Russia issues threat to Israel

[fncceo]

If Israel wants to get protected from Hezbollah actions

Israel is completely capable of protecting themselves from Hezbollah actions. That is why Hezbollah has negotiated with Iran and Russia for protection.

However, since neither Russia nor Iran will risk a direct confrontation with Israel, their protection of Hezbollah is just posturing. The only thing they can do is end runs to the UN to stir up international outrage whenever Hezbollah is getting it's arse whooped, again.

 

[K9Buck]

So all those Israel air strikes are world terrorism as well as American and British ones.

Thanks for the laugh. Tell your comrade Putin that we're ready to kick your asses.

 

[toobfreak]

All Russia wishes to do is to exploit the vacuum created under Obama that left them get their foot into Syria, and now there, are hell-bent on establishing a permanent presence there that with Iran would allow them to take Iraq, the for Iran to seize Iraq making it all one state and fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East with THEM (the Kremlin) at the helm. This is VITAL to Putin's plans and needs and it is essential that neither Israel or us allow it to happen.

Yep. They have from 40-50,000 troops there. That's quite a deployment.

I've been saying (for years) that we need to drop NATO and move forces to where they are most likely to be needed - the middle east, perhaps Israel, if Israel will have us. I've thought the straights of Teran would be a great place to put a massive U.S. base.

Why would you want that? Why is The Middle East any of America's business? Why is The Middle East the business of ANY Western nation? It's not, it's time The Middle East was left to sort it's own problems out, all that Western involvement there has resulted in is that The West is now on a daily basis having to deal with increased Islamic terrorist attacks.

Then by logical extension why is ANY other country our business? A: Same reason that it is Russia's business: mutual self interest. I think America would only be too glad to leave the M.E. if we could know it would be truly left to its own designs, but allowing Russia to establish control of it in our absence would be a strategic loss to our own national security as it would greatly boost Russia's economy and political grip in the world. Rewarding Islam for its terror attacks by pulling out and giving them what they want is at this point only an invitation to greater demands and attacks, not less.

The situation should be that there should be an International Coalition that has one specific aim and that's to wipe out ALL the Islamists in The Middle East and also in Africa, now a few years ago this type of International Coalition was suggested but not with Russia even though Russia said that they would happily join such a coalition.

The fundamental issue, the most important issue should be fighting Islamic Terrorism.

IMHO everyone would not be facing all this mess now if instead of pointlessly invading Iraq GWB and the poodle Tony Blair instead would have carpet bombed Saudi Arabia and also carpet bombed Southern Pakistan.

You will never get the kind of commitment from other countries and it will always fall back into America's lap as we have all the money to do it. And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that (break the cycle) is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous influence there, not by leaving.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I don't mean isolation as in shunning them at the UN or imposing sanctions. I mean complete and total isolation from the world grid. No travel to or from. No international shipping to or from. No access to telecommunications networks or even mail. Full, complete isolation.

Western liberals would say you're a racist and that we have to bring hundreds of thousands, or even MILLIONS of them, HERE to the west. It's worked out great in Europe, right? LOL. American liberals are jealous!

Actually, not. When I say isolation, I mean total geographical isolation. Since there is no practical or reliable way to vet refugees from the isolated country, they will all be shut in together. Continuous air and naval blockade until that country no longer poses a threat.

This type of warfare will be brutal in the extreme. It will mean those living in the isolated countries will suffer alongside the extremist we are trying to fight until they rise up against the extremist themselves or the whole country dies off.

I would do all of that now, I would also include isolating Turkey who should not be trusted and should already have been thrown out of NATO.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

All Russia wishes to do is to exploit the vacuum created under Obama that left them get their foot into Syria, and now there, are hell-bent on establishing a permanent presence there that with Iran would allow them to take Iraq, the for Iran to seize Iraq making it all one state and fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East with THEM (the Kremlin) at the helm. This is VITAL to Putin's plans and needs and it is essential that neither Israel or us allow it to happen.

Yep. They have from 40-50,000 troops there. That's quite a deployment.

I've been saying (for years) that we need to drop NATO and move forces to where they are most likely to be needed - the middle east, perhaps Israel, if Israel will have us. I've thought the straights of Teran would be a great place to put a massive U.S. base.

