If that scenario plays out it would be the worst possible message one could send Assad, and you'd be guaranteed that the overall level of army brutality against civilians will only continue to rise, even without the chemicals. I don't think there's a need to rush hastily into the conflict until a clear set of objectives and methods is charted out, and we have more time to review whatever remaining evidence comes in and see how serious the UN is about identifying and dealing with the perpetrators (my expectation: it will be a total farce of political theatre from start to finish). My biggest concern in the interim is that Assad might take advantage of America's reluctance to deliver even a token blow and decide that now's as good a time as any to squeeze a few more atrocities in and capture some more ground before the next round.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
If that scenario plays out it would be the worst possible message one could send Assad, and you'd be guaranteed that the overall level of army brutality against civilians will only continue to rise, even without the chemicals. I don't think there's a need to rush hastily into the conflict until a clear set of objectives and methods is charted out, and we have more time to review whatever remaining evidence comes in and see how serious the UN is about identifying and dealing with the perpetrators (my expectation: it will be a total farce of political theatre from start to finish). My biggest concern in the interim is that Assad might take advantage of America's reluctance to deliver even a token blow and decide that now's as good a time as any to squeeze a few more atrocities in and capture some more ground before the next round.
According to some news outlets Syrian troops are so far remaining in a defensive posture awaiting a military strike from the U.S. and hopefully will remain in that position. As long as the Syrian military is in a defensive posture they cannot wreak as much havoc on the civilian population. Hmm, taking a little time may not be a bad thing!
The Palestinians are overwhelmingly Sunni, probably more than 99% of those who call themselves Muslim. Their tensions with Shia Islamists haven't been this bad in centuries- even Hamas chose to abandon Syria and its allies despite jeopardizing its primary sources of weapons, funds and diplomatic support. There are reports of Hamas involvement in the recent car bombing of Hezbollah's Dahiyeh stronghold (~28 killed, 300 wounded, mostly civilians), as well as reports that Hezbollah was involved in the recent retaliatory car bombings in Tripoli (so far Hezbollah hasn't and obviously won't be formally charged, but Lebanese officials are now pressing charges against at least one officer in Assad's army, which coordinates closely with them, and Hezbollah used to retaliate in precisely this same fashion during the Lebanese civil war of 1975-1990). If relations between Hamas and Hezbollah are this bad beneath the surface, you'd better believe the Palestinian Authority has absolutely no sympathy for Shiite Islamists.
No they are just blown to bits.
You guys have all made some really excellent comments. Here's a question: including the perfunctory cruise-missiling of Assad's homies, what is the best way of dealing with the issue - at any level - and/or Assad's likely guilt? (At least likely, not absolutely certain.) What should be done, if anything? Which way would objectively minimize blowback the best across all locales and parties? (Palestine/Syria/Iran/Turkey/Dems/Reps/other)
I wonder what France is getting out of this. A chance to stick it to the Anglos across the Channel? When's their election?
I wonder what France is getting out of this. A chance to stick it to the Anglos across the Channel? When's their election?
Got any intelligence reports I can look at? Just a peek?
How concerned should we be about the Russians?
CptBork, You stated:
- quote - " Israel's intelligence capabilities in Syria are practically the stuff of legend, their agents and collaborators have penetrated Syrian government ranks all the way to the top in the past and probably possess similar access to Assad's inner circle even today." - unquote
Indeed, Israel's escapades are literally the stuff of legend : The Lavon Affair, USS Liberty incident, Mossad assassinations...
My questions are :
1.) Have Israel's agents and collaborators penetrated any other government's ranks all the way to the top, and do they probably possess similar access to the "inner circle", even today of any other world governments?
2.) Is the United States one of those governments?
3.) Does Israel practice "War by Deception"?
4.) What are your thoughts on what I am Pasting below? :
All below is copy/pasted from: http://exposinginfragard.blogspot.ca/2012/07/detecting-disinformation-agents.html
begin quote -
.........................................Detecting Disinformation Agents..........................................
There are several types of disinformation agents, from high-profile ones who gain a lot of publicity and promote well-crafted stories, to low-level ones who serve to flood the Internet with less reputable claims. This document deals primarily with the former.
