Is there a conspiracy around chemical weapons attacks in Syria

xenon

Active Member
The Awkward Photo that Multi Millionaire John Kerry Doesn't Want You to See



Kerry and wife having a cozy dinner with the Assads in 2009

Kerry a Frequent Visitor with Syrian Dictator Bashar Al-Assad
Dec 21, 2012 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...r-syrian-dictator-bashar-al-assad_690885.html
"Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward," said Kerry at a think tank.


John Kerry Does Not Like Bashir anymore :(

John Kerry quote from Sec of State Confirmation hearings:
"Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale" Kerry @ 1:04

One day someone is going to ask these employees of ours just exactly WTF they are talking about.

But not soon enough! LOL @ the masses.

So after Milosovic and Kosovo (PNAC war started by lies), and Iraq and Hussein (war started by lies) and Libya and Gaddafi (war started by lies) how can anyone even begin to believe anything they say at all?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moderateGOP

Active Member
1. It is not a CT at all, it is fact as listed in my earlier posts above. See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...apons-attacks-in-syria.2276/page-5#post-63948
The numbers of deaths are listed by Obama & Kerry as "over 1000" and "1400". (which is quite some discrepancy in itself as they are claiming excellent intel)
The figure used by Parliament is "350".


2. So you are equating "Something must be done" to mean 'The U.S should blow up the Syrian people with missiles'. Do you honestly believe that to be a serious argument. Perhaps you would like to consider that, 'something must be done' would likely stop well short of military action, (which will only kill more innocents) and 'something must be done' would be far more likely to mean 'strong diplomatic action specifically in relation to the CW issue' or even greater humanitarian aid for the people we are alleging to be concerned about.

3. The question I posed to you... (not Congress), was ""the attack is not time sensitive and action could just as easily be a month or so from now", can you give a cogent reason why 'the evidence', should not be made available to the U.N and time given for them to appraise the validity of said evidence and reach a decision on the best course of action?"

4. You say it "came from the Whitehouse" but if you inspect the four pages, it bears no logo or official accreditation or indeed even an authors name, so how do you know where it actually came from and if it did come from the Whitehouse, can you explain why it does not clearly say that on the heading or anywhere at all?

1. Yes you are turning nothing into something. The UK went ahead with a fast vote before they had all the data the US had. They did it while the US was releasing its data. Maybe the UK had data that said 350 were killed, then the US said no it's more than that 1500 were killed! Either way, it doesn't matter. Chemical Weapons were used. Illegally and people died.

2. We've already done everything we can with the Syrian people. We've given them aid. We've talked to Assad. I'm actually shocked that it has come to this point, because Obama is not one to just lead us into another war. He has always been adamantly against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for seemingly similar reasons. He has always been against military force. It's clear Obama is angry at Assad and has lost his patience. Obama said that regime change is not his goal. He is going to be targeting key Syrian government headquarters and institutions to hurt Assad, probably so that he could find out for himself what its like to get slapped around a little and bruised up.

3. I don't really care what the UN does. Sure, in 2002 Bush got permission from the UN to attack Iraq and he did so in 2003. Obama should do the same, but he didn't for Libya.

Throughout our history, neither presidents nor Congresses have acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can conduct military hostilities abroad.

We have used force abroad more than 100 times but declared war in only five cases: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II.
Without any congressional approval, presidents have sent forces to battle Indians, Barbary pirates and Russian revolutionaries, to fight North Korean and Chinese communists in Korea, to engineer regime changes in South and Central America, and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans.

