BLOCKBUSTER! Syrian Rebels Take Responsibility For Chemical Attack...

[tinydancer]

BS- nobody is going to put boots on the ground, we know where the rockets came from and landed, and what happened when they landed, and listened to Syrians generals talking about it. This will be an air strike, and no one will be killed except maybe some Syrians.

Except maybe some Syrians?



You are one sick puppy.

 

[tinydancer]

TD, yes, it is good and sufficient to strike Assad; no, it is not going to start WWIII; yes, it is good the children of Syria will get a better chance this way.

Oh righto!!

Women and children always, just always have a better chance with radical Islamists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TD, yes, it is good and sufficient to strike Assad; no, it is not going to start WWIII; yes, it is good the children of Syria will get a better chance this way.

Oh righto!! Women and children always, just always have a better chance with radical Islamists.

Are you rooting for AQ now?

 

[francoHFW]

#201-No appreciable change in the number dying already, hysterical hater dupe. Will end chemical attacks.

 

[Vox]

This war can be supported by payed bots only.

Anybody with even a slightest amount of brain function knows that we can't afford a war and we can not win anything in this war - because either side is not our friend.
We also have the experience of the last 12 years and even the failure with Libya and Egypt.

And the reasonable people of all colors are very reluctant and apply common sense to the obviously not needed conflict involvement.

yet the fakies of the world would jump off their diapers in order to kill innocent civilians they are so supposedly worried about.

the reason of such hysteria in support is obvious. it is payed for.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nobody wanted to go to war when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. I'm not sure if there was even much outcry until much later, when it fit into the debate on what to do about the invasion of Kuwait.

This is just an excuse to continue U.S. aggression and fight more wars. Once they get the taste, they just can't stop killing.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You and your ilk, such as The T and Vox, are unable to understand that if Assad is not reined in now because of you cowardly reactionary appeasers, he could start WWIII because of you folks.

Guess what: that is not going to happen because the USA will strike him.

And exactly how will Assad start WWIII genius?

 

[The T]

TD, yes, it is good and sufficient to strike Assad; no, it is not going to start WWIII; yes, it is good the children of Syria will get a better chance this way.

Oh righto!!

Women and children always, just always have a better chance with radical Islamists.

Indeed. Fakey seems to forget those already killed, as IF he dismisses them.

What a sick puppy. And YES it will start a war...(IV)...III was the Cold War by proxy between the US and the Old Soviet...and interesting the same cast are back with a different name but same Ideals.

JAKE wants to see a pissing contest between Putin and Obama at the expense of others.

Jake is just, well...sick.

 

[tinydancer]

TD, yes, it is good and sufficient to strike Assad; no, it is not going to start WWIII; yes, it is good the children of Syria will get a better chance this way.

Oh righto!! Women and children always, just always have a better chance with radical Islamists.

Are you rooting for AQ now?

No you are. You want Assad gone and AQ will take over.

Strange world we are living in when the President of America and liberal Americans would prefer to see hardline Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt and now prefer to have AQ take over Syria.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You admit you are supporting people who use poison gas. There is no question about that. AQ and the jihadists are one group in the opposition, and a rather small one.

You demonstrate the weakness of libertarian philosophy: sometimes hard choices need to be made, and liberts cannot make them.

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

Lobbing a nuke in wouldn't be an invasion either. It's the intentions that are important, and we know what they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not supporting either side of the Syrian conflict. I think they both suck. This is a no win situation for the US. And still no reason has been presented why a military attack is justified. We were not attacked. If we intervene on the side of the opposition, they aren't going to suddenly be our friends.

If they attack our allies - Turkey or Israel, I could see justification for military action. If they want to kill each other off, that is regrettable, but not cause to intervene.

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

Lobbing a nuke in wouldn't be an invasion either. It's the intentions that are important, and we know what they are.

Moving the goal posts to "man, what about nukes, eh" is nonsense and you know it.

So I won't respond to that again. The intentions are to kill Assad and destroy the gas supply.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Cruise missiles are not a military invasion, and they just might get the guy and will destroy the sarin supply storage.

Then if Russia ships in new stuff, we can take it to the UN.

Lobbing a nuke in wouldn't be an invasion either. It's the intentions that are important, and we know what they are.

Moving the goal posts to "man, what about nukes, eh" is nonsense and you know it.

So I won't respond to that again. The intentions are to kill Assad and destroy the gas supply.

It was using an example. Your reading comprehension is fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Lobbing a nuke in wouldn't be an invasion either. It's the intentions that are important, and we know what they are.

Moving the goal posts to "man, what about nukes, eh" is nonsense and you know it.

So I won't respond to that again. The intentions are to kill Assad and destroy the gas supply.

It was using an example. Your reading comprehension is fail.

No, I don't let responders to my comments who employ nonsense go unchallenged. It has always has been and always will be that way.

Five destroyers are now within range. The USA has "high confidence" that Assad did it; far more confidence, I would suggest, that the nonsense about WMDs and Iraq.

 

[francoHFW]

The intention is to punish them for using gas and persuading them to not do it again. Period. Maybe hurt their war making ability.

 

[Trajan]

obama is considering this due to a a fit of pique, thats the take of the British house, as shared below......

move ahead to- 5:06 "the truth is....."....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The intention is to punish them for using gas and persuading them to not do it again. Period. Maybe hurt their war making ability.

Yeah you pub hater dupes, you're not a pacifist loving Liberal unless you fling peace rockets at the kind Muslim.

Don't be a racist you hater dupes, show your Love for Islam by showering them with fiery gifts full of napalm.

Send the Syrians a postcard while you are at it, show them your good intentions, Obama delivers it via Drone:

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Moving the goal posts to "man, what about nukes, eh" is nonsense and you know it.

So I won't respond to that again. The intentions are to kill Assad and destroy the gas supply.

It was using an example. Your reading comprehension is fail.

No, I don't let responders to my comments who employ nonsense go unchallenged. It has always has been and always will be that way.

Five destroyers are now within range. The USA has "high confidence" that Assad did it; far more confidence, I would suggest, that the nonsense about WMDs and Iraq.

It's nonsense to you, because you failed to understand what I said. But continue to defend your failure at reading.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was using an example. Your reading comprehension is fail.

No, I don't let responders to my comments who employ nonsense go unchallenged. It has always has been and always will be that way.

Five destroyers are now within range. The USA has "high confidence" that Assad did it; far more confidence, I would suggest, that the nonsense about WMDs and Iraq.

It's nonsense to you, because you failed to understand what I said. But continue to defend your failure at reading.

Stay on topic. There is no question that the Assads are at fault, and they will pay for it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

No, I don't let responders to my comments who employ nonsense go unchallenged. It has always has been and always will be that way.

Five destroyers are now within range. The USA has "high confidence" that Assad did it; far more confidence, I would suggest, that the nonsense about WMDs and Iraq.

It's nonsense to you, because you failed to understand what I said. But continue to defend your failure at reading.

Stay on topic. There is no question that the Assads are at fault, and they will pay for it.

We're talking about a comment I made about Syria. How is that not on topic?

 

[Freewill]

The intention is to punish them for using gas and persuading them to not do it again. Period. Maybe hurt their war making ability.

Maybe start WW3