Trump's Wag the Dog Moment; Syrian chemical attack was a false flag!

TacoMac

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
My question is why did the Russians allow 94 Tomahawks to strike a country they're occupying?
Click to expand...
Why would you waste 10's of millions of dollars worth of munitions to stop an attack against an unimportant, strategically insignificant target?

That's what the United States does. That attack cost us 100 million dollars. It shut down that airfield for all of about 3.5 hours.
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
... And herr Chumpster Fuhrer fell for it, hook, line and sinker!

Think for just a moment; Bashar Al Assad is WINNING, so why the fuck would he use chemical weapons, especially against civilians?

Answer; he wouldn't; but the rebels, who are desperate for someone to come save them, certainly would, while making sure that footage leaked immediately in order to provoke a brash, impulsive and neophyte leader into premature action. Fucking brilliant.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/07/trumps-wag-the-dog-moment/
Click to expand...
Our president is a retard.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
No newspaper in the US or UK would print the story about how Trump's sarin gas attack in Syria in March... Wasn't.

So it fell to a German paper, Die Welt, to publish the story.

There's also a conversation between a soldier and an intelligence officer.

Both are linked in the story below;

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/sy-hersh-exposer-of-my-lai-and-abu-ghraib-strikes-again-exposing-us-lies-about-alleged-assad-sarin-attack/

This is important because Trump has been saying Assad- who has gotten rid of his chemical weapons and had that verified- is going to use more chemical weapons. Even NPR is credulous enough to carry it.

Why is that important? Because this is how big wars get started; if we shoot down a Russian plane, kill Russian soldiers or Russians inadvertently do the same, we could have a much bigger, nastier mess on our hands.

Trump is a child playing with matches in a fireworks warehouse, and his idiotic arrogance could blow us all up.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
thank goodness for editorial standards.
Click to expand...
The editorial standards of the Washington Post bought by Jeff Nexis with CIA money? GTFO

Shit. You're going to stick to the idea that somehow the 'sarin gas' attack that left chlorine all over the place was the truth?

And to think I used to trust your judgement.
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, go ahead and trust far right wing german newspapers. that can never go wrong.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a right wing paper support Trump's position?

Your bullshit excuses fail to make any sense at all.

I get that you're a shill for the establishment Democrats. Why are you now doing the same for the Trump administration?

You haven't even read the article, you're just here to smear.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Last time I checked, there still only 2 viable political parties in this country.

They are polar opposites and it fucking shows to anyone who really looks at them.

I'm proud to announce my continued support for the good guys.

Fuck all the conspiracy theories, fake news, tangents and ridiculous bullshit.

If you're in doubt, watch a Trump press briefing and then listen to the republicans defend it.

Case fucking closed.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Last time I checked, there still only 2 viable political parties in this country.

They are polar opposites and it fucking shows to anyone who really looks at them.

I'm proud to announce my continued support for the good guys.

Fuck all the conspiracy theories, fake news, tangents and ridiculous bullshit.

If you're in doubt, watch a Trump press briefing and then listen to the republicans defend it.

Case fucking closed.
Click to expand...
Except they aren't polar opposites; the Democrats are not a party of the left in America today. They don't represent the average citizen.

We have an extreme right wing all but Fascist party and then we have a not quite as right wing party.

There's no left. Bernie ran as a centrist.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Except they aren't polar opposites; the Democrats are not a party of the left in America today. They don't represent the average citizen.

We have an extreme right wing all but Fascist party and then we have a not quite as right wing party.

There's no left. Bernie ran as a centrist.
Click to expand...
Except that they are polar opposites.

You overthink it, IMO.

But carry on, if you can somehow move it to the left.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
Except that they are polar opposites.

You overthink it, IMO.

But carry on, if you can somehow move it to the left.
Click to expand...
We're working to move it to the left as I type this

A Democrat just killed single payer in California, it wasn't because of Republican obstructionism. It was so Jerry Brown didn't have to make the choice between vetoing it and choosing his corporate donors or passing it and (in his mind) ending his chances at any future political positions within the Democratic establishment. Rendon took the bullet instead.

You would benefit to understand the Democratic establishment is not there to support your interests. They're there to support the interests of big business. That's why congressmen/women like Pelosi and Feinstein don't support universal healthcare;



"Do you think the Democratic party should support a single payer position?"