Other conflicts, such as the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 Iraq War, received legislative “authorization” but not declarations of war.
If the issue were the environment or Social Security, Congress would enact policy first and the president would faithfully implement it second. But the Constitution does not duplicate this system in war. Instead, our Framers decided that the president would play the leading role in matters of national security.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...without-congressional-approval/#ixzz2dkjvog2a

4. It's from the White House Press Page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...n-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
And W played guitar while folks drowned in NOLA. Sorry, it is unfortunate that you can not accept anything our President does as good. Playing golf had no importance in this, other than a dig at him. I would take what you have to say more seriously if you were less biased.
sounds like your doing the same thing ? putting your hatred of George Bush the fool as a excuse for Obama failure ? at least I admit my mistake voting for GB and criticized him as well . You just cant find one thing wrong with Obama even when his own democratic friends do Playing golf just shows how little he cares , right after his speech . As a citizen it is our duty to criticize our leaders when they screw up .
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Apparently there is satellite evidence. I don’t believe anything Al Qaeda says they will say anything to make themselves look tough! I don’t believe the Syrian Government or the Russians when they say, they didn't do this. I believe the evidence that is on our side. The four-page document that intercepted communications between Syrian officials "confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime". US satellites also picked up rockets being prepared and launched from regime territory into the rebel-held Ghouta area shortly before hundreds of civilians, including 426 children, began to foam at the mouth and fall dead "unstained by a single drop of blood". Are you going to dismiss all this as some great conspiracy, from the most anti-war President we've ever had? Really?

Your last comment is the most telling. Obama is not an anti-war president by any stretch of the imagination when his actual record as president is considered. He's only 'the most anti-war president ever' in rhetoric. Some simple research will rapidly confirm this. That you base your view of him on his rhetoric and that of the public figures who support him instead of his actions and decisions is somewhat indicative of believing what you're told in spite of the harsh, contradictory realities.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Your last comment is the most telling. Obama is not an anti-war president by any stretch of the imagination when his actual record as president is considered. He's only 'the most anti-war president ever' in rhetoric. Some simple research will rapidly confirm this. That you base your view of him on his rhetoric and that of the public figures who support him instead of his actions and decisions is somewhat indicative of believing what you're told in spite of the harsh, contradictory realities.

haha funny you think that. More research will reveal that Obama has used military power ONLY as a last resort. In all of his talks with other countries this is always what he states. The only reason that these countries get to this point is that they don't believe Obama! They are playing mind games with the guy. They are testing him, to see what he does, because they know he is a weak leader and only spits out the latest Democratic talking points.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If the personal characterizations here continue I'll lock the thread. If you want to argue with someone about their biases, then PM them.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
1. Yes you are turning nothing into something.

Tell that to the Syrian people.
The UK went ahead with a fast vote before they had all the data the US had.

Really! 'Data'? What data? Then where is it. It is fabricated BS the same as it always is. Mockingbird press repeats the clear lies that come out of the Whitehouse time and time and time and time again.

The fleet that is amassed includes The nuclear powered 'Nimitz' aircraft carrier and at least five warships complete with amphibious landing craft and Obama claims intent of 'only a limited and short missile strike' and you believe that do you? It looks much more like a major attack and Kerry and Brzezinski are already stating that a 'limited attack will make the U.S look weak'. Any excuse to go to war.

They did it while the US was releasing its data.
You mean 'statement'. They have released no data/evidence only claims as per normal. They are proven liars time after time. Release the evidence if they want to be believed.

Maybe the UK had data that said 350 were killed, then the US said no it's more than that 1500 were killed!
All they have is rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims. So you believe that doctors in the middle east are so backwards that they cannot count the amount of people who died from nerve gas nearly two weeks ago?

But the vaunted and reliable U.S 'intelligence' :rolleyes:, can tell who did what when and where and yet cannot tell how many people died from CW's?

Obama says it in his own words, 'The Syrian Army shelled the area with a massive bombardment, (NB conventional weapons) and deployed the gas, resulting in total fatalities of of 1000 to 1400. He deliberately conflated the figures and assumes on bogus rationale that the Assad Govt "did it",(released the gas).
Either way, it doesn't matter. Chemical Weapons were used. Illegally and people died.
The Assad Govt has been fighting Al Nusra and other foreign fighters, who have CW's, have been shown to use CW's and outrageous murders and slaughter of innocents and are funded and trained by the U.S, for two years. And apparently you are content that the Obama 'regime', is funding and training the very same people who you are allegedly at war with. Is that right?

