Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

Obviously Assad didn't gas his own people......

---

He's literally got the entirety of ISIS trapped in one fucking city and hes like "yeahhhhh I feel good, I had a good day, I think I'll do the one exact thing with virtually no strategic advantage to me that can legitimize a US airstrike on my soul to celebrate".

And people chug it like Fresca.

---

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

He's literally got the entirety of ISIS trapped in one fucking city and hes like "yeahhhhh I feel good, I had a good day, I think I'll do the one exact thing with virtually no strategic advantage to me that can legitimize a US airstrike on my soul to celebrate".

And people chug it like Fresca.

---

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

Hatred will make people do a lot of irrational things... So will absolute power or not having to face repercussions for one;s actions. Put those three together and that's how genocide occurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

Obviously Assad didn't gas his own people......

---

He's literally got the entirety of ISIS trapped in one fucking city and hes like "yeahhhhh I feel good, I had a good day, I think I'll do the one exact thing with virtually no strategic advantage to me that can legitimize a US airstrike on my soul to celebrate".

And people chug it like Fresca.

---

No doubt it is dumbfounding. So, who do you think did it? Russia to test the water or Israel to keep us flexing as their muscle in the middle east?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

Hatred will make people do a lot of irrational things... So will absolute power or not having to face repercussions for one;s actions. Put those three together and that's how genocide occurs.

---

Sure, but wouldn't he have known there would be repercussions for this? In fact, didn't Obama/Kerry promise the world just a couple of years ago that Syria was free of chemical weapons? No way this goes unchecked. So, ......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Hatred will make people do a lot of irrational things... So will absolute power or not having to face repercussions for one;s actions. Put those three together and that's how genocide occurs.

---

Sure, but wouldn't he have known there would be repercussions for this? In fact, didn't Obama/Kerry promise the world just a couple of years ago that Syria was free of chemical weapons? No way this goes unchecked. So, ......

---

It's not the first incident since the last missile strike. The repercussions last time were damages worth several dollars to an abandoned airfield.

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.

So.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Hatred will make people do a lot of irrational things... So will absolute power or not having to face repercussions for one;s actions. Put those three together and that's how genocide occurs.

---

Sure, but wouldn't he have known there would be repercussions for this? In fact, didn't Obama/Kerry promise the world just a couple of years ago that Syria was free of chemical weapons? No way this goes unchecked. So, ......

---

As others have said this is far from the first time this has happened. I also am a firm believer in Occam's razor. All alternative explanations are even less likely.

Also your question could apply to literally hundreds of major wars over the history of mankind

Oh and you know why don't abnormal individuals behave normally in abnormal situations? If only we had some clues to solve this puzzle. I guess will never know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

He's literally got the entirety of ISIS trapped in one fucking city and hes like "yeahhhhh I feel good, I had a good day, I think I'll do the one exact thing with virtually no strategic advantage to me that can legitimize a US airstrike on my soul to celebrate".

And people chug it like Fresca.

---

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

There are two explicit motivations for Russian assassinations abroad;

1) tying up loose ends.

2) sending messages.

And #2 is a really, really big problem thats been discussed quite openly; the FSB tends to 'take the initiative' in ways that are neither sanctioned by Putin nor to Russia's overall advantage, because the ranks of the FSB are being filled with people who were low-to-mid range crime families a decade ago. Nemtsov was murdered in broad daylight literally within eyesite of Putin's office window.

And the dozen or so Russian 'diplomatic staff' who died on American soil within literal weeks of Trump winning the election are generally hypothesized to be players who provided material support to the Russian trollfarm initiative but fucked it all up and ended up accidentally getting Trump elected instead of simply destabilizing the democracy.

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

[ So, who do you think did it?

---

this is where i take my foot off the pedal.

i have a friend who used to work for the government who had TS+ clearance because he did network security at a gov installation.

without getting into details.. it was made clear to me that normies like us never see more than the tip of the iceberg, and usually what we see of it is not even the truth.

i cant responsibly give attribution for a gas attack on syrian soil. i dont have the data.

but if you show me a bird-shaped animal with a bill that goes quack, i can say with confidence that its a duck.

a gas attack at this time serves exactly no rational purpose but to provoke an american response. and thats exactly everything i need to recognize this duck.

beyond that, im sorry, i refuse to participate because its just this:

https://i.imgur.com/BTT6AGb.jpg



its amazing what a pint of fresh coffee will do for my punctuation btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BetCheckBet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

Hatred will make people do a lot of irrational things... So will absolute power or not having to face repercussions for one;s actions. Put those three together and that's how genocide occurs.

---

Ummm... why would they be hating? Syrians are dancing in the streets.
8,000 fighters chose to flee with the Syrian Government approving, the rest have run away.
Entire area has been liberated.

