- May 3, 2009
- 3,379
- 1,293
- 198
Wrong.
The UN investigators found no evidence of Assad using any chemical weapons.
Why do you think UN investigators have any credibility?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong.
The UN investigators found no evidence of Assad using any chemical weapons.
You have proof? Hard evidence?
Didn't think so.
Ukraine did not put NATO nukes in its territory
As for your other complaints there are international courts for that
How about the fact Zionists in Berlin during WWI gave England the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite, and stole the Zimmerman letter to get the US into the war, all in exchange for the Balfour Declaration.
Why else would England make a Balfour Declaration about a Palestine they did not yet occupy?
That is not the point.
The point is Zelensky wanted to and would have if Russia had not invaded.
Russia already won in the world court over the Ukraine's oil theft in 2012, and the Ukraine never paid up.
How about the fact Zionists in Berlin during WWI gave England the formula for synthetic acetone for cordite, and stole the Zimmerman letter to get the US into the war, all in exchange for the Balfour Declaration.
Why else would England make a Balfour Declaration about a Palestine they did not yet occupy?
Thats bullshitThe point is Zelensky wanted to and would have if Russia had not invaded
Why do you think UN investigators have any credibility?
Thats bullshit
NATO has no need to place nukes in ukraine
and russia cant invade based on something that didnt happen
Yet how in the early 1980s did the Reagan Admin. manage to secure approval from Congress to sell AWACSs early warning radar planes to Saudi Arabia despite the vehement objections of Israel and the Jewish lobby in the U.S.?
Probably by giving even more to Israel, secretly, or by Saudi Arabia and Israel coming to a secret pact on the side.
Then their "vehement objections" would have just been theater.
Thats bullshit
NATO has no need to place nukes in ukraine
and russia cant invade based on something that didnt happen
In other words you have nothing.
You're probably not even Jewish.
Israel doesn't fly E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft.Probably by giving even more to Israel, secretly, or by Saudi Arabia and Israel coming to a secret pact on the side.
Then their "vehement objections" would have just been theater.
Yes NATO dearly wants to and has constantly tried to put nukes on Russia's border.
Then why does he keep walking his statements back?After Trump, it’s good to see a president defending democracy again.
And the defense of democracy must be consistent.
You've never studied airplane crashes obviously.
I have.
Too easy:
The vast amount of flammable material in the WTC towers caused the blaze to grow far, far hotter than one fed solely by jet fuel.
We haven't needed short range nukes for many decades so there would be no point in putting them on Russia's border.Yes NATO dearly wants to and has constantly tried to put nukes on Russia's border.
Once that happens, a first strike becomes possible, as the retaliatory strike capability would greatly diminished.
And yes, Russia most certainly can and should invade on what Zelensky said he wanted to happen, in violation of treaties.
Horse shit. Paper, wood and fabric and especially carpets all burn.There is not supposed to be anything in the WTC that was flammable at all, much less hotter than jet fuel.