

There you go - regime change was a US goal under Obama. I'm pretty certain if I took the time I could go back through old posts and find when the usual suspects here were shouting "conspiracy theory" when I was talking about US involvement.

Got a black laugh out of this interview.

Senator: "Our goal is to defeat ISIL".
Tucker: "But wasn't that also Assad's aim?"
Senator: "Well... it's complicated."
 
Looking a lot more likely that there'll be a military response very soon, according to Sky it sounds like Theresa May is pledging UK support alongside France with the USA,

Wouldn't surprise me if we see a bunch of cruise missiles flying towards Syria in the next 24/48 hours, the way things are looking
 
I just pray that this doesn't go ahead.

The UK/US are desperate to get into Syria, now however their objective is becoming more clear. They are looking to have a confrontation with Russia. The British Govt is full of warmongering morons. Topped and headed by that stupid ***** Theresa May :mad:

Maybe they are doing multiple elements here also. Trying to cause something initially in Syria that they hope will escalate the situation with SA and Iran.
 
Dacwzs_XXk_AALEer.jpg
 
If the chemical attack was perpetrated by the Syrian regime, do people here think that "The West" should intervene militarily? (strikes against the targets and assets used to deliver the chemical weapons?)

I think there's a good argument to take action, provided chemical weapons were definitely used by the accused.


(I'm not after an argument - just looking to gauge opinion)
 
Screeeech said:
If the chemical attack was perpetrated by the Syrian regime, do people here think that "The West" should intervene militarily? (strikes against the targets and assets used to deliver the chemical weapons?)

I think there's a good argument to take action, provided chemical weapons were definitely used by the accused.


(I'm not after an argument - just looking to gauge opinion)
Click to expand...

No it's not our fight and we should stop the faux outrage that killing people with chemicals is somehow worse than any of the methods we've developed over the course of our history to kill someone, murder is wrong full stop

Dropping Napalm on enemies - fine
Shooting up enemies with depleted Uranium shells - fine
Bullets - they're the cheapest murder tool we prefer it if you kill this way to save money
Nukes - Meh they get the job done despite collateral damage

Chemicals and Bio weapons - OMG you're the ******* devil
 
The main difference between conventional weapons like bullets, shells, explosives is that you can at least to some extent choose who you fire them at, with chemical weapons - they just exterminate everyone in the entire area, so I think it's pretty problematic to compare chemical/biological weapons to conventional weapons - simply because both can kill.

I agree it's not our fight, but if women and children are being melted by chemical weapons in an act of genocide, it seems reasonable to step in and take action, especially if you have the capability to do so on humanitarian grounds, especially considering that if action is not taken - it'll embolden the aggressor into perhaps going even further?
 
Screeeech said:
The main difference between conventional weapons like bullets, shells, explosives is that you can at least to some extent choose who you fire them at, with chemical weapons - they just exterminate everyone in the entire area, so I think it's pretty problematic to compare chemical/biological weapons to conventional weapons - simply because both can kill.

I agree it's not our fight, but if women and children are being melted by chemical weapons in an act of genocide, it seems reasonable to step in and take action, especially if you have the capability to do so on humanitarian grounds, especially considering that if action is not taken - it'll embolden the aggressor into perhaps going even further?
Click to expand...

You won't convince the pro dictators here otherwise. They seem quite content with all that.
 
Screeeech said:
I agree it's not our fight, but if women and children are being melted by chemical weapons in an act of genocide, it seems reasonable to step in and take action, especially if you have the capability to do so on humanitarian grounds, especially considering that if action is not taken - it'll embolden the aggressor into perhaps going even further?
Click to expand...


War is ugly, these were journalists shot up by an Apache, do you think while they were being murdered in cold blood they were thinking "boy I'm glad I'm not being gassed and they're being honourable by shooting us with projectiles"

When these scumbag rebels which WE (the west) armed and trained are using civilians as human shields, how in the hell do you expect any military to engage them without any collateral damage ?

Not to mention there's currently ZERO evidence which said it was the SAA who used the chemicals as opposed to Rebels using them in order to keep their buddies in the fight


How do you fight an enemy that locks people in cages and uses them as shields without collateral damage ?
 
Screeeech said:
If the chemical attack was perpetrated by the Syrian regime, do people here think that "The West" should intervene militarily? (strikes against the targets and assets used to deliver the chemical weapons?)

I think there's a good argument to take action, provided chemical weapons were definitely used by the accused.


(I'm not after an argument - just looking to gauge opinion)
Click to expand...

Personally I couldn't care less if an entire hospital was gassed, we (the UK) shouldn't be involved in Syria at all. If the US want's to stomp around the place, funding and arming the various Jihadist groups they used to be bombing and generally ballsing up yet another country then so be it, let them get on with it. Why the hell do we have to get involved?
 
RoboCod said:
You won't convince the pro dictators here otherwise. They seem quite content with all that.
Click to expand...

because we ask why would assad do that when he is winning the war and he has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it you call us pro dictators ?
how about you provide some proof that he did the chemical attack rather than childish insults
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom