@wolfwoof:
So for us who aren't up on the whole who's who of shadowy rulers could someone explain who the Rothschilds are supposed to be?
Scary Jews with lots of money.
@wolfwoof:
So for us who aren't up on the whole who's who of shadowy rulers could someone explain who the Rothschilds are supposed to be?
Scary Jews with lots of money.
@Old:
CIA and Israeli special forces are funding and training rebel extremists to go in and cause civil unrest. This is what "Foreign Aid" is more commonly referred to, look at the $1million dollar camp David treaty that Egypt signed with the U.S Does anyone remember operation gladio?
Syria are the last step in installing Rothschild controlled Central Banks to almost the entire world. Also IF we go into Syria I can almost bet that the next location will be Iran.
We are being sold another narrative on Terrorism.
No modern day rebel leader in their right mind would use chemical weapons against their own country folk. They know that their would be an uproar due to the Geneva convention.Does anyone remember the so called opposition rebels who released a video of them gassing rabbits? Well they turned out to be fake actors…
Also
I think it's pretty clear that noone should be allowed to contravene international law re: the use of chemical weapons- not even America. The problem is the UN is too ineffectual (largely because everything can be vetoed by one subscribing country- generally Russia or China) so you never get a unanimous vote to effect action. While (via the proper channels) Syria clearly needs to be reigned in, it is not the prerogative of U.S.A. to police the world as it sees fit politically by use of military force and resultant civilian death, especially in the context of the implications outlined above, and especially given their own track record. Strikes on Syria is poking a large, angry hornet's nest in a climate where numerous countries have enough arsenal to destroy the world. The only answer I can see is a re-modelling of the UN modus operandi.
Can you edit this post to just say "DAMN JEWS", it would really get to the point of what you're saying quicker.
@Cyan:
Can you edit this post to just say "DAMN JEWS", it would really get to the point of what you're saying quicker.
haha sorry. Its not actually what I wrote, what some friends in a 'FB argument' wrote which I thoguht was interesting.
@Old:
haha sorry. Its not actually what I wrote, what some friends in a 'FB argument' wrote which I thoguht was interesting.
Maybe you should mention that before you post it.
And maybe you shouldn't post it at all.
Most people who ever were in charge were probably alot more bumbling and prone to faults than the PR department and the myth building would ever let on
@Monkey:
And maybe you shouldn't post it at all.
Just don't understand why you bother quoting me/responding to me. As I said mate if you got nothing good to say why post at all. And also your constant elitist comments are hilarious. You'd be a funny cunt to talk to in real life
@Old:
yeah sozza its 5am and im tired. my bad boss
also don't understand why Monkey King bothers quoting me when all he has to say is negative stuff. Seriously dude don't bother because as I said in another thread, I really don't care man and your constant elitist view (don't know where this comes from) is confusing
"Duddde it's just dangerous addictive narcotics in a thread full of the type of people most likely to develop addictions!! Duddee!!"
"Duddeee it's just a civil war that's been murdering and raping massive amounts of civilians! Sarin gas dudeeee!!"
Just post a Joker meme from 2009 and be done with it.
@Monkey:
And maybe you shouldn't post it at all.
Yeah, this is better.
"I don't understand why Monkey King is so mean to me after posting a horrible post about some mean jews and some mean rebels! (Cries waterfall of tears)" Dude just be careful at what you post okay
lol Joekiddo owned you dude
It's a bit amusing how casually Australians use the word cunt
@wolfwoof:
It's a bit amusing how casually Australians use the word cunt
I thought the British were the ones who used it. It's pretty much British English slang.
@wolfwoof:
It's a bit amusing how casually Australians use the word cunt
It's more the Bogan's that do it - I find it irritating because we have a long history of coming up with brilliant swear words and insults only to have the Bogans come in with their tracky daks, thongs and wifebeaters screaming the most common words they can think of cracking open VB cans and scratching their balls in public.
If you see a mullet on a male or female in Australia steel your nerves for a horrid experience.
And the new Egyptian constitution is in. It's even more of a turd than the last one. But hey, don't take my word for it.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114516/seeds-discontent-new-egyptian-constitution
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Oh, Obama might as well set John Kerry on fire on live TV. If he didn't want to bomb Syria, he didn't need to throw his secretary of State under the bus, did he?
Congress will decide within a week of Sep 9th. But it's almost like Obama's looking for excuses not to bomb. So don't bomb. Just don't drag this out. I mean I'm conflicted on this bombing anyway. So whether he bombs or not is fine with me. But I'm starting to seriously dislike the man. Even though I used to be a big fan. Make your mind God damn it.
He is making a show of thinking so as to appear more of an intellectual as compared to Bush. But that is already self evident. What he lacks now is not a reputation for intelligence but rather for decisiveness. I mean war is half about intimidation anyway. There have been many defections and losses for the Syrian regime form this pitiful threat by Obama. Imagine what would happen if he tried to appear just a little more decisive and heaven forbid threatening! Otherwise if you don't have the stomach for it stay away and stop giving false hope to poor Syrians who have suffered enough already.
