http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXezs1YY01I
Curious to hear from the snackbars. Same goes with the dumbass Obamao supporters. What do you guys think though?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXezs1YY01I
Curious to hear from the snackbars. Same goes with the dumbass Obamao supporters. What do you guys think though?
Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
WhiteKnight77
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
SwagSurf
Russia has been known to make shit up.
my problem is not that they are using them.
my problem is that not everyone is using them.
blowing someone to bits or causing trauma that leads to slowly bleeding out is moral but gassing someone so they die in a few mins is immoral?
what dumbass came up with that concept?
if you do in fact have to kill your enemy and you are already alright with that as a concept then why not just go ahead and kill them in the most effective way you have at your disposal?
Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.[QUOTE="SwagSurf"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
frannkzappa
Russia has been known to make shit up.
Such as? I mean there's a lot more links when it comes to rebels using chemical weapons (Rather not post everything, but here's one more). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.htmlWell there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.[QUOTE="SwagSurf"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
frannkzappa
Russia has been known to make shit up.
Say's the American lol
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="SwagSurf"] Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters. CynicalCaviar
Russia has been known to make shit up.
Say's the American lol
so everything i say is invalid?
how open minded of you.
[QUOTE="CynicalCaviar"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Russia has been known to make shit up.
frannkzappa
Say's the American lol
so everything i say is invalid?
how open minded of you.
The Russians themselves came out about this stating it to be true and also what about the UN releasing a story in May saying it was the rebels aswell with the chemicals. Of course none of that is credible tho......
Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.[QUOTE="SwagSurf"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
frannkzappa
Russia has been known to make shit up.
Can you post a link as to what stories they made up? Curious[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="CynicalCaviar"]
Say's the American lol
CynicalCaviar
so everything i say is invalid?
how open minded of you.
The Russians themselves came out about this stating it to be true and also what about the UN releasing a story in May saying it was the rebels aswell with the chemicals. Of course none of that is credible tho......
never said that i didn't trust the Russians in this case.
somebody asked why they may not be a credible source... and i answered.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters.Russia Today really? How about finding a better news source that can back up RT's claims?
SwagSurf
Claims are not proof. It has been determined through independent sources that it has been Assad's forces is the entity that used the chemical weapons. They could also put evidence in places to try and remove blame from themselves so it appears the opposition are the one's who used them.
Either way, no one will know until after all of this is over if it ever is told or confirmed conclusively.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even the UN concluded it was the Syrian rebels that used chemical weapons and not the Syrian government.AckadThe US tends to falsely accuse others
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Even the UN concluded it was the Syrian rebels that used chemical weapons and not the Syrian government.AckadThe US tends to falsely accuse others Exactly. On top of that, in late May Al-Qaeda linked rebels were caught with sarin gas in Turkey. Report: Police foil al-Nusra bomb attack planned for Adana
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="SwagSurf"] Well there's this one, but it was along time ago. http://www.euronews.com/2013/07/10/russia-claims-evidence-of-chemical-weapons-use-by-syrian-rebels/ What makes RT not reliable? The fact that they post news that the US would never post? Stop licking the deformed s' sphincters. CynicalCaviar
Russia has been known to make shit up.
Say's the American lol
Fox News would be all over this...(I haven't checked.) They'd have a field day.
Remember the F-16's we gave to Egypt?
Claims are not proof. It has been determined through independent sources that it has been Assad's forces is the entity that used the chemical weapons. They could also put evidence in places to try and remove blame from themselves so it appears the opposition are the one's who used them.
Either way, no one will know until after all of this is over if it ever is told or confirmed conclusively.
WhiteKnight77
At this point in time I wouldn't believe a word out of an American governments mouth, have we forgotten about the WMD's and whatever other BS accusation they use to invade nation after nation toppling governments. This is just the latest leg of the US assault against the middle east, these claims against Assad are bogus, just another reason for the US to spill blood.
LOL we have backed ourselves into a shitty corner.
We can:
- Do nothing (Government victory)... Assad wins, by proxy Iran who is supporting him wins.
- Do nothing (Rebel victory)... Revolution won on the back's of al-Nusra front... Other extremists... Etc... Chrisitians get sent to Lebanon and then the Sunni's ethnically cleanse the Alawite population as retribution against Assad...
Do nothing (no victory)... Syria becomes a failed state, haven for enemies of United States.
- Provide aid to the rebels... Potentially give arms directly to al-Nusra front (associates of al Qaeda). Would look even worse if this discovery of Sarin manufactured by rebels is proven true (as Russia and Assad claim it is; Russia says the sarin is shit quality, not the good stuff they sold Assad *lmao*)... That we fell for an agent provocateur and are supporting people with ill intent.
Any option is a bad option at this point other than doing nothing and Assad's government winning... With that only people with brown skin(ie: people the west doesn't care about) die and America just gets an ego booboo.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
Claims are not proof. It has been determined through independent sources that it has been Assad's forces is the entity that used the chemical weapons. They could also put evidence in places to try and remove blame from themselves so it appears the opposition are the one's who used them.