Also it is strange how the U.S supplied Saddam with chemical weapons against Iran and gave them help in deploying them and did its utmost to minimise any international condemnation and yet they are now so quick to call for military action and I do not care if you 'call it a war or not', it is war. The Obama 'regime' needs to be brought to account by its people and reigned in from it's bully boy tactics around the world, even in Europe and toward its own people.

I said "The question I posed to you... (not Congress), was ""the attack is not time sensitive and action could just as easily be a month or so from now", can you give a cogent reason why 'the evidence', should not be made available to the U.N and time given for them to appraise the validity of said evidence and reach a decision on the best course of action?"

Apparently you cannot.

3. I don't really care what the UN does. Sure, in 2002 Bush got permission from the UN to attack Iraq and he did so in 2003. Obama should do the same, but he didn't for Libya.
Then you believe in an isolated U.S do you? You are saying the U.N doesn't matter are you? 'America will go around bombing and killing people at will', are you?
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
A Marine Corps spokesman confirmed the Marines’ recruiting website was tampered with and redirected temporarily Monday but said no information was compromised in the attack.

The Syrian Electronic Army is supposedly responsible for this attack, adding it to its list of other high-profile defacements.

What the Syrian Rebel Army’s redirect notice said. (Image via Official_SEA16/Twitter)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Seems like Obama is having a little mutiny on his hands ?

Image: Armed Forces Tea Party on Facebook
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Smith

Banned
Banned
Al Qaida literally means "database", pertaining to a computer file of thousands of mjujahideen who were recruited, radicalized, and trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets. Depending on the situation and circumstances, they're either a friend or ally. Whichever suits them best for the particular situation. During the Soviet War, they were an ally. On 9/11 when we needed a scapegoat to launch wars, they were an enemy. Now in Syria they're an ally again. Are these guys behind the scenes schizophrenic? I don't understand how people are handling the Orwellian cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:

scombrid

Senior Member.
Seems like Obama is having a little mutiny on his hands ?

Image: Armed Forces Tea Party on Facebook

Funny how you and those brave anonymous soldiers fixate so much on Obama. McCain and company have been calling for military intervention in Syria for over a year. Maybe you should mutiny against them too.

Oh, and those soldiers really look principled hiding like that. If they feel so strongly, maybe they should take a real stand and resign their post.

And where were those guys in the previous several conflicts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Seems like Obama is having a little mutiny on his hands ?

Image: Armed Forces Tea Party on Facebook
Impossible to prove they are genuine...but it seems highly likely as it is undeniably true.

Scombrid, how 'principled' would you like them to be? As principled as Manning? I wonder if they may be in fear of facing the same fate as Bradley Manning if they were to disclose their identities? :rolleyes: I imagine there will be a huge manhunt mounted to track them down and 'bring them to justice'... just hope they have not given their identities away in some manner. I wonder how principled you would be in that situation but it is easy to cat call others who take a stand when you are out of danger isn't it.

Imagine being ordered by the President to aid Al Qaeda, (rebranded as Al Nusra). They must be pretty pissed off. But outrageously that is what is happening. Obama is aiding the enemy. An attack on Syria will aid Al Nusra in setting up a Jihadist state and bringing even more carnage to an already devastated Country. I think Obama should be impeached for his actions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Proof or no proof... that is the question.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...me-behind-gas-attack/articleshow/22229328.cms
Another undemocratic democracy saying F... the People. Give the 'proof' in secret. So what is so secret about this 'proof'? Why can it not be disclosed to the public?

So is it that this proof is not as convincing as the proof that we have had to justify previous wars... such as Rumsfeld's "one of many OBL nuclear bunkers":




Or this evidence showing the threat from nuclear missiles:



How bad can the evidence be that they will not disclose it?

A hard at work Pres.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

Joe

Guest
Funny how you and those brave anonymous soldiers fixate so much on Obama. McCain and company have been calling for military intervention in Syria for over a year. Maybe you should mutiny against them too.

Oh, and those soldiers really look principled hiding like that. If they feel so strongly, maybe they should take a real stand and resign their post.