Why would you want that? Why is The Middle East any of America's business? Why is The Middle East the business of ANY Western nation? It's not, it's time The Middle East was left to sort it's own problems out, all that Western involvement there has resulted in is that The West is now on a daily basis having to deal with increased Islamic terrorist attacks.

Then by logical extension why is ANY other country our business? A: Same reason that it is Russia's business: mutual self interest. I think America would only be too glad to leave the M.E. if we could know it would be truly left to its own designs, but allowing Russia to establish control of it in our absence would be a strategic loss to our own national security as it would greatly boost Russia's economy and political grip in the world. Rewarding Islam for its terror attacks by pulling out and giving them what they want is at this point only an invitation to greater demands and attacks, not less.

The situation should be that there should be an International Coalition that has one specific aim and that's to wipe out ALL the Islamists in The Middle East and also in Africa, now a few years ago this type of International Coalition was suggested but not with Russia even though Russia said that they would happily join such a coalition.

The fundamental issue, the most important issue should be fighting Islamic Terrorism.

IMHO everyone would not be facing all this mess now if instead of pointlessly invading Iraq GWB and the poodle Tony Blair instead would have carpet bombed Saudi Arabia and also carpet bombed Southern Pakistan.

You will never get the kind of commitment from other countries and it will always fall back into America's lap as we have all the money to do it. And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that (break the cycle) is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving.

"And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving."

All of that would take too long, and why should anymore money be wasted on all of that crowd. I prefer fncceo's method, everyone out and just totally isolate them all from the rest of humanity.

 

[Bleipriester]

I don't mean isolation as in shunning them at the UN or imposing sanctions. I mean complete and total isolation from the world grid. No travel to or from. No international shipping to or from. No access to telecommunications networks or even mail. Full, complete isolation.

Western liberals would say you're a racist and that we have to bring hundreds of thousands, or even MILLIONS of them, HERE to the west. It's worked out great in Europe, right? LOL. American liberals are jealous!

Actually, not. When I say isolation, I mean total geographical isolation. Since there is no practical or reliable way to vet refugees from the isolated country, they will all be shut in together. Continuous air and naval blockade until that country no longer poses a threat.

This type of warfare will be brutal in the extreme. It will mean those living in the isolated countries will suffer alongside the extremist we are trying to fight until they rise up against the extremist themselves or the whole country dies off.

I would do all of that now, I would also include isolating Turkey who should not be trusted and should already have been thrown out of NATO.

We should also think about a shift in alliances. Is Nato advantageous for us? I don´t think so.

 

[Rambunctious]

Israel would kick Russia's ass....

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Reagan?

What about Reagan? Oh that was the idiot who started the thread, the OP JohnnyApplesack read his OP he said that Reagan was the one who armed the Afghan Mujahideen when actually Operation Cyclone started under Jimmy Carter.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I don't mean isolation as in shunning them at the UN or imposing sanctions. I mean complete and total isolation from the world grid. No travel to or from. No international shipping to or from. No access to telecommunications networks or even mail. Full, complete isolation.

Western liberals would say you're a racist and that we have to bring hundreds of thousands, or even MILLIONS of them, HERE to the west. It's worked out great in Europe, right? LOL. American liberals are jealous!

All Western Leftists are borderline insane, they should just be ignored, they hate The West, they hate everything that Western Civilisation stands for, they think that The West basically deserves to die to atone for The Slave Trade that ended more than 200 years ago and because of the whole Colonialism thing, this is why they fanatically support importing unlimited amounts of Kebabs and Sub Saharan Africans into Western nations, the majority do not agree with these maniacs it's just that they shout the loudest and get all the attention.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I don't mean isolation as in shunning them at the UN or imposing sanctions. I mean complete and total isolation from the world grid. No travel to or from. No international shipping to or from. No access to telecommunications networks or even mail. Full, complete isolation.

Western liberals would say you're a racist and that we have to bring hundreds of thousands, or even MILLIONS of them, HERE to the west. It's worked out great in Europe, right? LOL. American liberals are jealous!