A disinformation agent will sometimes be someone who works directly for a larger entity (usually the government or major corporation) and uses a cover identity, but more often than not they will be someone who receives false information from someone who purports to be ‘in the know’, such as a government whistleblower. In other instances, they might just be someone who makes certain claims that tend to benefit those who keep dark secrets because it creates a sense of doubtfulness about those secrets, and confuses any chance of learning the truth. Whatever the case, they will be used because they’re willing to believe the information they’re given, and they’ll usually have or be provided with the right avenues and receive a greater than usual amount of promotion to ‘get the word out’. Often, they’ll be able to provide physical documents or other evidence that reveal certain truths to their story, but even these will not reveal the veracity of their entire story (nor are they necessarily legitimate). Other times, they’ll be able to provide verbal information that on later investigation by others will pan out, thus offering some legitimacy to what they claim. However, there will ALWAYS be unverifiable information that will be part of the foundation of their claims, and this information will more often than not be extraordinary in nature (e.g. beyond known science).
A disinformation agent will usually be given a scripted story to disseminate. This story will weave many truths with many falsehoods, so that these truths might be disregarded due to the inclusion of the falsehoods. Very often, these truths will simply be disregarded because they’re so far outside of our common understanding that they sound too outrageous to easily accept, and are hard – if not impossible – to prove. In such a case, the added falsehoods are meant to add to the seeming illegitimacy of the truths. This helps to turn away all but the most gullible people, who will be used to further increase the seeming absurdity of these planted falsehoods by the unscientific mindset these people generally have and the propensity to be carried away by imaginative ideas rather than to stay grounded in just those known truths that are provable.
A disinformation agent, particularly one who knows that they are disseminating false information, will rarely expand on their original information, and will be more interested in disseminating just the information they’ve been provided with. An unwitting disinformation agent, on the other hand, will usually be interested in investigating their own information further, and not be as compelled to stick to their original story over time as new revelations crop up.
It’s common for there to be a number of disinformation agents working simultaneously, either in secret collaboration or alone and unaware of each other’s true identity. One of their tactics is to engage in creating controversy between themselves, which only serves to disrupt the situation further and increase the uncertainty, while keeping their followers hoping something revealing might come of it.
Disinformation agents, whether witting or unwitting, will usually believe the story they tell, and this is a standard procedure in keeping secrets. These are cover stories that are fed to them with the purpose of compartmentalizing the knowledge and activities of the secret programs that they might actually be privy to. Virtually no one but those few people at the very top will ever know the full truth about the secret program.
The ultimate purpose of a disinformation agent is three-fold:
a) to create a sense of ridicule about anything that they include in their story so that even what is true will be not be believed by intelligent people,
b) to mislead those who are gullible enough to believe their story, and
c) to divert the efforts of those who seek to know the truth through further investigation.
Although disinformation agents are used to cover up the truth, their claims should not be written off completely, since they can still teach us something about the underlying truth that they’re meant to cover up.
To measure the level of truth within each of these individual stories, the unverifiable claims must be sorted out and then weighed against the verifiable claims. These two aspects of any person’s claims must be clearly understood before considering any further what they’re claiming.
To measure the claims that are being made by someone, it’s necessary to always pay attention to what they say and how they present it. For instance:
1) What percentage of their claims can be checked out, compared to what can’t?
2) What seems to be their motive for making their claims?
3) Do they act fairly and honestly during a discussion?
4) Do they act like they are beyond questioning?
5) Are they willing to provide further evidence of their claims when it’s asked for?
6) Do they claim to have special inside sources that gives them an edge on the facts?
7) Do they claim early on to only be interested in exposing what is going on at whatever cost, but then later blatantly withhold information?
8) Do they ever offer valid sources of information that would support some of what they say?
9) Do they admit when they’re only assuming something or speculating, or do they pass off everything they say as hard fact?
10) Do they often leave it for you to fill in what they aren’t saying, relying on you to use your imagination to make the connections between certain things?
11) How much trust do they expect you to put into what they say?
12) Do they attempt use emotional appeals to gain support for their claims, or do they stick to straight, unemotionally imbued information?
13) Do they convey a lot of fear by the way they describe things?
14) Do they spend an excessive amount of time going over less significant or more widely known information than they do going over the more significant aspects of their claims, or in discussing any new information they might claim to have?
14) Can they explain what they claim in a logical and scientific way that might offer the ability to test, or do they avoid those important aspects and rely instead on emotional appeal for persuasion?