Either way, no one will know until after all of this is over if it ever is told or confirmed conclusively.
CynicalCaviar
At this point in time I wouldn't believe a word out of an American governments mouth, have we forgotten about the WMD's and whatever other BS accusation they use to invade nation after nation toppling governments. This is just the latest leg of the US assault against the middle east, these claims against Assad are bogus, just another reason for the US to spill blood.
Oh snap! Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons due to chemical weapons that were bombed during Desert Storm not being counted as weapons even though they were not completely destroyed.
Before Iraq acceded to the CWC in early 2009, it had a long history of involvement in chemical warfare. The Saddam Hussein regime used mustard gas and the nerve agents tabun and sarin on a large scale during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) and the ensuing terror campaign against the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq, including the infamous chemical attack on the town of Halabja in March 1988 that killed some 5,000 civilians.[1]
In late 1990, during the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iraq produced a large stockpile of chemical weapons at the Muthanna State Establishment, some 20 kilometers south of the city of Samarra, including aerial bombs, shells, artillery rockets, and Scud missile warheads filled with mustard and nerve agents. Chemical weapons were stockpiled at Muthanna in eight large cruciform bunkerssemi-underground structures resembling truncated pyramids that were built of reinforced concrete one meter thick and covered with a three-meter layer of sandy clay. Each bunker was about the size of a football field and had a main storage room with a capacity of about 10,800 cubic meters.[2]
During the Gulf War, U.S. retaliatory threats deterred Saddam Hussein from using his chemical arsenal, and Coalition aircraft bombed much of the Muthanna complex, shutting down Iraq's chemical weapons production. On February 8, 1991, an aerial bomb hit the roof of Bunker 13 at Muthanna. According to Iraqi declarations, this bunker stored 2,500 sarin-filled 122mm artillery rockets, which were partially damaged or destroyed in the bombardment. In addition, the bunker held about 200 metric tons of sodium and potassium cyanide salts (precursors for tabun production) and 75 kilograms of arsenic trichloride (a precursor for blister agent).[3]*snip*
Post-Gulf War Chemical Disarmament
In the aftermath of Iraq's military defeat in the 1991 Gulf War, the cease-fire agreementUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 687required Iraq to eliminate its entire chemical weapons stockpile under the supervision of inspectors from a newly created UN disarmament agency, the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM). Chemical munitions, bulk agent, and precursors stored throughout Iraq were consolidated at Muthanna and destroyed by incineration or neutralization. The destruction campaign, which lasted from June 1992 to June 1994, disposed of more than 38,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, 690 metric tons of bulk and weaponized CW agents, and over 3,000 metric tons of precursor chemicals.[4]
Although the damaged Bunker 13 at Muthanna contained thousands of sarin-filled rockets, the presence of leaking munitions and unstable propellant and explosive charges made it too hazardous for UNSCOM inspectors to enter. Because the rockets could not be recovered safely, Iraq declared the munitions in Bunker 13 as "destroyed in the Gulf War" and they were not included in the inventory of chemical weapons eliminated under UNSCOM supervision.
Another nearby storage bunker at Muthanna, called Bunker 41, was in good condition, so UNSCOM used it to entomb contaminated materials left over from the CW destruction effort. These items included about 2,000 mustard-filled artillery shells that had been drained and burned to speed decomposition of the agent, and 605 one-ton mustard containers and other items that could not be thoroughly decontaminated. Because these items still bore traces of mustard, they posed a threat to human health if handled improperly. In 1994, Iraqi personnel working under UNSCOM supervision secured Bunkers 13 and 41 by sealing the entrances with massive barriers of brick, tar, and reinforced concrete more than 1.5 meters thick. They also used reinforced concrete to patch the hole in the roof of Bunker 13.[5]Linked Article
While UNSCOM said that Iraq destroyed all of the weapons that they had, they totally ignored the ones that Iraq claimed was destroyed, but wasn't. That also fails to account for the 500 weapons found after the US went back to Iraq in 2003 that even Nancy Pelosi and others were informed of by a House Intelligence Committee in 2006.
Yea, there are no good options. I would say the least bad option is to let the secular dictator, the only government actually in Syria, win and stop supplying the Islamist rebels with weapons.LOL we have backed ourselves into a shitty corner.
We can:
- Do nothing (Government victory)... Assad wins, by proxy Iran who is supporting him wins.
- Do nothing (Rebel victory)... Revolution won on the back's of al-Nusra front... Other extremists... Etc... Chrisitians get sent to Lebanon and then the Sunni's ethnically cleanse the Alawite population as retribution against Assad...
Do nothing (no victory)... Syria becomes a failed state, haven for enemies of United States.
- Provide aid to the rebels... Potentially give arms directly to al-Nusra front (associates of al Qaeda). Would look even worse if this discovery is proven true (as Russia and Assad claim it is)... That we fell for an agent provocateur and are supporting people with ill intent.