Actually, not. When I say isolation, I mean total geographical isolation. Since there is no practical or reliable way to vet refugees from the isolated country, they will all be shut in together. Continuous air and naval blockade until that country no longer poses a threat.

This type of warfare will be brutal in the extreme. It will mean those living in the isolated countries will suffer alongside the extremist we are trying to fight until they rise up against the extremist themselves or the whole country dies off.

I would do all of that now, I would also include isolating Turkey who should not be trusted and should already have been thrown out of NATO.

We should also think about a shift in alliances. Is Nato advantageous for us? I don´t think so.

I agree, we need to abandon NATO.

 

[toobfreak]

Yep. They have from 40-50,000 troops there. That's quite a deployment.

I've been saying (for years) that we need to drop NATO and move forces to where they are most likely to be needed - the middle east, perhaps Israel, if Israel will have us. I've thought the straights of Teran would be a great place to put a massive U.S. base.

Why would you want that? Why is The Middle East any of America's business? Why is The Middle East the business of ANY Western nation? It's not, it's time The Middle East was left to sort it's own problems out, all that Western involvement there has resulted in is that The West is now on a daily basis having to deal with increased Islamic terrorist attacks.

Then by logical extension why is ANY other country our business? A: Same reason that it is Russia's business: mutual self interest. I think America would only be too glad to leave the M.E. if we could know it would be truly left to its own designs, but allowing Russia to establish control of it in our absence would be a strategic loss to our own national security as it would greatly boost Russia's economy and political grip in the world. Rewarding Islam for its terror attacks by pulling out and giving them what they want is at this point only an invitation to greater demands and attacks, not less.

The situation should be that there should be an International Coalition that has one specific aim and that's to wipe out ALL the Islamists in The Middle East and also in Africa, now a few years ago this type of International Coalition was suggested but not with Russia even though Russia said that they would happily join such a coalition.

The fundamental issue, the most important issue should be fighting Islamic Terrorism.

IMHO everyone would not be facing all this mess now if instead of pointlessly invading Iraq GWB and the poodle Tony Blair instead would have carpet bombed Saudi Arabia and also carpet bombed Southern Pakistan.

You will never get the kind of commitment from other countries and it will always fall back into America's lap as we have all the money to do it. And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that (break the cycle) is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving.

"And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving."

All of that would take too long, and why should anymore money be wasted on all of that crowd. I prefer fncceo's method, everyone out and just totally isolate them all from the rest of humanity.

It would already be done if we had started it decades ago, but governments are the least efficient things on the planet. We can't even talk the courts into letting us ban a few of them from immigrating here for a few months, or build a wall across our own border much less total isolation of a region of the world on the other side of the planet. Never gonna happen and never takes forever. You can't change a part of the world that was essentially living in the 12th century made rich overnight by discovering oil by force---- real change comes from within over time. They are already up to starting to allow women to drive and uncover their face! In another 50 years or a couple more generations, terrorism as we know it will be seeing its ebb as standards of living, technology, modernization and education are reformed. In the end, the west wins by allowing them to discover the advantages of westernization for themselves.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Why would you want that? Why is The Middle East any of America's business? Why is The Middle East the business of ANY Western nation? It's not, it's time The Middle East was left to sort it's own problems out, all that Western involvement there has resulted in is that The West is now on a daily basis having to deal with increased Islamic terrorist attacks.

Then by logical extension why is ANY other country our business? A: Same reason that it is Russia's business: mutual self interest. I think America would only be too glad to leave the M.E. if we could know it would be truly left to its own designs, but allowing Russia to establish control of it in our absence would be a strategic loss to our own national security as it would greatly boost Russia's economy and political grip in the world. Rewarding Islam for its terror attacks by pulling out and giving them what they want is at this point only an invitation to greater demands and attacks, not less.

The situation should be that there should be an International Coalition that has one specific aim and that's to wipe out ALL the Islamists in The Middle East and also in Africa, now a few years ago this type of International Coalition was suggested but not with Russia even though Russia said that they would happily join such a coalition.

The fundamental issue, the most important issue should be fighting Islamic Terrorism.

IMHO everyone would not be facing all this mess now if instead of pointlessly invading Iraq GWB and the poodle Tony Blair instead would have carpet bombed Saudi Arabia and also carpet bombed Southern Pakistan.

