Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Details to follow...
Good. Trump needed to take swift action after the chemical attacks. Next up, N. KoreaDetails to follow...
Most Americans are so used to Obama doing nothing all the time and letting other nations walk all over us. Trump didn't waste any time with action, which is refreshing.
Details to follow...
Which means you are clueless.
Good. Trump needed to take swift action after the chemical attacks. Next up, N. Korea
That's ok, even though you're wrong. Stop with the anti-Trump rhetoric, it doesn't suit youWhich if you read all the available info, Syria most likely didnt do.
That's ok, even though you're wrong.
Stop with the anti-Trump rhetoric, it doesn't suit you
Isaiah 17:1
17 An oracle concerning Damascus.
Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city
and will become a heap of ruins.
Now try to get any of the so called MADs on TOL to agree with your interpretation there :chuckle:
Here we go again…and again…and again… Excuse me, but are people “more” dead if they’re killed by chemical weapons, as opposed to incinerated by napalm or disemboweled by shrapnel? It’s almost like as long as*a government kills people with the proper weapons, it’s all good. But use the wrong one, and here comes the world saying how unfair it is. Again, excuse me, but has anyone happened across the common denominator in the use of military weapons, be they conventional or NBC? That would be: Government. See, only a government or someone aspiring to be one has those kinds of weapons. The average civilian hasn’t got these weapons on the scale a government has them and uses them. Therefore, it would appear to me that if Government A*says they’re going to stop Government B from using certain weapons, it means Government A will use its own weapons to do so. Resulting in Civilians C, D, and E dying on an unprecedented scale. But dying properly from proper weapons, for which those civilians should be grateful. The United States, for example, can claim it now has the pretext to use its nuclear weapons because it says*Assad used a chemical weapon. That’s how the protocol goes for U.S. nuclear policy. That if another nation uses an NBC weapon, the U.S. can retaliate in kind since the other nation crossed the Rubicon of “first use”. Even though using a nuclear weapon to retaliate for a gas attack is like using a 10 pound sledgehammer to pound in a small brad tack. But everyone will be incinerated legally, and not illegally gassed. Whatever. The fact remains that we were lied into the Gulf War in 1990 by lurid stories about Iraqi atrocities cooked up by U.S. advertising agencies hired by the Pentagon. And we were lied into Gulf War Part Two: The Iraq-ining of Democracy because we were told the McHitler Of The Month, Saddam Hussein, had NBC weapons and was building more. And Americans fall for this every time. My gosh, they might as well say that Nazis time-travelled from World War Two and caused this attack. Americans would believe that, too. “We must put a stop to Time Machines of Mass Destruction!” The United States keeps making the same blunder, over and over again. So, what do I think? I think people really are this stupid. The U.S. government has cried wolf about NBC weapons too many times for this one to be believed. But people believe it anyway! Fascinating! People really are this gullible! But a trip to any supermarket proves that, when you see the crap people will put into their bodies. And if they’ll put that junk into their bodies, they’ll put the equivalent of it into their minds from the government. Have a nice war! |
1) Im MAD
2) What interpretation? It speaks for itself.
[h=1]The Pentagon just released video of the US attack on Syria[/h]http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/6/15215348/trump-syria-airstrike-attack-video