Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

You have this image of great big chemically filled barrel bombs falling from aircraft. Hundreds of times. :)

The very first chemical attack was done by the little blue mortar type barrel bombs. Stolen by the rebels was just as likely as government forces. *shrugs*

Zero evidence the Syrian Government are using CW's... let alone hundreds of times.

Let's see what the weapons inspectors say. I'll bet money they find no anthrax or sarin, chlorine maybe.
Ohhh yeah they arrived on the 14th.

---

I didn't know i had that image. Who knew. Apparently you did. All this time i thought it was shrapnel, chemicals, explosives and/or oil. Also not all of those mix together, but listing those separately doesn't seem that relevant.

Zero evidence Syrian government is using CWs hundreds of times, hence i never said that. Plenty of evidence that they are using CWs.

Tricky those rebels. Always stealing Assad CWs. Obv Assad had never any intention of using that stockpile that he kept replenishing. All the while Syrian pound was plummeting (it's still worth 10% what it was before the war), under sanctions and trade embargoes, having their foreign assets seized while on their 7th year of a civil war where half of their people have left the country. That's some winning. But what's important Assad had his shiny stockpile of CWs. You know just for show and peace of mind. Who in their right mind would ever use that, especially when they were winning so hard.

---

It was obvious you didn't even know what a barrel bomb was when you started talking about one side having no aircraft. Hence assuming it had to be the government forces or even Russians.

-----
"Since February 2014 using barrel bombs has been against international law. After that there's been about 100 incidents per year in Syria. None of local factions that oppose Assad have aircraft's. I don't see how opposition creates 100 false flag attacks without tools needed for it and apparently absolutely nothing to gain from it. Almost no one is mentioning barrel bombs."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I didn't know i had that image. Who knew. Apparently you did. All this time i thought it was shrapnel, chemicals, explosives and/or oil. Also not all of those mix together, but listing those separately doesn't seem that relevant.

Zero evidence Syrian government is using CWs hundreds of times, hence i never said that. Plenty of evidence that they are using CWs.

Tricky those rebels. Always stealing Assad CWs. Obv Assad had never any intention of using that stockpile that he kept replenishing. All the while Syrian pound was plummeting (it's still worth 10% what it was before the war), under sanctions and trade embargoes, having their foreign assets seized while on their 7th year of a civil war where half of their people have left the country. That's some winning. But what's important Assad had his shiny stockpile of CWs. You know just for show and peace of mind. Who in their right mind would ever use that, especially when they were winning so hard.

---

It was obvious you didn't even know what a barrel bomb was when you started talking about one side having no aircraft. Hence assuming it had to be the government forces or even Russians.

---

Nope Russians do not use barrel bombs. Obv i have no idea. There are few ways using barrel bombs can go against international law. Such as targeting populated areas from low altitudes, using poisonous chemicals or something inflammatory and dropping them from high altitudes that renders them as indiscriminate. They aren't inherently indiscriminate. Making these specifications/distinctions is usually unnecessary and causes confusion that obscures the point.

If you're interested in the subject, here is an article from the end of 2013 specifically about the Syrian barrel bombs and their evolution at that point...

http://brown-moses.blogspot.fi/2013/...-relative.html

...almost no one should read it. It's very technical and most people find it boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

---

I guess it's the only time it pays to be an old balding fat guy with adult onset diabetes

:lol4

Stop throwing softballs nigga I'm here all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

It was obvious you didn't even know what a barrel bomb was when you started talking about one side having no aircraft. Hence assuming it had to be the government forces or even Russians.

---

Nope Russians do not use barrel bombs. Obv i have no idea. There are few ways using barrel bombs can go against international law. Such as targeting populated areas from low altitudes, using poisonous chemicals or something inflammatory and dropping them from high altitudes that renders them as indiscriminate. They aren't inherently indiscriminate. Making these specifications/distinctions is usually unnecessary and causes confusion that obscures the point.

If you're interested in the subject, here is an article from the end of 2013 specifically about the Syrian barrel bombs and their evolution at that point...

http://brown-moses.blogspot.fi/2013/...-relative.html

...almost no one should read it. It's very technical and most people find it boring.