You will never get the kind of commitment from other countries and it will always fall back into America's lap as we have all the money to do it. And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that (break the cycle) is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving.

"And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous presence there, not by leaving."

All of that would take too long, and why should anymore money be wasted on all of that crowd. I prefer fncceo's method, everyone out and just totally isolate them all from the rest of humanity.

It would already be done if we had started it decades ago, but governments are the least efficient things on the planet. We can't even talk the courts into letting us ban a few of them from immigrating here for a few months, or build a wall across our own border much less total isolation of a region of the world on the other side of the planet. Never gonna happen and never takes forever. You can't change a part of the world that was essentially living in the 12th century made rich overnight by discovering oil by force---- real change comes from within over time. They are already up to starting to allow women to drive and uncover their face! In another 50 years or a couple more generations, terrorism as we know it will be seeing its ebb as standards of living, technology, modernization and education are reformed. In the end, the west wins by allowing them to discover the advantages of westernization for themselves.

"We can't even talk the courts into letting us ban a few of them from immigrating here for a few months, or build a wall across our own border much less total isolation of a region of the world on the other side of the planet."

That is completely the fault of Leftists, Leftist Activist Judges and Leftist Activist NGOs, they never should have been allowed to get to the position they are in to begin with, in general Leftism is like a cancer, it should be eradicated, to make a differentiation though between Leftists and Liberals, there is nothing Liberal about Leftists they are essentially Marxists and Trotskyites.

"You can't change a part of the world that was essentially living in the 12th century made rich overnight by discovering oil by force---- real change comes from within over time. They are already up to starting to allow women to drive and uncover their face! In another 50 years or a couple more generations, terrorism as we know it will be seeing its ebb as standards of living, technology, modernization and education are reformed. In the end, the west wins by allowing them to discover the advantages of westernization for themselves."

So your solution is to permanently be stationed in the Middle East and spend what up to 50 years educating them away from Islamism toward embracing Westernism? We cannot afford to waste time with this, we do not have 50 years, we don't even have 10 years to waste time on educating them away from Islamism, this is who they are, this is who they always have been since the 7th Century they are not going to abandon Islamism, they are not going to stop thinking of everyone else as Infidels who either have to convert or be killed.

 

[fncceo]

There is nothing wrong with a global culture. There is no such thing as an inherently inferior race. Significant contributions to humanity have come from every race and civilization in history. Immigration is a good thing ... our country as we know it literally wouldn't exist without it (the same can be said for nearly every country).

However, when choosing what bits of global culture we integrate into our society, it is like a salad bar. We don't pick the rocket salad if we're allergic. Which is why any country that wishes to consider itself a sovereign country must control its immigration policies.

Germany and Japan are two technologically advanced societies that have made wonderful contributions to humanity however ... when they were bent on destroying us, we ceased to allow them free access to our countries. This wasn't racism, it was self-preservation.

When their threat to society is removed, their access is restored and they can rejoin the global fraternity.

 

[Bleipriester]

There is nothing wrong with a global culture. There is no such thing as an inherently inferior race. Significant contributions to humanity have come from every race and civilization in history. Immigration is a good thing ... our country as we know it literally wouldn't exist without it (the same can be said for nearly every country).

However, when choosing what bits of global culture we integrate into our society, it is like a salad bar. We don't pick the rocket salad if we're allergic. Which is why any country that wishes to consider itself a sovereign country must control its immigration policies.

Germany and Japan are two technologically advanced societies that have made wonderful contributions to humanity however ... when they were bent on destroying us, we ceased to allow them free access to our countries. This wasn't racism, it was self-preservation.

When their threat to society is removed, their access is restored and they can rejoin the global fraternity.

Problem: You determine who is a threat. For example: Venezuela is a national threat.

We need a new pact here in Europe with the Russians. Away with that Washington Bobs that drag the world to the edge.

 

[Snouter]

There is nothing wrong with a global culture./

Agree if it is progressive, modern, Western (yes White) society. All other societies are not progressive, usually racist (Jewish ideology being a prime cause for racism ironically since they claim every else is racist but them), and folks with inferiority complexes because they compare themselves with Whites and are like why was I cursed to be a non-White.