15) Is the way they present themselves that of an honest, fair, and respectful person that can admit being wrong, or are there telltale quarks in their personality that might indicate otherwise?
16) Do they include terminology or phrases that are unusual, and can’t be found anywhere else where the same meaning applies? (I see this with almost every person I’ve come across that I’ve suspected of being a high-profile disinformation agent, and I have a suspicion that this terminology is purposely planted in order to track the spread of the disinformation from its original source, and to indicate what pieces of disinformation are being bought into and what aren’t. You can usually determine whether the phrases are legitimate or just made up by doing an Internet search for them, to see who else uses them.) - end quote
Surgical bombing is an honest, and honorable, attempt not to cause collateral damage to innocent people. Terrorist, Muslim or other, prefer to kill innocent people. Only a wackjob would dispute this.
The millions killed for the right to enslave Africans and their descendants... oh wait, that wasn't Israel. Yes, I suppose your three purported examples summarize the entire history of Israel's intelligence work. Disregard anything else that's ever been written about them.
Yes, they have an agent named Hussein "Barack" Obama, born and raised in Kenya and trained by the Mossad and Al Qaeda in the dark arts of Salafism, Zionism, Ziosalafism, Ninjiutsu and alchemy. They faked his documents and planted a network of "college frat buddies" inside the United States, before inserting him into the US senate with help from the Xenu-worshipping elites who control it. The goal is to cripple America's economy in order to force it into the Syrian war so starving Americans will feast on Arab blood in lieu of vastly more expensive cauliflower, thereby strengthening Israel's ability to capture and rule both nations simultaneously.
With regards to its continuing occupation of Palestinian territories, yes. And Israel also faked all the Youtube videos and newspaper reports of Shia militants doing anything immoral. They hack Al Jazeera on an hourly basis.
Given that this idiot believes the US government was behind the Boston Marathon bombings, I suggest he should consider taking his own advice, and/or a Xanax.
If the American jets overfly them, I think there's about a 20% chance the fuckers will fire at them. Depends on the capabilities of the vessels. Maybe they'll just 'target them aggressively' with their AA systems without loosing anything.
As far as intelligence goes, I have little enough to spare. It makes you wonder how effective an informed public might be in these cases. Maybe the play back to Congress is a moral call after all.
@ dumbest man on earth,
Sounds an awful lot like a book I read years ago called Propaganda and Persuasion or even better like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
Know a Major in the Army specifically tasked with the above.
I mean what is your point? Is this a vague accusation?
Or is it specific and I am just stoopid monkey?
Sounds an awful lot like a book I read years ago called Propaganda and Persuasion or even better like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
Know a Major in the Army specifically tasked with the above.
I mean what is your point? Is this a vague accusation?
Or is it specific and I am just stoopid monkey?I was under the impression we were going to use missiles and unmanned drones to bomb. The real risk would be collateral damage.
CptBork, thank you kindly for the timely response to my Post.
You would probably not believe me, if I told you, how impressed I was with the open, honest, courteous, critically thought out and intelligent answers you gave.
Your ability to not only know other peoples thoughts and beliefs, but to be able not to disregard what you know, is also, so much more than just impressive.
Like I told you before, assumptions and presumptions have no true place in serious discussions (in my understanding), and it is always refreshing to converse with people who not only feel the same as myself, but choose to practice that type of discourse as well.
Thank you, and again you would probably not believe, if I were to tell you, how much the careful consideration of all of my questions and the obvious considerable time and effort (not to mention mental acuity, focus and labor) that you put into crafting your insightful, knowledgeable and truly enlightening answers really means to me.
@ dumbest man on earth,
Sounds an awful lot like a book I read years ago called Propaganda and Persuasion or even better like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
Know a Major in the Army specifically tasked with the above.
I mean what is your point? Is this a vague accusation?
quinnsong, the title of this thread is "The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End".
There was no "vague accusation", no "pointed accusation", nor "specific accusation" to anyone intended.
The "point" of my Post was to ask 4 questions of CptBork, and to remind all interested Posters of the "Farce" part and to show that I had found an interesting Link to a Site that had information that seemed to be pertinent to the "farcical" nature of the "media" and possible reasoning behind it.
As I have stated before -assumptions and presumptions have no true place in serious discussions (in my understanding) - so I would not assume nor presume anyone to be "just (a) stoopid monkey"!