And where were those guys in the previous several conflicts?
McCain and Gram ? They are fools ! They are RINOs . They are progressives as is Hillary Obama ECT . Nobel peace Prize PreZ ? Muslim Brotherhood like his brother like Al Qaeda . http://www.examiner.com/article/egy...ating-obama-is-part-of-the-muslim-brotherhood
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Scombrid, how 'principled' would you like them to be?

Resign from the military and pick up a bullhorn.

As principled as Manning? I wonder if they may be in fear of facing the same fate as Bradley Manning if they were to disclose their identities?

Not analogous.

They want to protest? Then all they have to do is resign and they are legal.

That is not analogous to stealing confidential information and releasing it. What they are doing right now is not legal and it is chickenshit.



Imagine being ordered by the President to aid Al Qaeda, They must be pretty pissed off. But outrageously that is what is happening.

Where were these guys in all the other conflict going back to the 1970s in which our military aided groups like the Taliban?

An attack on Syria will aid Al Nusra in setting up a Jihadist state and bringing even more carnage to an already devastated Country.

So you want to prop up the dictator?

I think Obama should be impeached for his actions.
What are you going to do when McCain and Graham get their way and Congress votes to attack? Still totally blame Obama?
 
J

Joe

Guest
Resign from the military and pick up a bullhorn.



Not analogous.

They want to protest? Then all they have to do is resign and they are legal.

That is not analogous to stealing confidential information and releasing it. What they are doing right now is not legal and it is chickenshit.





Where were these guys in all the other conflict going back to the 1970s in which our military aided groups like the Taliban?



So you want to prop up the dictator?


What are you going to do when McCain and Graham get their way and Congress votes to attack? Still totally blame Obama?
No blame the progressives and Obama. What will you do when WW3 starts ?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
McCain and Gram ? They are fools ! They are RINOs

They are Congressmen. They aren't Obama. They have been demanding to attack Syria for awhile now.

Why the fixation on Obama if these guys are also so bad? It doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory that Obama is trying to help out his Al Queda brothers if Republican Congressmen are spoiling to attack Syria as well, RINO or otherwise.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They are Congressmen. They aren't Obama. They have been demanding to attack Syria for awhile now.

Why the fixation on Obama if these guys are also so bad? It doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory that Obama is trying to help out his Al Queda brothers if Republican Congressmen are spoiling to attack Syria as well, RINO or otherwise.
Obama is the President. The buck stops there and it is undeniable that he is lobbying hard for a big military attack. Yes I agree the other warmongers are just as bad and they should be voted out but that is the problem. Big business says who should be in Congress and who runs for President.

It is the 'Left and Right Twix' analogy. Totally different but exactly the same. This is why I keep saying you do not have a democracy. I don't say it to be vindictive or snarky, I say it because I want you to have a true democracy as I want other Countries, (inc my own to be a true democracy).

The M.E is a mess and it is largely to do with the U.S interference and regime changes that the U.S have engineered. No one I know disputes that Saddam, Gaddafi, Morsi, Assad etc are bad people but it does not justify the U.S blundering in and making the situation vastly worse by killing millions of innocent civilians and empowering terrorists to take over the Countries.

Brzezinski said it was worth supporting Al Qaeda because it was destabilising Russia. The blowback is enormous. The Cold War is over. Russia and China are competitors but they are fully engaged in being part of the International Community. You cannot have it both ways. It appears that the attacks by the U.S in the M.E are all about kicking Russia entirely out of the region and to do that the U.S is prepared to fund, train, arm and support it's sworn enemy... Al Qaeda.

It is a ridiculous situation. America is losing support around the world and is seen as a major aggressor, (which they undoubtedly are). It's own citizens are spied on and treated like terrorists, whilst the true terrorists are trained and armed to fight proxy wars against a democratically elected Syrian Govt, which although far from perfect at least ran a stable, peaceful country before the U.S stirred up insurrection by outsiders.

 
J

Joe

Guest
They are Congressmen. They aren't Obama. They have been demanding to attack Syria for awhile now.