There is no such thing as an inherently inferior race.

Racial differences are DNA based and cannot be changed. Sure ethically superior races should not be mean to inferior races, but common sense population control should be in place for the good of the planet.

Significant contributions to humanity have come from every race and civilization in history.

Bullshit.

Immigration is a good thing ..

It depends. Legal immigration of well qualified individuals is great. The invasion of parasitic idiots, not so great.

our country as we know it literally wouldn't exist without it (the same can be said for nearly every country).

Actually, the British, Dutch and Germans who started this country would have an even better country were it not for Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act that blocked Europeans and opened the floodgates of third world idiots.

Germany and Japan are two technologically advanced societies that have made wonderful contributions to humanity however ... when they were bent on destroying us, we ceased to allow them free access to our countries.

Well that is a loaded comment. Japan was insane, no doubt, as a result of religion. They stole my Grandfather's property in Indonesia and put him in a concentration camp for almost 4 years until the US bombed the hell out of them in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But like Germany, they were seeking self preservation during WWII times.

Back on topic, Russia could destroy Israel in 3 days tops. That said, Germany made subs for Israel so they would lob out nukes as a revenge thing.

 

[Tehon]

All Russia wishes to do is to exploit the vacuum created under Obama that left them get their foot into Syria, and now there, are hell-bent on establishing a permanent presence there that with Iran would allow them to take Iraq, the for Iran to seize Iraq making it all one state and fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East with THEM (the Kremlin) at the helm. This is VITAL to Putin's plans and needs and it is essential that neither Israel or us allow it to happen.

Yep. They have from 40-50,000 troops there. That's quite a deployment.

I've been saying (for years) that we need to drop NATO and move forces to where they are most likely to be needed - the middle east, perhaps Israel, if Israel will have us. I've thought the straights of Teran would be a great place to put a massive U.S. base.

Why would you want that? Why is The Middle East any of America's business? Why is The Middle East the business of ANY Western nation? It's not, it's time The Middle East was left to sort it's own problems out, all that Western involvement there has resulted in is that The West is now on a daily basis having to deal with increased Islamic terrorist attacks.

Then by logical extension why is ANY other country our business? A: Same reason that it is Russia's business: mutual self interest. I think America would only be too glad to leave the M.E. if we could know it would be truly left to its own designs, but allowing Russia to establish control of it in our absence would be a strategic loss to our own national security as it would greatly boost Russia's economy and political grip in the world. Rewarding Islam for its terror attacks by pulling out and giving them what they want is at this point only an invitation to greater demands and attacks, not less.

The situation should be that there should be an International Coalition that has one specific aim and that's to wipe out ALL the Islamists in The Middle East and also in Africa, now a few years ago this type of International Coalition was suggested but not with Russia even though Russia said that they would happily join such a coalition.

The fundamental issue, the most important issue should be fighting Islamic Terrorism.

IMHO everyone would not be facing all this mess now if instead of pointlessly invading Iraq GWB and the poodle Tony Blair instead would have carpet bombed Saudi Arabia and also carpet bombed Southern Pakistan.

You will never get the kind of commitment from other countries and it will always fall back into America's lap as we have all the money to do it. And you will never kill terrorism until you get to the root cause, stopping the indoctrination of children to hate the west. The only way to do that (break the cycle) is through education (taking over education from them through mass occupation) and by raising the standard of living, and that will only happen gradually through time with modernization and cultural changes and with a continuous influence there, not by leaving.

Education begins at home.
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad

Realize that Islamic extremist terrorism serves a valuable purpose for all those who gain from war and Mid East destabilization policies.

 

[Taz]

Who knows what that is? Not proof of what you claim. Where's the debris?

It is proof. No missiles just explode. And we can see that the people can also hardly be seen and that the SAM is also invincible for a short time. Perhaps, with proper methods, the actual missiles can be seen.

Why Phrump fires 76 missiles at a single target if
a) the Syrian air defense is completely inefficient
b) three would have been enough to destroy it completely?

Answer: Because it is a lie and Phrump targeted way more places than claimed. But these places remained undamaged because the missiles were intercepted. There is also no drone footage because
a) there is nothing for Phrump to boast of
b) the drones were downed as well.