I guess Obama set himself and escape route with bypassing decision to congress, not that I can blame him for that. Bombing Syria's chemical warehouses can have dire political and ecological effects that are difficult to predict, some experts say that bombing chemical storages can be disastrous becauses unless 100% of chemicals are destroyed and to do that heat required would have to be +3000 celsius, otherwise released toxins can result humanitarian crisis to surrounding areas.
Also I am not sure what kind of intelligence US has on Syrias chemical depot whereabouts, its possible that they have been moved since last months and have been stored near civilian areas making bombings a risky business. There is also quite a lot of debate even inside USA should there be any kind of intervention regarding Syria at all, also UN is very divided about it with Russia and China opposing any military intervention and USA bombing Syria would certainly not improve relations with those countrys.
Easiest choice for Obama is to let congress decide and if congress decides to not approve bombings then Obama can get out of this situation relatively unscathed. I am also bit puzzled why did Assad decide to use chemical weapons, if reports are to believed Syria's army was having a momentum against FSA rebels for several months now, surely Assad knew that using chemical weapons would have dire ramifications specially when he had been warned repeatatly to not to use them by international channels?
But situation at Syria has been chaotic at last year and there has been no clear frontlines but instead random skirmishes and entire country being in chaos, Assad has been appearing to be winning but even those reports cannot be trusted because overall situation has been so chaotic, Assad would have no problems with himself to use chemical weapons against his enemys even at large scales, problem was would he be so desperate to use them? Perhaps he actually was, US intelligence is certain that Assad has been using them and I dont want to believe that they would lie for something about that.
@wolfwoof:
It's a bit amusing how casually Australians use the word cunt
tell me about it.
Most don't, but you get a percentage that can't piece a sentence together without it being every other word.
@Monkey:
I thought the British were the ones who used it. It's pretty much British English slang.
oh it's used alright. But usually in moderation and pretty much only for times of need. Or at least recognised as being a nasty word. Over here in perth it's use is a lot more casually, or somewhat on par with lesser cuss words like shit, crap etc.
That said a lot of words you folks in the US, Europe and such aren't really used at all. And to some extent even replaced with the C word as the epitome of swearing.
Even stupid stuff like calling someone a 'white dog' is pretty high on the no no list lol.
Anyway I came in here to chat about Syria and the speech Obama came out with earlier. While I agree wholeheartedly that Syria needs a strike against the heavy weapons, chemical stockpiles and such, i just can't stand the US being the force alone on this decision.
Realistically the evidence needs to be presented to the UN, in the aims of pulling together the international parties to do this as a joint force. And I don't mean a few key allies, but a large show of solidarity within the majority of the countries present to not only show that the world means business, but to send a message that nobody with a conscience in the world will stand by and let such horrendous crimes go unpunished or unnoticed in this day and age.
This is also a big issue for a lot of the US voters. A lot of them don't want Obama to go ahead and do this alone.
That aside, my concerns revolve around the aftermath of this likely scenario. We all agree for example that the last conflict in Libya was needed, but at the same time didn't really have anything to offer once it was concluded. I don't want to see the country fall to pieces for ten years or more while it try's to pick up the pieces created by the Assad regime.
This again is why I want the international community to join forces on this. For the strike, and to help the country get back up once the bombs stop falling.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Old:
CIA and Israeli special forces are funding and training rebel extremists to go in and cause civil unrest. This is what "Foreign Aid" is more commonly referred to, look at the $1million dollar camp David treaty that Egypt signed with the U.S Does anyone remember operation gladio?
Syria are the last step in installing Rothschild controlled Central Banks to almost the entire world. Also IF we go into Syria I can almost bet that the next location will be Iran.
We are being sold another narrative on Terrorism.
No modern day rebel leader in their right mind would use chemical weapons against their own country folk. They know that their would be an uproar due to the Geneva convention.Does anyone remember the so called opposition rebels who released a video of them gassing rabbits? Well they turned out to be fake actors…
Also
I think it's pretty clear that noone should be allowed to contravene international law re: the use of chemical weapons- not even America. The problem is the UN is too ineffectual (largely because everything can be vetoed by one subscribing country- generally Russia or China) so you never get a unanimous vote to effect action. While (via the proper channels) Syria clearly needs to be reigned in, it is not the prerogative of U.S.A. to police the world as it sees fit politically by use of military force and resultant civilian death, especially in the context of the implications outlined above, and especially given their own track record. Strikes on Syria is poking a large, angry hornet's nest in a climate where numerous countries have enough arsenal to destroy the world. The only answer I can see is a re-modelling of the UN modus operandi.
i stopped reading at rothchilds. Lol
This sounds like too many antisemetic banking videos on youtube. If you did your homework on this instead of copy pasting the belief of a handful of paranoid idiots you would realise just how wrong this post is. At the end of a day a bank is a bank is a bank. Is doesn't matter who controls what as all of them are tied down to laws and codes that prevent them from being anything other than an international economic middle man/tool.
If you want to look at someone with the ability to bleed the world dry from manipulation then you could point the bilderberg group….until of course you realise that even if their was a league of truly heinous people in this willing to do anything.....they wouldn't actually gain from it thus removing any degree of realism to it.
In short; you really need to look at the bigger picture and research it before coming up with some paranoid psychobabble, that in essence has no grounds or logic to support it.