After all, would you prefer that I "assume or presume" myself to be a "stoopid monkey" - and only able to have discourse with my own kind?
Sorry if I offended you or anyone else because of any assumptions or presumptions on my part.
BTW - If you have read very many of my other Posts, you probably know that I keep no secret that I spent too many years as a WO in the U.S. Army - and believe me when I tell you that the Major you mentioned, has many counterparts in not just Government/Military circles, but also many Corporate/Media/Private Enterprises employ the same - and he will have no problem finding employment along those lines when and if he retires from military life.
Last edited:
@wegs, you asked:
Q Yes, earlier in this thread, it was discussed what news avenue to trust? Al Jazeera came up, and then the discussion went on from there. I think that it's hard to find any 100% factual/unbiased news sources, anymore...do you agree?
Definitely, I agree. The only thing you can do is check different sources and see if they are saying the same thing.
Sometimes a source can be good for one thing and useless for another.
Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, is great for reports on Palestine and Egypt, but can't be relied on for reports on Bahrain or any other Gulf States.
BBC News will always toe the British Government line on any foreign policy. Otherwise it is reliable and factual.
Newspapers generally reflect the views of the people that own them.
My experience of American newspapers, is that they print conjecture as fact.
They are terrible.
I don't know if any US newspaper can be trusted.
Can anyone suggest one that doesn't make things up?
Q Yes, earlier in this thread, it was discussed what news avenue to trust? Al Jazeera came up, and then the discussion went on from there. I think that it's hard to find any 100% factual/unbiased news sources, anymore...do you agree?
Definitely, I agree. The only thing you can do is check different sources and see if they are saying the same thing.
Sometimes a source can be good for one thing and useless for another.
Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, is great for reports on Palestine and Egypt, but can't be relied on for reports on Bahrain or any other Gulf States.
BBC News will always toe the British Government line on any foreign policy. Otherwise it is reliable and factual.
Newspapers generally reflect the views of the people that own them.
My experience of American newspapers, is that they print conjecture as fact.
They are terrible.
I don't know if any US newspaper can be trusted.
Can anyone suggest one that doesn't make things up?
Oh not offended at all, just did not know where you were going and your clarification made it crystal clear to me. Thank you and Eureka or ding ding ding I get it.
The Major no doubt will be gainfully employed as his MOS is in high demand as you say!
Bells
Staff member
Do you really think the Syrian rebels have the hardware capable of delivering chemical weapons to kill that many people? Really? Considering what weapons they do have and the arms and weapons Syria has and is still being provided with by Russia, do you really think this argument is going to fly?
Iran hasn't used nuclear weapons.
But if they do, do you think it is acceptable to pontificate for weeks before responding? Do you think it is acceptable to fret on the sidelines, asking 'did they do it? Or was it the rebels?'..?
If a country like Iran does use a nuclear weapon within her own borders against her own populace, then all this hand wringing we are seeing from the West right now will repeat itself. Because all of our 'aww do we really have to respond? they're just Muslims' argument is going to come back and bite us on our backsides one day. The reason being we are erasing every single illegal act that does demand intervention because it's just too hard and we don't care about the victims because both sides of this debacle are Muslims.
It's more that you ramble.
Your point was simple. You try to hide it by rambling. Your issue with this is that the rebels are Muslims and the victims are Muslims. If the opposition were Jewish or Christian, you'd be all over intervention like a rash. Rand Paul has similar sentiments. Only he goes further to praise Assad because Assad protected Christians.
.
Sorry fuck-knuckle, but it is not another Egypt, this is much more complex and frankly, Egypt is paradise in comparison and frankly, only a simpleton would use this as an excuse or argument. Just because they are Arab and Muslim does not mean it is exactly the same as in Egypt. This has escalated to the point where the President is repeatedly using chemical weapons to murder his own civilians in their homes as they sleep at night.
Your link states the Syrians did in fact do it. So how can you claim that it is not certain the Syrians actually did it?
And why would the Americans do something about it then? How could they? Do you think a phone call to Assad with a "we're watching you!" would stop it? Naive much? He had already been told that the "red line" would be the use of WMD's. It was a test, you dumbarse. He tested the "red line" and the lack of response is now a confirmation that no one will do anything to stop him regardless of what he wants to do. He could nuke them and we won't have a fucking leg to stand on to respond. We have collectively urinated and crapped on the international laws that ban the use of WMD's. He has repeatedly tested the UN and the West and now he knows we won't do diddlysquat. We never have in the past when chemical weapons were used upon a civilian population and we won't now, because we continue to defecate on International Laws that prohibit the use of chemical and biological weapons and the reason is quite simple. It is because of the religion of the victims. Comforting, isn't it?
