You have anything you'd like to discuss, or are you just going to link a youtube video?
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
So your only proof is a conspiracy channel on youtube?
I'd like to discuss the linked video. Why are they supporting syrian rebels? Syrian rebels = radical moslem terrorists.
I really don't get it.
Actually it's Israeli Intel that made the U.S convinced in that fact, there's a recording of a Syrian personal commanding the attack. You may wanna check about the 8200 unit .
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
Stopped watching after 30 seconds when he says "we're going show you definitive evidence to support this claim." Oh really? "Leaked" documents show that we are behind the chemical attacks? How about actual evidence to show who did this.
How much help a limited strike would be to the opposition will depend on what we actually hit. We have been telling Syria we will be hitting them, so if we respond with a cruise missile based strike the amount of ACTUAL damage to the Syrian military will be minimal. A strike now will more likely be a face saving action on Obama's part more so than an actual damaging strike.
I don't only mean supporting the rebels by striking the army, there is a lot of evidence that the chemical attacks were fired by the rebels and not by the army. Western media doesn't mention anything about it but in fact the army had a lot of casualties themselves from those chemical attacks and the rebels are regulary detonating hospitals and other public places in syria, you just have to watch something else than western media, here a russian documentary for example (french subtitles) about the syrian terrorists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZkDb...ailpage#t=1064
Last edited by mmoc23fba8f73f; 2013-08-28 at 11:48 PM.
Honestly, the rebels winning or Assad winning would be equally bad, but perpetual civil war isn't a good outcome. The best outcome would probably be Turkey invading and annexing the country, or at least occupying it until a benevolent secular leadership can be installed.
That'd still probably be a crap outcome though.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Turkey would want nothing to do with Syria. And there cannot be a benevolent secular leadership, the country can maintain integerty by force of arms only, and breaking it up would have very bad issues. In the mean time, it is keeping Assad and Iran tied up far more than they would like, which is good for the rest of the world. Sadly, no matter what happens, a large slice of the Syrian population will pay the price for losing.
If you fancily ignored my recent comment, please do so and read:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/25/is...tack-to-assad/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-sho...tack-in-syria/
When these reports of Chemical weapons first started happening Assad was winning the war. Why would he use chemical weapons if he was winning?