---

Dude, it was obvious you had no idea. Furthermore you made assumptions based on nonsense about aircraft

Barrel bombs are being used by both sides and don't prove shit.

"Since February 2014 using barrel bombs has been against international law. After that there's been about 100 incidents per year in Syria. None of local factions that oppose Assad have aircraft's. I don't see how opposition creates 100 false flag attacks without tools needed for it and apparently absolutely nothing to gain from it. Almost no one is mentioning barrel bombs."

"Why would Assad gas his own ppl" more like "if he's not supposed to be using this stuff, when he does use it why isn't he dropping it on nothing but 100 terrorists ala the MOAB bomb? No there's always pictures to show everybody of pretty much all women and children being affected."

Shit has got to be a scam, so it deserves a scam bombing of empty airfields or buildings. Bulldoze the middle east has been the plan for a while, the deep state doesn't even care that Trump is POTUS, just gonna keep doing what the plan was the whole time and optimistically hope Trump will be gone for them by 2021. Or maybe even trumps been in on it the whole time idk. I wouldn't be surprised if the 160 IQ scammers figured out the only way they can pull it off anymore is if it looks like they got some ahole telling them to f off the whole time to give the ppl false hope. I'm 20% on Trump has been acting the entire time. I used to think about 10% chance

And btw I'm 70% on 9/11 being planned by guys in suits, not caves. The day being the biggest clue imo. I feel like if it was guys in caves they would have picked a random day, but the guys in suits picked 911 to maximize the fear so the American ppl would let them do whatever they want in the middle east, like make up stories about WMDs to overthrow an entire country. Osama bin Laden worked for the CIA in the 80s, did he ever stop?? Feels like killing a former CIA asset that turns is something u make sure u get done immediately, amirite russia??

And hell maybe even the deep state is right. Maybe it is all a scam but if the USA deep state wasn't doing what they were doing the world would be worse off and millions of more ppl would be dead from who knows what. God damn the world is F'd up, I THINK I SHOULD GET FKN CANNED

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Nope Russians do not use barrel bombs. Obv i have no idea. There are few ways using barrel bombs can go against international law. Such as targeting populated areas from low altitudes, using poisonous chemicals or something inflammatory and dropping them from high altitudes that renders them as indiscriminate. They aren't inherently indiscriminate. Making these specifications/distinctions is usually unnecessary and causes confusion that obscures the point.

If you're interested in the subject, here is an article from the end of 2013 specifically about the Syrian barrel bombs and their evolution at that point...

http://brown-moses.blogspot.fi/2013/...-relative.html

...almost no one should read it. It's very technical and most people find it boring.

---

Dude, it was obvious you had no idea. Furthermore you made assumptions based on nonsense about aircraft

Barrel bombs are being used by both sides and don't prove shit.

"Since February 2014 using barrel bombs has been against international law. After that there's been about 100 incidents per year in Syria. None of local factions that oppose Assad have aircraft's. I don't see how opposition creates 100 false flag attacks without tools needed for it and apparently absolutely nothing to gain from it. Almost no one is mentioning barrel bombs."

---

I guess it would too easy if you weren't an idiot.

So i should just forget brevity or trying to simplify things. Inherently using barrel bombs isn't against international law. In the context of law usually their unlawful use is inferred. Almost no one that isn't trying to lie to you is referring every improvised explosive as a barrel bomb. There is no defined description. Most of the time "barrel bomb" is used as shorthand for barrel shaped improvised explosives dropped from aircraft.

But really semantics is the one thing i focus the most when discussing war crimes on the 3rd language i learned.

And once again mentioning "both" sides is based on propaganda that there is exactly two sides in Syria. It's far more complicated than that. Maybe the other side you refer to are Saudi backed terrorists you've mentioned before. Is Isis in that group? I don't know. I don't read the propaganda you read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Dude, it was obvious you had no idea. Furthermore you made assumptions based on nonsense about aircraft

Barrel bombs are being used by both sides and don't prove shit.

"Since February 2014 using barrel bombs has been against international law. After that there's been about 100 incidents per year in Syria. None of local factions that oppose Assad have aircraft's. I don't see how opposition creates 100 false flag attacks without tools needed for it and apparently absolutely nothing to gain from it. Almost no one is mentioning barrel bombs."

---

I guess it would too easy if you weren't an idiot.