Any option is a bad option at this point other than doing nothing and Assad's government winning... With that only people with brown skin(ie: people the west doesn't care about) die and America just gets an ego booboo.
Squeets
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Ackad"] The US tends to falsely accuse others Ackad
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTLLOL :lol:
I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTL[QUOTE="Ackad"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
ScottMescudi
LOL :lol:
I'd say this is more suited :P
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Ackad"] The US tends to falsely accuse others Ackad
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTLSee my previous post prior to the Iraq WMD link where I posted about the US having independent comfirmation of their previous assertions, so I am aware of what the US were blaming. Do you need new glasses?
I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTL[QUOTE="Ackad"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
WhiteKnight77
See my previous post prior to the Iraq WMD link where I posted about the US having independent comfirmation of their previous assertions, so I am aware of what the US were blaming. Do you need new glasses?
The US made it seem as if only the Bashar regime were using chemical weapons. As if the FSA were all innocent. Russia and the UN already know that the FSA is/was using chemical weapons :/I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTL[QUOTE="Ackad"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
He didn't say the US. Lack of reading skills FTL.
WhiteKnight77
See my previous post prior to the Iraq WMD link where I posted about the US having independent comfirmation of their previous assertions, so I am aware of what the US were blaming. Do you need new glasses?
Oh you were trying to say that they did infact have WMD's..... I wouldn't waste my time continuing the debate with you at this stage my mental health could suffer trying to understand the depths of your mind.
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]
[QUOTE="Ackad"] I already knew that you fvcking idiot. Pretty sure you're unaware of who the US was blaming then. Lack of understanding FTLCynicalCaviar
See my previous post prior to the Iraq WMD link where I posted about the US having independent comfirmation of their previous assertions, so I am aware of what the US were blaming. Do you need new glasses?
Oh you were trying to say that they did in fact have WMD's..... I wouldn't waste my time continuing the debate with you at this stage my mental health could suffer trying to understand the depths of your mind.
No, I mean I knew the US was possibly aware of the fact that Assad's regime used chemical weapons, but stated that they wanted confirmation as to who it was. They got that confirmation. You brought up Iraq and stating the US was wrong in that there were no chemical weapons there. Two different things. My link to that shows that there were.
[QUOTE="Squeets"]Yea, there are no good options. I would say the least bad option is to let the secular dictator, the only government actually in Syria, win and stop supplying the Islamist rebels with weapons."secular dictator"LOL we have backed ourselves into a shitty corner.
We can:
- Do nothing (Government victory)... Assad wins, by proxy Iran who is supporting him wins.
- Do nothing (Rebel victory)... Revolution won on the back's of al-Nusra front... Other extremists... Etc... Chrisitians get sent to Lebanon and then the Sunni's ethnically cleanse the Alawite population as retribution against Assad...
Do nothing (no victory)... Syria becomes a failed state, haven for enemies of United States.
- Provide aid to the rebels... Potentially give arms directly to al-Nusra front (associates of al Qaeda). Would look even worse if this discovery is proven true (as Russia and Assad claim it is)... That we fell for an agent provocateur and are supporting people with ill intent.
Any option is a bad option at this point other than doing nothing and Assad's government winning... With that only people with brown skin(ie: people the west doesn't care about) die and America just gets an ego booboo.
KC_Hokie
If he wins, he will continue to massacre the sunnis, he will never forget what happens. Bashar has to go, Syria cant just erase its memory for the past 2 years and pretend nothing happened.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Russia Today :lol:Stesilaus
Like PressTV, Russia Today is a font of truth from which a wise man might drink, that he might grow wiser still. :|
the f*cking mental retardation never stops with youYea, there are no good options. I would say the least bad option is to let the secular dictator, the only government actually in Syria, win and stop supplying the Islamist rebels with weapons."secular dictator"[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Squeets"]
LOL we have backed ourselves into a shitty corner.
We can:
- Do nothing (Government victory)... Assad wins, by proxy Iran who is supporting him wins.
- Do nothing (Rebel victory)... Revolution won on the back's of al-Nusra front... Other extremists... Etc... Chrisitians get sent to Lebanon and then the Sunni's ethnically cleanse the Alawite population as retribution against Assad...
Do nothing (no victory)... Syria becomes a failed state, haven for enemies of United States.
- Provide aid to the rebels... Potentially give arms directly to al-Nusra front (associates of al Qaeda). Would look even worse if this discovery is proven true (as Russia and Assad claim it is)... That we fell for an agent provocateur and are supporting people with ill intent.
Any option is a bad option at this point other than doing nothing and Assad's government winning... With that only people with brown skin(ie: people the west doesn't care about) die and America just gets an ego booboo.
BossPerson
If he wins, he will continue to massacre the sunnis, he will never forget what happens. Bashar has to go, Syria cant just erase its memory for the past 2 years and pretend nothing happened.
He didn't harm them until they revolted. They were allowed freedom of religion.Also, most of his government are Sunnis as is his wife.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment