But why he would choose to kill them in one of the few ways that would cause intervention.


Hmmmm

I wonder.....

 

Simple - fear.

After the attack the rebels struck a deal with the Russians to leave as they weren't going to face another such attack.

 

Yea lets break out those gas shells Assad, forget about the thousands of other ways you could wipe them out without breaking CW laws.

Lets finish them off in a way that brings on an even larger more powerful pain in the ***.

Makes perfect sense......


Just our luck eh

Gulf of Tonkin springs to mind,

Another false flag which will start a war and hopefully prop up the failing dollar

Or better yet it would pump up the price of oil which no doubt all these *** beads in charge have vested interests in.

Its a shame these greedy *******s make millions of the deaths of soldiers and innocents around the world, all in the name of "peace".

"It's all about the money, money ,money "

 

The second anyone mentions 'false flags' I immediately start losing the will to live.


The West doesn't want to intervene in Syria, the history of the last 7 years should make that clear to you. We've spent the whole time navel gazing whilst 100s of thousand of people have been killed and millions displaced, and we've done fukall about it.


There isn't the faintest chance that we're going to get involved on the ground in Syria either, we remain completely paralysed by our failure in Iraq.


Rather than constructing completely illogical conspiracy theories, why not just look at the basic facts.

 

Oh dear you go and sit in the corner with your tin foil hat on whilst listening to Putin/Lavrov on Russia Today hanging on every word they say.

 

No tin foil no Russia today.

Just use your head

Qui bono ?

 

 

Is it really that illogical? There’s an awful lot of money to be made out of someone else’s war. Especially if you’ve got a weapons/defence industry like the Americans have.

 

short answer; yes

 

That’s a surprisingly naive view of the world.

 

I find it incredible there are those who think the scenes of children suffering the effects of a chemical attack are false or have been done by the West. You really have been brainwashed by the Russians propaganda.

It is fact that Assad has form for this with many previous attacks yet all of a sudden this one can't be real. Those who don't believe it need to wake up and realise he has chemical weapons and he uses them and has done for a long time and he isn't going to stop using them willingly.

Do you also think it wasn't a chemical attack in Salisbury and they just had food poisoning?

You are burying your heads in the sand and denying this stuff has has happened and will happen again if action isn't taken.

 

Really?

Not sure it is. The simplist explanation is normally the right one.

I'm sure we can all come up with fantastic theories about why things happen. Indeed the Russians are at it right now.

I fully support getting the facts first, then if it's proven that it was indeed Assad, then he should be our first target.

 

Too late , we're in

 

Tornado* GR4s flew out from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus. Firing long-range 'Storm Shadow' Cruise missiles at two targets in Homs and one in Damascus. Happened around between 2-3am BST.



* These bad boys are now 4 decades old!

 

Wonder how many poor folk died during the night,

But i suppose a missile in your sleep is better than gassed like VW monkey...

 

The human species is ****ed. We'll ALWAYS be warring.

The notion of 'everlasting peace' is simply just that. A notion.

 

Just think about it all for a sec,

The only ones who actually benefit from the gas attack are the side opposed to Assad

Benefits them alot more to gas a few people.

Again no tin foil, no flat earth or chemtrails.


No doubt Assad has done some messed up things like most regimes/governments,

But did these places not function alot better with the likes of Saddam, Gaddaffi and co. ?

Now these places resemble the start of the Terminator movies

 

That’s all well and good 9 times out of 10 but when you’re talking global politics it can becomes very complicated very rapidly. If it was as simple as you say then why did only 3 countries choose to get involved?

 

Nice and new and 'smart'

 

Fresh lick of paint maybe hahah

 

lol yeh.

 

When one gets bombed by "allies" everything is possible.

It's easy to blame "collateral damages" when one is not affected though.

https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...gine-sta-tyfla

https://translate.google.co.uk/trans...-text=&act=url