Why the fixation on Obama if these guys are also so bad? It doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory that Obama is trying to help out his Al Queda brothers if Republican Congressmen are spoiling to attack Syria as well, RINO or otherwise.
they are progressives they are all the same as with Bush , republican and democrat doesnt matter . They are bought and payed for by Oil Sheikhs .
GIVE OBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA?
YES 8.55% (46,651 votes)

NO 91.45% (499,191 votes)

Total Votes: 545,842
 
J

Joe

Guest
Here is a update on a conservative site . This probably doesnt account for many liberals .
9/2/13 19:30 PM ET

GIVE OBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA?
YES 8.6% (53,091 votes)

NO 91.4% (564,270 votes)

Total Votes: 617,361 So about 9% support it and theyll do it anyway ? Some Government !:(
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Obama is the President. The buck stops there and it is undeniable that he is lobbying hard for a big military attack. Yes I agree the other warmongers are just as bad and they should be voted out but that is the problem. Big business says who should be in Congress and who runs for President.

It is the 'Left and Right Twix' analogy. Totally different but exactly the same. This is why I keep saying you do not have a democracy. I don't say it to be vindictive or snarky, I say it because I want you to have a true democracy as I want other Countries, (inc my own to be a true democracy).

Actually the reason there is support from both sides of the aisle is not because they are "the same underneath" but because the issue is not polarizing on the axis that other issues like gay rights, abortion, minimum wage, etc typically are.

There is a myriad of support and opposition in both the Senate and House, from both sides of the aisle:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Oxymoron said:
Brzezinski said it was worth supporting Al Qaeda because it was destabilising Russia. The blowback is enormous. The Cold War is over. Russia and China are competitors but they are fully engaged in being part of the International Community. You cannot have it both ways. It appears that the attacks by the U.S in the M.E are all about kicking Russia entirely out of the region and to do that the U.S is prepared to fund, train, arm and support it's sworn enemy... Al Qaeda.

How do you explain the fact that, in reality, Russia has a vast and growing influence in the region which the US has essentially done nothing about? There are a lot more countries than Iraq and Afghanistan in the region.

Oxymoron said:
It is a ridiculous situation. America is losing support around the world and is seen as a major aggressor, (which they undoubtedly are). It's own citizens are spied on and treated like terrorists, whilst the true terrorists are trained and armed to fight proxy wars against a democratically elected Syrian Govt, which although far from perfect at least ran a stable, peaceful country before the U.S stirred up insurrection by outsiders.

That's funny, this excerpt from the Human Rights Watch World Report with regards to Syria sounds strikingly similar to your description of the US:

(Warning, large PDF - Syria is page 555)
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2010.pdf

I sincerely hope you don't actually think Bashar Al-Assad was democratically elected or that his time as leader has been marked by peace and stability. Neither are true. The only reason he's president is because his brother, the heir-to-be, died in a car accident. There is no democratic election. A sense of stability might have existed, but that's because the country was officially in a state of emergency(that's right, martial law) between 1963 to 2011. In reality they have a terrible track record for human rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria
 
Last edited:
J

Joe

Guest
I think this tweet perfectly encapsulates the attack on Syria Obama is proposing:

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Actually the reason there is support from both sides of the aisle is not because they are "the same underneath" but because the issue is not polarizing on the axis that other issues like gay rights, abortion, minimum wage, etc typically are.

Yes there are minor disagreements in respect of minority issues. This is the basis that the German election is currently being fought on... minor rubbish, because all parties are agreed on the major issues. The 'Twix' analogy... 'they are completely different because one is "left" and the other is "right".

Let's see.


How do you explain the fact that, in reality, Russia has a vast and growing influence in the region which the US has essentially done nothing about? There are a lot more countries than Iraq and Afghanistan in the region.