Well put Bells! You gotta wonder how some people manage to roll out of bed every morning.
No, you could guarantee that the whole level of terrorist Al-Quida activity within Syria is going to continue to rise, thanks to US SUPPLIED WEAPONS to terrorists through Turkey.
Thanks USA for destroying Syria people and Syria government. (sarcasm).
Fool me once, cain't git fooled agin
Ease down off your high horse there. The warheads were delivered by mortars, probably 82mm Russian jobs, since those are popular and endemic but I suspect that it's 120mm that can actually fire sarin ordnance. Either way, those are easy to come by. The weight of evidence is still on the Syrians, but many of Obama's advisors weren't sure who was really responsible. As for killing that many people, it's really simple: if you want to kill more people, fire more rounds. With the delivery system being just mortars - and not aircraft as you alleged earlier - it would be identical to say that the Syrians themselves weren't capable of the attack! The number of casualties doesn't support Syrian government involvement. That might be enough for trollepistole, but as a famous American leader once said "fool me once, cain't git fooled agin".
First, I said must be producing nuclear weapons, and second, it's a side-point about relative suspicion. I didn't even say they had produced one yet. We're talking here about the threshold of belief in the American intelligence services. Why do you do this?
Is this in reference to a hypothetical Iranian attack with a nuke? In such a case - or in this one - the time elapsed would hardly matter for the purposes of retaliation. The Syrians aren't like dogs, where you have to rub their noses in their own shit immediately or they just don't get why you're doing it. Thinking helps, on both the domestic and international stages. More thinking might have avoided the deaths of millions of Iraqis. If they're certainly guilty - and they probably are - being sure hurts nothing. Why this Valkyrian thirst for instant vengeance? And as for 'fretting on the sidelines', that's just colour language. We could replace it with 'be[ing] really sure about our objectives and support', or 'deciding the best way to retaliate on behalf of the international community'. Take a minute and think. I don't think you ever supported Gulf War II, and now you're demanding action with less certainty, so far as I can tell based on the evidence. Have we learned nothing? This could well be SSDD.
I can't speak to the rest of the world, but my consideration is a little more nuanced than that. Did you see the link above where PA news outlets are already castigating the American for the temerity to even consider striking Syria. I don't hate to say I told you so, and I did. Add to that the uncertainties in the American intel establishment and you have the makings of a humanitarian and political disaster. My gut is telling me this is the wrong call.
Sure, better we charge in without thinking.
I'm not Rand Paul, and may I suggest a big pill of fuck you to alleviate the symptoms of your rampant paranoia? I've already explained why I don't support intervention without more proof; I add to it in this post, and there's historical and recent support of my argument, which you would know if you were in any way passingly literate. You might not find it too relevant, but it'll matter in the long run. Conversely, it's apparent that you don't mind bombing Syria good and flat without too much investigation because them Syrians, they're a little too left-biased on the ol' pigment scale, if you know what I mean. *nudge nudge, wink wink* Right? Right?
I beg to differ, stink-ass: supporting religious fascists over political fascists strikes me as a ridiculous redress, and there is apparently no secular opposition to Assad. Egypt is hardly a paradise for its Coptic minority, but even if it were relatively better, do you really want to possibly turn it into something worse? I have no idea on what basis you call Syria more complex than the Egyptian situation.
My first link, if you'd bothered to read it, stated that it wasn't a "slam dunk". It appears increasingly likely, maybe, but I haven't seen their evidence. Have you? Do share.
We'll never know. Instead, Obama waited until they crossed the line so he could act like a big boy, then found out he was backed by... France and Latvia. That would be my cynical counter for the reading pleasure of you and trollepistole. The truth, of course, is more nuanced, but we're not doing nuance today, apparently.
But in fact, we actually can't know. Maybe diplomacy would have settled old Assad there, Jim-Bob, and maybe not: several other chemical attacks are alleged to have occurred in the Syrian civil war so far, though I have no further information on them than that.
