CRC wrote:FYI - glassing involves nukes and I never heard anyone wanting to "glass" Iraq in 2003.
Seriously? It was all over at least 3/4 of the forums i frequented at the time, literally thousands of americans howling about it, completely rabid.
CRC wrote:"Glass" ISIS in 2016 - yes - but not 'glass' Iraq in 2003.
Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, there was pretty much no end to the demands at the time.
The talk in that direction in 2016 have been barely visible in comparison.
CRC wrote:Glass the US? If the US disappeared tomorrow, the world would devolve into complete and utter chaos. WWIII, nuclear winter, mass extinctions, hundreds of years of death and destruction would result.
Common sense or decency hasn´t stopped USA in how they deal with other countries, why should the reverse be different?
CRC wrote:The only question is who would emerge at the end as the sole remaining world power - China or Islam. History favors China, but only because China's history pre-dates Islam. Based on current SciFi projections, I would actually bet on Islam essentially taking over the world.
Can´t say that´s a particularly bright analysis. Actually, it´s pretty darn stupid.
Saudi Arabia is about the only nation really trying to forcefeed islam to the rest of the world, and without USAs kneejerk support, well i expect it would about a week for them to end up in trouble they can´t handle on their own.
It also completely ignores that there´s about 5 different branches of islam. Most of them opposing at least one or two of the others.
And the fact that there´s a BIG chunk of hardcore secular people around today, Northern Europe and Japan most notably, but also quite a bunch of semisecular moslems that have no interest in the radicals and fanatics taking over.
And then there´s India, which you just left out for some reason. 2nd biggest population in the world.
I could go on, but really, that´s conspiracy theory level.
CRC wrote:There is always a legitimate argument to be made in favor of life vs death. Like getting along with Nazi's because your only other choice is 'unpleasant' or 'counterproductive', or the infamous 'better red than dead' slogan of the 70's - although the Russian purges made this more like 'dead by starvation or dead by gunshot'. And today there is always the convert or die choice as well.
purges? Which ones would that be? In Tsarist-Russia before 1917 or current Russia after 1991?
And you might want to recall, as i noted in an earlier thread on this forum, that Russian leaders of USSR is actually in minority.
You might also want to remember that just about any real bad events of USSR have been massively exaggerated during cold war propaganda.
Oh and i believe the more popular version was "Better dead than red".
CRC wrote:In researching 'false flag' operations on-line, I find it interesting to see the 'definition' of 'proven' false flags change with every incident and go from a documented false flag event to an alleged event, but still counted as proven. Its all in the eyes of the beholder I guess. If you are looking for a reason to hate or to condemn based on personal prejudices, you can find it easily.
The recent chemical weapons attack, if it happened ( even that has still not been reliably confirmed ) is a pretty good example.
Fact, it did NOT happen as claimed.
Fact, USA instantly used it as an excuse to strike at it´s preferred target.
Fact, at least 2 groups supported by USA, in the area, are KNOWN to have the chemical claimed to have been used.
Fact, the report used as basis for the attack has been completely torn apart as incompetent and amateurish, as well as for not having been run by even the most basic of factcheck before being dropped into the white house.
No, that´s not proven, but it´s pretty obvious who tried to gain from it, who had a suitably spiced up report ready and waiting, and who has the influence over the groups in the area.
More importantly however, is that we have a long since established pattern for these events. You can see the same pattern in the Tonkin gulf incident, in the Georgians starting their personal short victorious war 2008, in the Bay of pigs "event", in the overthrow of the Argentine duly elected government, in starting the war in Afghanistan in the 70s, in Jugoslavia in the 90s, in the Spanish-american war(where someone once joked that 99% of the battles only ever happened in US propaganda), in the shattering of the Libyan state, hell, it starts as early as the hostile coup and following annexation of Hawaii.
Guess someone figured "it worked then, no reason it wont work again".
CRC wrote:Boy we are such a bad people. Its called warts. All have it. The question is does the warts outweigh the good. Universal right and wrong is so hard to come by...
Actually no. The problem is, that when people in USA talks about "nations have no friends, only interests", too many mean it LITERALLY.
When did i ever say you´re a bad people?
The people is only the problem as far as how astoundingly ignorant and passive it is.
"My country right or wrong" is considered a good ideal.
CRC wrote:Some of these I would place at the feet of the good old USSR as well. Although some are actually the fault of the British Empire and the fall of that Empire if you go back far enough.
Why don´t you try looking at some photos from Afghanistan before the 70s? Before they got a too leftwing government in the countercoup that USA felt HAD to be destroyed?
USSR was buddies with Afghanistan then, helped them build a crapload of infrastructure among other things.
That´s also why USSR reluctantly agreed to send troops into Afghanistan, when the government asked
Because CIA-sponsored religious fanatics were threatening the nation.
And since those idiots needed someplace to train people, Pakistan ended up with a crapload of "religious schools", filled to the brim with extremeists which made sure Pakistan today is a shithole of religious fanaticism.
Iran... Where USA was total buddy-buddies with the Shah, who was a racist that Hitler would have absolutely loved.
But he had horrible problems with rebels and opposition, oh dear. So USA supported him.
And oh wooops, the democratic opposition just happened to get killed off because they were too open.
Which just left the religiously based opposition and rebels, which BTW were getting support from CIA as they just happened to be some of the same people in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were supposed to fight USSR.
Vietnam was kinda similar, except there USA had a lot of interests in the local plantations, and of course in keeping the local US friendly dictator alive despite opposition that had already got the French to leave.
But there, the ones that survived were instead the communist rebels, because they were the only ones organised enough and with any kind of support.
Cue ridiculous amounts of bombs and chemical weapons used. Chemical weapons that is still a MAJOR problem today. Estimations and records vary, but probably up to 5% of Vietnamese today have chronic health problems due to just the chemical weapons used by USA.
Millions of people killed or suffering.
And for what? "national interests"...
CRC wrote:You mean when they kicked the Shah out?
The shah was Iran, not Iraq.
CRC wrote:Of course its warfare. Been going on for centuries. And it did happen to 'us'. Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea.
Wow, you really have to make sure to properly chastise all those horribly incompetent people making geography textbooks and maps and everything then! I never knew that USA bordered all those countries! Amazing.
Are you so deeply mired into a colonialist imperialist mindset that you think THAT is the same? That´s just pathetic.
If USSR had started civil wars in Mexico and Canada, aimed at USA, you would have had a point.
Back in the day Afghanistan, if I remember correctly, was a USSR self inflicted wound.
If you actually believe that, you are horribly ignorant.
Read about the nation under Zahir Shah. It was doing reasonably well, and wasn´t too badly off. He was mostly moderate and tried to be friendly with the neighbors.
Then the coup in -73 which brought the first republic of Afghanistan and president Daoud, who went for militarism and strong ties with Saudis. Which, along with the CIA-sponsored "experts" was a large part of the reason for the leftwing/communist/socialist countercoup of -78.
At which point USA pushed its covert efforts up to eleven and started trashing the place.
Then, in 2004, when the majority of Afghans wants Zahir back as king, USA forces him to reject that idea because their own golden boy Karzai just had to be "elected".
CRC wrote:Well, let's look at this from 30,000 feet. Back in the USSR days, issues with Chechnya and Ukraine were internal conflicts, not an external issue.
I wasn´t referring to those. Russia as a nation didn´t exist then. Only amateurs make the mistake of thinking USSR and Russia is the same.
CRC wrote:See now you're being definitive again. So the whole incident is fake? In either incident? Sarin did not exist? The deaths were not of Sarin? That's not what the UN or HRW reported.
Except so far, it´s not UN or HRW actually reporting anything of actual value. It´s locals. Locals with extremely questionable circumstances and statements.
CRC wrote:I thought you were only questioning the source of the attack based on the analysis that hypothesized the source of the rockets could NOT come from 8-10km away, but from only 2-3km away, thus pointing the finger at the rebels doing it to themselves - either by rockets or by ground detonation.
I must admit I have lost the thrust of your argument.
That´s because you insist on mixing up 2017 with 2013. The Idlib attack was specified as having been a BOMB dropped by a SYRIAN aircraft.
CRC wrote:His position is guaranteed by the Russians. I believe he ordered it because he thought he could get away with it and could make a point to the opposition.
Are you a zombie?
Because if you really believe that, you really could do with the kliché zombie statement.
CRC wrote:link are obviously powerpoint briefing slides. Going to # 14 you see the drawing of the 'warhead', which matches the video of the firing exercises from the Syrian army. The 'warhead' is also pictured on #19, #21, #23 and #24. You keep calling it a pipe yet this particular reference, one of yours I believe, calls it a warhead.
Text there is "GRAD Artillery Rocket NYT September 5, 2013
Do tell exactly what relevance that has with Idlib 2017?
It also shows a drastically different impact point.
Not to mention you have to be blind to think any of those pictures looks anything like the pipe used in the Idlib attack.
CRC wrote:Anyone launching something so flat faced on the front of a rocket and hoping for anything but the ballistics of a rock is definitely a "kludge". I was expecting duct tape.
And that might have been funny if it was actually a relevant or true statement.