By the way. This was just in the news. Why invest billions in stealth technologies when there is no threat?
Russia's S-300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped?

Putin is an ugly little dwarf who couldn't shoot down Snoopy if he tried. If you think that's proof of what you claim, you're dumber than he is.

That´s all you got?

It's more than you're dark video that you can't see anything in. Anyways, why is Russia even supporting Assad, a guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people? Is Putin in love?

Russia is supporting legal leader of Syria who was elected by own people.
As for chemical attacks they're not proved. Most of them were provocations, some were staging. And all this aims western countries to help ISIS and attack Syrian army.

The chemicals attacks are proven by the victims. Assad was never elected by the people of Syria, Syrian elections are only slightly more corrupt than Russia's.

Is it true that Russian women smell like wet dog?

 

[Taz]

Putin is an ugly little dwarf who couldn't shoot down Snoopy if he tried. If you think that's proof of what you claim, you're dumber than he is.

That´s all you got?

It's more than you're dark video that you can't see anything in. Anyways, why is Russia even supporting Assad, a guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people? Is Putin in love?

So? Where´s is evidence for your Jaysh al-Islam terrorist claim? Phrump in cahoots with terrorists, like Obama.

All Muslims are terrorists, your terrorist manifesto is the koran, it's all the proof anyone needs.

What about terroristic attacks of NATO against Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria...and numerous American attacks in past?
For me USA is obviously the terrorist #1

Muslim, muslim, muslim and muslim. No need for an excuse to bomb muslims, like in Chechnya.

 

[Eugene]

It is proof. No missiles just explode. And we can see that the people can also hardly be seen and that the SAM is also invincible for a short time. Perhaps, with proper methods, the actual missiles can be seen.

Why Phrump fires 76 missiles at a single target if
a) the Syrian air defense is completely inefficient
b) three would have been enough to destroy it completely?

Answer: Because it is a lie and Phrump targeted way more places than claimed. But these places remained undamaged because the missiles were intercepted. There is also no drone footage because
a) there is nothing for Phrump to boast of
b) the drones were downed as well.

By the way. This was just in the news. Why invest billions in stealth technologies when there is no threat?
Russia's S-300 or S-400: F-35 Killer or Overhyped?

Putin is an ugly little dwarf who couldn't shoot down Snoopy if he tried. If you think that's proof of what you claim, you're dumber than he is.

That´s all you got?

It's more than you're dark video that you can't see anything in. Anyways, why is Russia even supporting Assad, a guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people? Is Putin in love?

Russia is supporting legal leader of Syria who was elected by own people.
As for chemical attacks they're not proved. Most of them were provocations, some were staging. And all this aims western countries to help ISIS and attack Syrian army.

The chemicals attacks are proven by the victims. Assad was never elected by the people of Syria, Syrian elections are only slightly more corrupt than Russia's.

Is it true that Russian women smell like wet dog?

Insulting as always...typical behavior of stupid pindos.

About chemical attacks and many other things one may know much from here
The Alex Jones Channel
At least he is logical when making conclusions and takes all facts into account not just those he likes.

 

[Taz]

Putin is an ugly little dwarf who couldn't shoot down Snoopy if he tried. If you think that's proof of what you claim, you're dumber than he is.

That´s all you got?

It's more than you're dark video that you can't see anything in. Anyways, why is Russia even supporting Assad, a guy who uses chemical weapons on his own people? Is Putin in love?

Russia is supporting legal leader of Syria who was elected by own people.
As for chemical attacks they're not proved. Most of them were provocations, some were staging. And all this aims western countries to help ISIS and attack Syrian army.

The chemicals attacks are proven by the victims. Assad was never elected by the people of Syria, Syrian elections are only slightly more corrupt than Russia's.

Is it true that Russian women smell like wet dog?

Insulting as always...typical behavior of stupid pindos.

About chemical attacks and many other things one may know much from here
The Alex Jones Channel
At least he is logical when making conclusions and takes all facts into account not just those he likes.

Is there a link to what he says about the chemicals attacks in Syria? I didn't see it.

So who do you think dropped the chems on Syrians?

What's a pindo? I never heard that before.