You would have to be an utter moron to seriously think he used CW's as a defiant act of hatred, snub at the west or drunk on power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

There are two explicit motivations for Russian assassinations abroad;

1) tying up loose ends.

2) sending messages.

And #2 is a really, really big problem thats been discussed quite openly; the FSB tends to 'take the initiative' in ways that are neither sanctioned by Putin nor to Russia's overall advantage, because the ranks of the FSB are being filled with people who were low-to-mid range crime families a decade ago. Nemtsov was murdered in broad daylight literally within eyesite of Putin's office window.

And the dozen or so Russian 'diplomatic staff' who died on American soil within literal weeks of Trump winning the election are generally hypothesized to be players who provided material support to the Russian trollfarm initiative but fucked it all up and ended up accidentally getting Trump elected instead of simply destabilizing the democracy.

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

[ So, who do you think did it?

---

this is where i take my foot off the pedal.

i have a friend who used to work for the government who had TS+ clearance because he did network security at a gov installation.

without getting into details.. it was made clear to me that normies like us never see more than the tip of the iceberg, and usually what we see of it is not even the truth.

i cant responsibly give attribution for a gas attack on syrian soil. i dont have the data.

but if you show me a bird-shaped animal with a bill that goes quack, i can say with confidence that its a duck.

a gas attack at this time serves exactly no rational purpose but to provoke an american response. and thats exactly everything i need to recognize this duck.

beyond that, im sorry, i refuse to participate because its just this:

https://i.imgur.com/BTT6AGb.jpg



its amazing what a pint of fresh coffee will do for my punctuation btw.

---

All fair points- but if it wasn't Asad's decision, why wouldn't he be screaming that to the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

There are two explicit motivations for Russian assassinations abroad;

1) tying up loose ends.

2) sending messages.

And #2 is a really, really big problem thats been discussed quite openly; the FSB tends to 'take the initiative' in ways that are neither sanctioned by Putin nor to Russia's overall advantage, because the ranks of the FSB are being filled with people who were low-to-mid range crime families a decade ago. Nemtsov was murdered in broad daylight literally within eyesite of Putin's office window.

And the dozen or so Russian 'diplomatic staff' who died on American soil within literal weeks of Trump winning the election are generally hypothesized to be players who provided material support to the Russian trollfarm initiative but fucked it all up and ended up accidentally getting Trump elected instead of simply destabilizing the democracy.

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

[ So, who do you think did it?

---

this is where i take my foot off the pedal.

i have a friend who used to work for the government who had TS+ clearance because he did network security at a gov installation.

without getting into details.. it was made clear to me that normies like us never see more than the tip of the iceberg, and usually what we see of it is not even the truth.

i cant responsibly give attribution for a gas attack on syrian soil. i dont have the data.

but if you show me a bird-shaped animal with a bill that goes quack, i can say with confidence that its a duck.

a gas attack at this time serves exactly no rational purpose but to provoke an american response. and thats exactly everything i need to recognize this duck.

beyond that, im sorry, i refuse to participate because its just this:

https://i.imgur.com/BTT6AGb.jpg



its amazing what a pint of fresh coffee will do for my punctuation btw.

---

All fair points- but if it wasn't Asad's decision, why wouldn't he be screaming that to the world?

---

Government forces are not issued with CW's. Underlings could not be put in that position.

Not possible in my opinion. Less it was totally covert, and this I doubt even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Think of it like Russians assassinating their "own" people abroad.

It wouldn't make sense if these were isolated incidents. Why would they do something that gave them heat?

Dunno. They been at it for 75 years.

---

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

---

Nah, but that is the other issue lately that has been questioned in a similar manner. The "why would they" routine. Where people that have looked in to the issue have very little confusion on who is behind it and can give a reasonable explanation to the rationale. And where people that seem confused are thinking about it by asserting themselves in that situation. What they would do in that situation or what a normal person would do.

After last years response there have been say 70-100 incidents involving CWs and/or barrel bombs. If you want to justify burning hardware and appear having leadership qualities by shooting 100 missiles then you can just pick one of those. There is no need to fabricate atrocities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

Sure, but wouldn't he have known there would be repercussions for this? In fact, didn't Obama/Kerry promise the world just a couple of years ago that Syria was free of chemical weapons? No way this goes unchecked. So, ......

---

It's not the first incident since the last missile strike. The repercussions last time were damages worth several dollars to an abandoned airfield.

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.

So.

---

Barrel bombs are usually fired like a mortar, and filled with conventional explosives.

"It is a fascinating example of a propaganda meme. Barrel bombs are being used by Syrian government forces, though on a pretty small scale. They are an improvised weapon made by packing conventional explosive into a beer barrel. They are simply an amateur version of a conventional weapon, and they are far less “effective” – meaning devastating – than the professionally made munitions the UK and US are dropping on Syria, or supplying to the Saudis to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, or to Israel to drop on children in Gaza.