Maybe so, assclown. A verbal might have given him pause - or might not. Sounds as if both parties were playing a little brinksmanship, and are doing what they wanted to do in the first place.
Interesting - I knew you were a reactionist, but not your extremity of belief. Has Gulf War II not shaken your faith in the American intelligence administration even a little, there, Cletus?
Are you still here, Charrington? I was going to say that you were prettier as a cheerleader but... well.
Ease down off your high horse there. The warheads were delivered by mortars, probably 82mm Russian jobs, since those are popular and endemic but I suspect that it's 120mm that can actually fire sarin ordnance. Either way, those are easy to come by. The weight of evidence is still on the Syrians, but many of Obama's advisors weren't sure who was really responsible. As for killing that many people, it's really simple: if you want to kill more people, fire more rounds. With the delivery system being just mortars - and not aircraft as you alleged earlier - it would be identical to say that the Syrians themselves weren't capable of the attack! The number of casualties doesn't support Syrian government involvement. That might be enough for trollepistole, but as a famous American leader once said "fool me once, cain't git fooled agin".
First, I said must be producing nuclear weapons, and second, it's a side-point about relative suspicion. I didn't even say they had produced one yet. We're talking here about the threshold of belief in the American intelligence services. Why do you do this?
Is this in reference to a hypothetical Iranian attack with a nuke? In such a case - or in this one - the time elapsed would hardly matter for the purposes of retaliation. The Syrians aren't like dogs, where you have to rub their noses in their own shit immediately or they just don't get why you're doing it. Thinking helps, on both the domestic and international stages. More thinking might have avoided the deaths of millions of Iraqis. If they're certainly guilty - and they probably are - being sure hurts nothing. Why this Valkyrian thirst for instant vengeance? And as for 'fretting on the sidelines', that's just colour language. We could replace it with 'be[ing] really sure about our objectives and support', or 'deciding the best way to retaliate on behalf of the international community'. Take a minute and think. I don't think you ever supported Gulf War II, and now you're demanding action with less certainty, so far as I can tell based on the evidence. Have we learned nothing? This could well be SSDD.
I can't speak to the rest of the world, but my consideration is a little more nuanced than that. Did you see the link above where PA news outlets are already castigating the American for the temerity to even consider striking Syria. I don't hate to say I told you so, and I did. Add to that the uncertainties in the American intel establishment and you have the makings of a humanitarian and political disaster. My gut is telling me this is the wrong call.
Sure, better we charge in without thinking.
I'm not Rand Paul, and may I suggest a big pill of fuck you to alleviate the symptoms of your rampant paranoia? I've already explained why I don't support intervention without more proof; I add to it in this post, and there's historical and recent support of my argument, which you would know if you were in any way passingly literate. You might not find it too relevant, but it'll matter in the long run. Conversely, it's apparent that you don't mind bombing Syria good and flat without too much investigation because them Syrians, they're a little too left-biased on the ol' pigment scale, if you know what I mean. *nudge nudge, wink wink* Right? Right?
I beg to differ, stink-ass: supporting religious fascists over political fascists strikes me as a ridiculous redress, and there is apparently no secular opposition to Assad. Egypt is hardly a paradise for its Coptic minority, but even if it were relatively better, do you really want to possibly turn it into something worse? I have no idea on what basis you call Syria more complex than the Egyptian situation.
My first link, if you'd bothered to read it, stated that it wasn't a "slam dunk". It appears increasingly likely, maybe, but I haven't seen their evidence. Have you? Do share.
We'll never know. Instead, Obama waited until they crossed the line so he could act like a big boy, then found out he was backed by... France and Latvia. That would be my cynical counter for the reading pleasure of you and trollepistole. The truth, of course, is more nuanced, but we're not doing nuance today, apparently.
But in fact, we actually can't know. Maybe diplomacy would have settled old Assad there, Jim-Bob, and maybe not: several other chemical attacks are alleged to have occurred in the Syrian civil war so far, though I have no further information on them than that.
Maybe so, assclown. A verbal might have given him pause - or might not. Sounds as if both parties were playing a little brinksmanship, and are doing what they wanted to do in the first place.
Interesting - I knew you were a reactionist, but not your extremity of belief. Has Gulf War II not shaken your faith in the American intelligence administration even a little, there, Cletus?
Are you still here, Charrington? I was going to say that you were prettier as a cheerleader but... well.
Last edited: