Syria - One big joke

[TheRealnz]

So why wouldn't they just take Assad out, if that's what they wanted? Obama has been prez for several years, he's had plenty of time. He already took out bin Laden.

Or why not just do one of your "false flags".

They keep trying instead to work through the Syrian opposition, just as they did in Libya, or Bush did in Afghanistan. Why do you think that is, in cases where the country's leader is a dictator?

Or why not just sneak in American troops who have middle eastern backgrounds , and just call them "volunteers".

Bin Laden wasn't the head of a recognized state with backing from Iran, China, and Russia.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the US has been trying to take Assad out for a few years now. They can't act unilaterally because they need political cover to do so, and so far russia and other nations have been exposing the US's political cover and causing backlash in the US over attempts to attack Syria outright.

Violating Syrian sovereignty to attack ISIS is simply a backdoor method of achieving the same goal without explicitly stating so.
-

They already tried a false flag with the Sarin gas attacks that were exposed by russia.
They have already snuck troops into Syria to train the muslim radicals in the area to depose Assad.
-

You really need to read up on what you are talking about.

 

[LSSBB]

Bin Laden wasn't the head of a recognized state with backing from Iran, China, and Russia.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the US has been trying to take Assad out for a few years now. They can't act unilaterally because they need political cover to do so, and so far russia and other nations have been exposing the US's political cover and causing backlash in the US over attempts to attack Syria outright.

Violating Syrian sovereignty to attack ISIS is simply a backdoor method of achieving the same goal without explicitly stating so.
-

They already tried a false flag with the Sarin gas attacks that were exposed by russia.
They have already snuck troops into Syria to train the muslim radicals in the area to depose Assad.
-

You really need to read up on what you are talking about.

I do read up. You have no evidence the Sarin attack was a false flag, and if it was, the end result was Syria gave up it's gas stocks, and that's all.

Why would they need political cover? They could just kill him and deny it. Would be so much easier.

A real false flag would be something they could just fake in the U. S. You think they are capable of it, since you think 9/11 was an inside job. Why not just do something like that here? What do you think is holding them back?

 

[TheRealnz]

I do read up. You have no evidence the Sarin attack was a false flag, and if it was, the end result was Syria gave up it's gas stocks, and that's all.

Why would they need political cover? They could just kill him and deny it. Would be so much easier.

A real false flag would be something they could just fake in the U. S. You think they are capable of it, since you think 9/11 was an inside job. Why not just do something like that here? What do you think is holding them back?

Actually you haven't read up. You are actually completely igonorant in what you are trying to talk about and it is clear to see.

We do have evidence it was a false flag, we know the US government lied about the rebels not having access to sarin gas, this was verified by the UN report and indpendent investigation.
cited here ( https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...elligence.html )
We also know the US had information from defense intelligence that the Turks were giving Al Nusra free reign and aiding them in getting the precursors to sarin gas production.
citation here ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour...d-the-rat-line )

We also have the russian investigation submitted to the UN that also points to the rebels being involved with the sarin gas attacks,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secur...yria-by-rebels

Why would the US need political cover, easy. US has been in a war for 10 years and the populace is not hungry for more war. To get the public on board to support the politicians in office who want to be re-elected they need cover or a story to sell the populace for why they should go to war again. Thus the need for political cover. Yes the US could just bomb and try to murder Assad, but he actually has an adequate military and air defenses that would make such actions hard to do, and like I said earlier Assad regime actually has regional allies supporting them in Iran and internationally in Russia and China. So for the US to move on Syria they would need cover to go against those 3 states.

I've said OKC needs to be properly investigated though. You probably need to figure out how those are two seperate events.

Also I believe I said in the opening post in this thread that ISIS is the boogie man that has allowed the US to enter Syria and now start slowly attacking the Assad regime.

So really your questions make no sense because they are already answered.
You really need to read up when you try to play devil's advocate.
When you don't you put forth poor efforts like this and the OKC thread.

 

[LSSBB]

Actually you haven't read up. You are actually completely igonorant in what you are trying to talk about and it is clear to see.

We do have evidence it was a false flag, we know the US government lied about the rebels not having access to sarin gas, this was verified by the UN report and indpendent investigation.
cited here ( https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...elligence.html )
We also know the US had information from defense intelligence that the Turks were giving Al Nusra free reign and aiding them in getting the precursors to sarin gas production.
citation here ( http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour...d-the-rat-line )

We also have the russian investigation submitted to the UN that also points to the rebels being involved with the sarin gas attacks,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Secur...yria-by-rebels

Why would the US need political cover, easy. US has been in a war for 10 years and the populace is not hungry for more war. To get the public on board to support the politicians in office who want to be re-elected they need cover or a story to sell the populace for why they should go to war again. Thus the need for political cover. Yes the US could just bomb and try to murder Assad, but he actually has an adequate military and air defenses that would make such actions hard to do, and like I said earlier Assad regime actually has regional allies supporting them in Iran and internationally in Russia and China. So for the US to move on Syria they would need cover to go against those 3 states.

I've said OKC needs to be properly investigated though. You probably need to figure out how those are two seperate events.

Also I believe I said in the opening post in this thread that ISIS is the boogie man that has allowed the US to enter Syria and now start slowly attacking the Assad regime.

So really your questions make no sense because they are already answered.
You really need to read up when you try to play devil's advocate.
When you don't you put forth poor efforts like this and the OKC thread.

Wow, your US is like Dr. Evil. They always have to put the hero in some ridiculously escapable situation. Why not just take him out, blam. Use one of his own weapons and blame it on a rebel officer, a patsy. They don't have to have anything on paper. Do they ever, in the false flags they 'certainly' did?