If a bomb were to drop near me, I would much prefer it to be a barrel bomb as it would be less likely to kill me than the UK and US manufactured professional variety. If however my guts were to be eviscerated by flying hunks of white hot metal, I would not particularly care what kind of bomb it was. The blanket media use of “barrel bomb” as though it represents something uniquely inhumane is a fascinating example of propaganda, especially set beside the repeated ludicrous claims that British bombs do not kill civilians."
https://counterinformation.wordpress...omb-conundrum/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

---

Nah, but that is the other issue lately that has been questioned in a similar manner. The "why would they" routine. Where people that have looked in to the issue have very little confusion on who is behind it and can give a reasonable explanation to the rationale. And where people that seem confused are thinking about it by asserting themselves in that situation. What they would do in that situation or what a normal person would do.

After last years response there have been say 70-100 incidents involving CWs and/or barrel bombs. If you want to justify burning hardware and appear having leadership qualities by shooting 100 missiles then you can just pick one of those. There is no need to fabricate atrocities.

---

If nice to see someone else gets this. The "why would argument" is a classic misused syllogism that is used far too often to try and explain decision making. It assumes falsely that humans will always make optimal rational choices. It also makes the mistake of overestimating others motives when we don;t have the full picture.

For instance did anyone here actually see the lurker post a photo of Druffs mother? And why would the lurker do that knowing full well that Druff will likely spend the next year trying to ruin him? Oh you did see the photo? Well obviously druff took control of his account and posted it to find a legitimate way to ban the lurker. makes way more sense right?

Now real evidence that someone else did this I'm willing to listen to of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

So if your assertion is that the gas attack was an overzealous Syrian military underling who overstepped his orders, you sir may well be right, but that does not explain much less justify our response here.

---

Nah, but that is the other issue lately that has been questioned in a similar manner. The "why would they" routine. Where people that have looked in to the issue have very little confusion on who is behind it and can give a reasonable explanation to the rationale. And where people that seem confused are thinking about it by asserting themselves in that situation. What they would do in that situation or what a normal person would do.

After last years response there have been say 70-100 incidents involving CWs and/or barrel bombs. If you want to justify burning hardware and appear having leadership qualities by shooting 100 missiles then you can just pick one of those. There is no need to fabricate atrocities.

---

I don't think you know what a barrel bomb is, and the type they've been using.
No aircraft needed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Nah, but that is the other issue lately that has been questioned in a similar manner. The "why would they" routine. Where people that have looked in to the issue have very little confusion on who is behind it and can give a reasonable explanation to the rationale. And where people that seem confused are thinking about it by asserting themselves in that situation. What they would do in that situation or what a normal person would do.

After last years response there have been say 70-100 incidents involving CWs and/or barrel bombs. If you want to justify burning hardware and appear having leadership qualities by shooting 100 missiles then you can just pick one of those. There is no need to fabricate atrocities.

---

I don't think you know what a barrel bomb is, and the type they've been using.
No aircraft needed!

---

Yea you're correct you don't need an aircraft for improvised explosives. I don't really understand why someone would see a need in explaining barrels bombs as very small improvised explosives that are commonly shot from mortars since this isn't true regarding Syria. They are quite big, usually dropped from an aircraft, fairly inaccurate and not remarkably selective. Incidentally these are also the reasons why UN Security Council banned them. It appears that Russia and China were not confused about them in the distant past of 2014.

Oh and for the purpose of 100s of false flag incidents of Syrian army dropping barrel bombs from aircraft you kinda do need an aircraft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

I don't think you know what a barrel bomb is, and the type they've been using.
No aircraft needed!

---

Yea you're correct you don't need an aircraft for improvised explosives. I don't really understand why someone would see a need in explaining barrels bombs as very small improvised explosives that are commonly shot from mortars since this isn't true regarding Syria. They are quite big, usually dropped from an aircraft, fairly inaccurate and not remarkably selective. Incidentally these are also the reasons why UN Security Council banned them. It appears that Russia and China were not confused about them in the distant past of 2014.

Oh and for the purpose of 100s of false flag incidents of Syrian army dropping barrel bombs from aircraft you kinda do need an aircraft.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Salty_Aus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmick

Yea you're correct you don't need an aircraft for improvised explosives. I don't really understand why someone would see a need in explaining barrels bombs as very small improvised explosives that are commonly shot from mortars since this isn't true regarding Syria. They are quite big, usually dropped from an aircraft, fairly inaccurate and not remarkably selective. Incidentally these are also the reasons why UN Security Council banned them. It appears that Russia and China were not confused about them in the distant past of 2014.

Oh and for the purpose of 100s of false flag incidents of Syrian army dropping barrel bombs from aircraft you kinda do need an aircraft.

---

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.

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