15 Apr 2018, 4:50 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Governments never lie!
I emphatically disagree with you!
They do all the time!
And diplomacy is the domain of pathological liars (pseudologia fantastica and mythomania)!
I can't believe how profoundly naive you are!
You obviously lack life wisdom and I am now questioning your intellectual capacity!...
D'oh!
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Why are you considering it an illegal attack?
I thought the same...
It is retaliation for crimes against humanity...
Or maybe Trump wants to distract the world from the Stormy Daniels scandal.
Seriously possible...
It happens all the time...
Last edited by Pepe on 15 Apr 2018, 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
15 Apr 2018, 4:54 pm
Pepe wrote:
pawelk1986 wrote:
I prefer not to think what Putin could do to them if he was put in a situation with no way out
he is known to have a sharp temper, just like Trump Putrid is a self-centred narcissist who wants to enjoy his dictatorship of Russia...
He isn't going to lose the privileges of his position for the sake of Syria...
Of course, he will be posturing as all these political ego-manics do, but it is simply chest-beating jingoistic rhetoric...
As long as his citizens aren't harmed, it is all laughable bluster...
<snip>
As long as Nato is extremely caution in regards to collateral damage, there will be no war...
Remember, Russia is nowhere near the military strength it was during the first cold war, and that is what rankles many Putrid-ists...
I told you so...
15 Apr 2018, 5:10 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Why are you considering it an illegal attack?
I thought the same...
It is retaliation for crimes against humanity...
Because it is an illegal attack. There's no UN mandate. There's no evidence the attack happened let alone it being carried out by Assad. The OPCW were meant to go in today but hours before they did, the site was blown up. Also, if the strikes blew up alleged chemical weapons supplies, wouldn't those chemicals cause damage to people in the vicinity? Our only source for this attack is Al Qaeda. You believe them?
If the US was interested in attacking those who carry out crimes against humanity it would attack Israel, the Saudis and itself.
All valid points...
But Assad has definitively used chemical weapong in 2013/2014?
He made his bed...
And now he has to lie in it...
Same applies tp Putrid...
If they are false flag events so be it...<shrug>
On the balance of probability, using recent historic events/crimes-against-humanity (and ignoring the false justification of Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq
), I believe Nato rather than the "evil empire"... 
15 Apr 2018, 5:21 pm
Pepe wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Why are you considering it an illegal attack?
I thought the same...
It is retaliation for crimes against humanity...
Because it is an illegal attack. There's no UN mandate. There's no evidence the attack happened let alone it being carried out by Assad. The OPCW were meant to go in today but hours before they did, the site was blown up. Also, if the strikes blew up alleged chemical weapons supplies, wouldn't those chemicals cause damage to people in the vicinity? Our only source for this attack is Al Qaeda. You believe them?
If the US was interested in attacking those who carry out crimes against humanity it would attack Israel, the Saudis and itself.
All valid points...
But Assad has definitively used chemical weapong in 2013/2014?
He made his bed...
And now he has to lie in it...
Same applies tp Putrid...
If they are false flag events so be it...<shrug>
On the balance of probability, using recent historic events/crimes-against-humanity (and ignoring the false justification of Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq
), I believe Nato rather than the "evil empire"... There's zero evidence he carried out the 2013 attack. There had been two previous chemical attacks by the 'rebels' (they had made a video the year before showing off their chemicals by using them to kill rabbits). Then Obama says that if chemical weapons are used it would cross the "red line". THE DAY UN inspectors were in town, a chemical weapons attack is carried out and Assad is blamed. Gee, I wonder who did it.
15 Apr 2018, 5:36 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Why are you considering it an illegal attack?
I thought the same...
It is retaliation for crimes against humanity...
Because it is an illegal attack. There's no UN mandate. There's no evidence the attack happened let alone it being carried out by Assad. The OPCW were meant to go in today but hours before they did, the site was blown up. Also, if the strikes blew up alleged chemical weapons supplies, wouldn't those chemicals cause damage to people in the vicinity? Our only source for this attack is Al Qaeda. You believe them?
If the US was interested in attacking those who carry out crimes against humanity it would attack Israel, the Saudis and itself.
All valid points...
But Assad has definitively used chemical weapong in 2013/2014?
He made his bed...
And now he has to lie in it...
Same applies tp Putrid...
If they are false flag events so be it...<shrug>
On the balance of probability, using recent historic events/crimes-against-humanity (and ignoring the false justification of Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq
), I believe Nato rather than the "evil empire"... There's zero evidence he carried out the 2013 attack. There had been two previous chemical attacks by the 'rebels' (they had made a video the year before showing off their chemicals by using them to kill rabbits). Then Obama says that if chemical weapons are used it would cross the "red line". THE DAY UN inspectors were in town, a chemical weapons attack is carried out and Assad is blamed. Gee, I wonder who did it.
Firstly, the UN is a joke bigtime...<shrug>
Secondly, if you have definitive evidence that Assad didn't use chemical weapons, please present it...
In the meantime, could we simply agree to disagree?
Cheers, m8...
16 Apr 2018, 12:12 pm
How "objective" and "enlightened" of you to ask me to prove a negative.... 
16 Apr 2018, 6:52 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
How "objective" and "enlightened" of you to ask me to prove a negative....
If you have evidence that someone else was responsible, and not Assad, that is proof of a negative...
Be positive, man...
20 Apr 2018, 6:34 pm
23 Apr 2018, 2:20 am
JohnPowell wrote:
Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? He had no motive. There's no evidence there was even a gas attack.
Well firstly: Someone did do it!...
And there are only 2 suspects...
1. Them...
2. Not them...
No question about that, right?
Someone is guilty...
The *speculation* is who...
And consider: Assad and Putin denied access presumably until the site was cleansed of evidence...
Well, so it could be construed...
The delay was pretty dumb if you ask me...
The motive could have been: In your face...(this could explain Putin's alleged nerve gas assassination attempt in Britain also)...
These guys are egomaniacs...
Power-lust junkies...
Putin extremely pathologically so, imo...
And I have heard it said, regarding the alleged chlorine/sarin barrel bomb, it would have saved Assad's troops from heavy losses during an intense room to room clearing offensive...
Could we simply agree to disagree now? Pleeeeezzz?
23 Apr 2018, 2:38 am