Yes there are a lot more Countries and the U.S have identified in PNAC which ones they intended to do something about. How are they doing so far. Done, (to bits), Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. In progress: Syria and Iran

Russia is only 'expanding' relatively as it suffered huge set backs in the area and is now slightly recovering.

http://www.offiziere.ch/?p=13199

That's funny, this excerpt from the Human Rights Watch World Report with regards to Syria sounds strikingly similar to your description of the US:

(Warning, large PDF - Syria is page 555)
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2010.pdf

I sincerely hope you don't actually think Bashar Al-Assad was democratically elected or that his time as leader has been marked by peace and stability. Neither are true. The only reason he's president is because his brother, the heir-to-be, died in a car accident. There is no democratic election. A sense of stability might have existed, but that's because the country was officially in a state of emergency(that's right, martial law) between 1963 to 2011. In reality they have a terrible track record for human rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

As it does to Egypt, Saudi, Bahrain, Oman, Turkey, Jordan and a host of other unsavoury dictators supported by the U.S. So why pick on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran etc? Could it be because they are not aligned with the U.S and that is their actual 'crime'?
 
Last edited:

Grieves

Senior Member
In all of his talks with other countries this is always what he states. .
Again defining the man by his rhetoric and not his actions/choices.
They are Congressmen. They aren't Obama. They have been demanding to attack Syria for awhile now.

Why the fixation on Obama if these guys are also so bad? It doesn't quite fit the conspiracy theory that Obama is trying to help out his Al Queda brothers if Republican Congressmen are spoiling to attack Syria as well, RINO or otherwise.
You'll find that in authoritarian matters (war/surveillance/security/the law) the supposed war between Obama and republicans, in which the republicans, so the myth goes, counter every position Obama takes, vanishes in a poof of smoke. Their 'disagreement' on this particular issue presents a false choice. The question of whether you go to war or not is re-framed as a question of what sort of war you're going to, McCain style or Obama style. Obama style, seeming less excessive, is viewed as the more 'peaceful' route... to the point folks, when observing the 'choice', actually buy into the notion that what Obama is proposing is a more 'peaceful' measure.
Are soldiers legally bound to never voice an opinion on military engagements they may be obliged to take part in?
Almost certainly, at least to some extent.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

No he didn't. He wrote about how to limit Syria's influence in Lebanon.

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No he didn't. He wrote about how to limit Syria's influence in Lebanon.

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Guess you will have to get the wiki police in to sanitize and edit history as someone has written, as John stated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm?id=1
Sounds like a coincidence. Strange no one mentioned that. No doubt someone will. :)

I mean if there was really such a plot, they would have done it ages ago, wouldn't they?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Why go by the Wiki entry, when I quoted the actual document?
Why not... The actual document agrees anyway.

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The claim was the document explained how the US could invade Syria. It does not.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
The claim was the document explained how the US could invade Syria. It does not.
Semantics rearing its head again?

What is the difference between 'rolling back Syria' and invading Syria?

i.e. Like Israel keeps rolling back/invading Palestine and then building on it and then moving forward and taking another chunk... repeat as required.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Semantics rearing its head again?

What is the difference between 'rolling back Syria' and invading Syria?

i.e. Like Israel keeps rolling back/invading Palestine and then building on it and then moving forward and taking another chunk... repeat as required.

Debatable. However, it's not the US though. Israel, Turkey and Jordan. The claim was the US.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Debatable. However, it's not the US though. Israel, Turkey and Jordan. The claim was the US.
Do you deny that the U.S often uses proxies to do its dirty work? The claim, 'the U.S did', x, y or z, does not necessarily mean, 'U.S directly'.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
On the subject of Israel, we're all aware they were dropping chemical weapons on Gaza between 2008 and 2009, yes? That they lied about it to the UN, right up until one the shells hit the UN headquarters in Gaza? If chemical weapons are such a 'red line', and the impending military action in Syria is all about the humanitarian effort to prevent further use of chemical weapons, where was the military action against Israel then? Interesting that when a business partner uses chemical weapons against citizens within its own borders they get a wag of the finger, whereas when an obstruction is alleged to have done it, bombing the fuck out of them is the only moral thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Hi all, I'm new to this forum, so still trying to find my way around. I wanted to comment regarding Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Explained: JFK: "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" Quotes Debunked 260
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top