"No, I don't"

Pelosi arguing for a Republican position; states rights

So for someone to argue either that the Democratic party supports universal healthcare, since, hey, it's on their official platform, right? is simply naive and foolish. They have no understanding of political science, it simply comes down to that. They can tell you whatever they want, what matters is their actions, their votes when they hold actual power to accomplish and solve the things they claim to want to solve and accomplish. They enacted a right wing healthcare bill endorsed by Mitt Romney without a single Republican vote. Why couldn't they have enacted a universal healthcare bill instead? They chose to capitulate when it mattered the most, and now, because of that, we're seeing the complete dismantling of a progressive step forward under Trumpcare, specifically because the ACA didn't go far enough.

Americans are begging for affordable healthcare coverage all across the country. One party unabashedly tells victims of future Trumpcare to go fuckthemselves while they can still feel an orgasm. The other party bends over backwards for their corporate donors..

Enough is enough, man. What do you think is going to happen in this country when poor people realize how much they're being fucked over? This is bubbling to the surface, it's no longer an 'if', it's a 'when'. Something is going to happen if those at the top don't change things dramatically. Poor, hungry, disenfranchised people can only take so much. Everyone has a limit. I used to think the answer was open revolution, but I'm not a violent guy by nature. I think what's going to happen, if people like Buck and Fogdog "stick to their guns" til the bitter end like I fully expect them to, they will ensure Republican control of government until Republicans perform SO BAD, voters will have no choice but to vote for the opposition as a response, like they did in 2016. It's a shit cycle of continuous disappointment where only those at the tippy top benefit and the rest of use suffer accordingly, and squabble over who cause it and who's responsible for it, unless we all, collectively recognize the problem that is causing this issue and reach an agreement on how to solve it.

Campaign finance reform
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
We're working to move it to the left as I type this

A Democrat just killed single payer in California, it wasn't because of Republican obstructionism. It was so Jerry Brown didn't have to make the choice between vetoing it and choosing his corporate donors or passing it and (in his mind) ending his chances at any future political positions within the Democratic establishment. Rendon took the bullet instead.

You would benefit to understand the Democratic establishment is not there to support your interests. They're there to support the interests of big business. That's why congressmen/women like Pelosi and Feinstein don't support universal healthcare;



"Do you think the Democratic party should support a single payer position?"

"No, I don't"

Pelosi arguing for a Republican position; states rights

So for someone to argue either that the Democratic party supports universal healthcare, since, hey, it's on their official platform, right? is simply naive and foolish. They have no understanding of political science, it simply comes down to that. They can tell you whatever they want, what matters is their actions, their votes when they hold actual power to accomplish and solve the things they claim to want to solve and accomplish. They enacted a right wing healthcare bill endorsed by Mitt Romney without a single Republican vote. Why couldn't they have enacted a universal healthcare bill instead? They chose to capitulate when it mattered the most, and now, because of that, we're seeing the complete dismantling of a progressive step forward under Trumpcare, specifically because the ACA didn't go far enough.

Americans are begging for affordable healthcare coverage all across the country. One party unabashedly tells victims of future Trumpcare to go fuckthemselves while they can still feel an orgasm. The other party bends over backwards for their corporate donors..

Enough is enough, man. What do you think is going to happen in this country when poor people realize how much they're being fucked over? This is bubbling to the surface, it's no longer an 'if', it's a 'when'. Something is going to happen if those at the top don't change things dramatically. Poor, hungry, disenfranchised people can only take so much. Everyone has a limit. I used to think the answer was open revolution, but I'm not a violent guy by nature. I think what's going to happen, if people like Buck and Fogdog "stick to their guns" til the bitter end like I fully expect them to, they will ensure Republican control of government until Republicans perform SO BAD, voters will have no choice but to vote for the opposition as a response, like they did in 2016. It's a shit cycle of continuous disappointment where only those at the tippy top benefit and the rest of use suffer accordingly, and squabble over who cause it and who's responsible for it, unless we all, collectively recognize the problem that is causing this issue and reach an agreement on how to solve it.

Campaign finance reform
Click to expand...
naive.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
TacoMac said:
Why would you waste 10's of millions of dollars worth of munitions to stop an attack against an unimportant, strategically insignificant target?

That's what the United States does. That attack cost us 100 million dollars. It shut down that airfield for all of about 3.5 hours.
Click to expand...


Because....money.




upload_2017-6-30_7-27-57.png
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
naive.
Click to expand...
You're just wrong. He showed a series of clear examples of how Democrats are not acting in the interests of the People and do not support single payer and you addressed none of them.

Your arguments have no clothes, cultist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top