So i should just forget brevity or trying to simplify things. Inherently using barrel bombs isn't against international law. In the context of law usually their unlawful use is inferred. Almost no one that isn't trying to lie to you is referring every improvised explosive as a barrel bomb. There is no defined description. Most of the time "barrel bomb" is used as shorthand for barrel shaped improvised explosives dropped from aircraft.

But really semantics is the one thing i focus the most when discussing war crimes on the 3rd language i learned.

And once again mentioning "both" sides is based on propaganda that there is exactly two sides in Syria. It's far more complicated than that. Maybe the other side you refer to are Saudi backed terrorists you've mentioned before. Is Isis in that group? I don't know. I don't read the propaganda you read.

---

You made a point on nobody who opposes Asaad has aircraft's and used this totally irrelevant piece of nonsense to form an opinion. Or prove a point in some bizarre way.

I surely read loads of propaganda, I like to read a lot. Can't be avoided I'm afraid.

People seem to have trouble understanding the concept of a civil war. In war times people are rude. In a civil war people are even more rude. In a civil war with mixed ethnicity and religion people are especially rude.

Assad isn't killing his "own" people. Assad is an Alawite. It's a Shi'a sect. Less than 15% of Syrians are Shi'a. That's where Iran and Hezbollah backing comes from. Bout 70% of Syrians are Sunni. You'd think both being Muslims they'd be besties, but nah they really dislike each other. Their feuds go back centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

I guess it would too easy if you weren't an idiot.

So i should just forget brevity or trying to simplify things. Inherently using barrel bombs isn't against international law. In the context of law usually their unlawful use is inferred. Almost no one that isn't trying to lie to you is referring every improvised explosive as a barrel bomb. There is no defined description. Most of the time "barrel bomb" is used as shorthand for barrel shaped improvised explosives dropped from aircraft.

But really semantics is the one thing i focus the most when discussing war crimes on the 3rd language i learned.

And once again mentioning "both" sides is based on propaganda that there is exactly two sides in Syria. It's far more complicated than that. Maybe the other side you refer to are Saudi backed terrorists you've mentioned before. Is Isis in that group? I don't know. I don't read the propaganda you read.

---

You made a point on nobody who opposes Asaad has aircraft's and used this totally irrelevant piece of nonsense to form an opinion. Or prove a point in some bizarre way.

I surely read loads of propaganda, I like to read a lot. Can't be avoided I'm afraid.

---

Yes apparently a very hard to comprehend point.

The UN resolution about barrel bombs is specifically about their indiscriminate use. Or more precisely dropping them from high altitudes. That's the thing that makes them indiscriminate. Now here comes the tricky part. None of the several partisan, terrorist or Jihadi groups that oppose Assad in Syria have capability to drop barrel bombs from high altitudes. There is a certain type mechanical contraption that is required for that feat.

I will draw the line to crayons when explaining this to you.

Possibly you should use less or more drugs. I do not know your specific circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

People seem to have trouble understanding the concept of a civil war. In war times people are rude. In a civil war people are even more rude. In a civil war with mixed ethnicity and religion people are especially rude.

Assad isn't killing his "own" people. Assad is an Alawite. It's a Shi'a sect. Less than 15% of Syrians are Shi'a. That's where Iran and Hezbollah backing comes from. Bout 70% of Syrians are Sunni. You'd think both being Muslims they'd be besties, but nah they really dislike each other. Their feuds go back centuries.

---

It's moot I guess. Rebels are all but gone, the Jihadists and terrorists have run away.

Think Trump sends in troops?... no chance IMO

Not a civil war!

FTR ive been locked inside during a blizzard all wknd smoking the last of my bag AKA KIEF

but on the subject of everything being pro wrestling fake political theater: Charlottesville GIVE ME A BREAK. Another CIA scam. Ya sure its gonna happen in the state that just happens to have the next elections so give the democrats momentum back making the Republicans look awful at the subtlety titled 'Unite the right' rally. they got guys there with Nazi flags obviously taken straight out of bags. I follow the main figure Richard Spencer on twitter and the week leading up the rally he was out of control trying to rile up his followers saying ppl weren't being racist enough basically. ive only trolled him 5 times in my life I think and 4x were that week cuz he was being that garbage and the other time was to say "firing up ur followers like the week before Charlottesville??". Obv CIA plant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

People seem to have trouble understanding the concept of a civil war. In war times people are rude. In a civil war people are even more rude. In a civil war with mixed ethnicity and religion people are especially rude.

Assad isn't killing his "own" people. Assad is an Alawite. It's a Shi'a sect. Less than 15% of Syrians are Shi'a. That's where Iran and Hezbollah backing comes from. Bout 70% of Syrians are Sunni. You'd think both being Muslims they'd be besties, but nah they really dislike each other. Their feuds go back centuries.

---

It's moot I guess. Rebels are all but gone, the Jihadists and terrorists have run away.

Think Trump sends in troops?... no chance IMO

Not a civil war!

---

This is roughly the current war map...

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defau...?itok=H11fdhmv

...Assad is better off with control than he was 2 years ago, but much worse off financially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

You made a point on nobody who opposes Asaad has aircraft's and used this totally irrelevant piece of nonsense to form an opinion. Or prove a point in some bizarre way.

I surely read loads of propaganda, I like to read a lot. Can't be avoided I'm afraid.

---

Yes apparently a very hard to comprehend point.

The UN resolution about barrel bombs is specifically about their indiscriminate use. Or more precisely dropping them from high altitudes. That's the thing that makes them indiscriminate. Now here comes the tricky part. None of the several partisan, terrorist or Jihadi groups that oppose Assad in Syria have capability to drop barrel bombs from high altitudes. There is a certain type mechanical contraption that is required for that feat.

I will draw the line to crayons when explaining this to you.

Possibly you should use less or more drugs. I do not know your specific circumstances.

---

I think you'd do better with crayons, voice-overs and animation.

5 or 6 year old pics on some randoms blogspot was the best you could do?

Good day, Sir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Yes apparently a very hard to comprehend point.

The UN resolution about barrel bombs is specifically about their indiscriminate use. Or more precisely dropping them from high altitudes. That's the thing that makes them indiscriminate. Now here comes the tricky part. None of the several partisan, terrorist or Jihadi groups that oppose Assad in Syria have capability to drop barrel bombs from high altitudes. There is a certain type mechanical contraption that is required for that feat.

I will draw the line to crayons when explaining this to you.

Possibly you should use less or more drugs. I do not know your specific circumstances.

---

I think you'd do better with crayons, voice-overs and animation.

5 or 6 year old pics on some randoms blogspot was the best you could do?

Good day, Sir.

---

So you only looked at the pictures. I can see where the confusion stems and why you appear to be in the target demographic for propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

I think you'd do better with crayons, voice-overs and animation.

5 or 6 year old pics on some randoms blogspot was the best you could do?

Good day, Sir.

---

So you only looked at the pictures. I can see where the confusion stems and why you appear to be in the target demographic for propaganda.

---

Thought it was unusual to present old pictures from some guys blog as proof of CW attacks. Or the significance of your "aircraft's" comment in regard to barrel bombs.

95%+ of the barrel bombs used in Syria are not launched from aircraft!

Using barrel bombs is hardly reason to invade Syria and proves NOTHING!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

So you only looked at the pictures. I can see where the confusion stems and why you appear to be in the target demographic for propaganda.

---

Thought it was unusual to present old pictures from some guys blog as proof of CW attacks. Or the significance of your "aircraft's" comment in regard to barrel bombs.

95%+ of the barrel bombs used in Syria are not launched from aircraft!

Using barrel bombs is hardly reason to invade Syria and proves NOTHING!

---

I didn't present old pictures from some guys blog as proof of CW attacks. We are so over explaining why aircraft are relevant if you still can't figure it out. Whenever something appears to be unusual try taking another look at it instead of assuming you're not a retard.

100% of the barrel bomb use in Syria is from aircraft. In common parlance that's what is meant when ever barrel bombs are mentioned.

It's cute that you've found some mong that has decided to give barrel bombs their very own definition but that is not what is meant when adults talk about them.

Typical, blood thirsty joos...

http://http://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netanyahu-The-West-should-treat-Iran-the-same-as-it-treated-Syria-549860/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Hello

Donald Trump sucks.

Towelism is organic.

peace

LPT