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

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
it's the tulsi gabbard canard.

"any action against assad means you love ISIS!"

it's would the dumbest, most naive thing i've heard in a while, if not for the fact the the bernie-left is trying to outdo the literally mentally retarded republicans for first prize of biggest dumbass award.
Why don't you tell us why you think it's wrong instead of telling us how wrong you think we are? I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum knows how wrong you think we are..

Because you can't. All you can say is "your ideas are stupid!", when asked "OK, why do you think it's stupid?", we're left with "they just are, omg, can't you see how stupid it is!? What are you, racist?!"

You don't address substance. All you do is complain and whine about other people. Like a crybaby.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
it's the tulsi gabbard canard.

"any action against assad means you love ISIS!"

it's would the dumbest, most naive thing i've heard in a while, if not for the fact the the bernie-left is trying to outdo the literally mentally retarded republicans for first prize of biggest dumbass award.
Also keep in mind, you're on Trump's side in this. All the crying you did previously all washed away in one attack. Nice.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
false presuppositions and false dichotomies are logical fallacies.
Then break it down and explain why

Assad is fighting ISIS - fact

if we bomb Assad, we help ISIS - fact

if we bomb ISIS, we help Assad - fact

Assad is engaged in a civil war with "rebels" who mainly make up members of ISIS. Both Assad and ISIS are our political enemies. If we bomb Assad, we help ISIS by weakening Assad. If we bomb ISIS, we help Assad by weakening ISIS.

Spin and spin until your heart's content, those are the facts. Cry about them all you want in your fact-free reality
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Are you incapable of holding two different conversations at once?
Well, you jumped into my conversation with Ty. I'm not obligated to answer you. If you'd like to join Ty in the same conversation then I'd be happy to continue on.

Are you really saying: "If you reject Russia's false flag conspiracy theory then you are supporting Trump's actions." Sorry man but that sounds pretty much ridiculous. But that's the only leap of logic that I can find to justify your line of questioning. And I won't cooperate.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I do not understand what you said. Yes, bombs sometimes create craters but not always.
Part of the evidence against the official story is that the munition itself didn't explode; it was crushed from above.

Again, people were in the immediate area without wearing full hazmat gear and they were unaffected.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Are you really saying: "If you reject Russia's false flag conspiracy theory then you are supporting Trump's actions." Sorry man but that sounds pretty much ridiculous. But that's the only leap of logic that I can find to justify your line of questioning. And I won't cooperate.
I said
I'm asking you a simple question. You seem to support Trumps bombing of Syria unless I've misread your posts about it. So why are we there if whoever we bomb, we help our enemy?
So do you support Trump bombing Syria or not?
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Part of the evidence against the official story is that the munition itself didn't explode; it was crushed from above.

Again, people were in the immediate area without wearing full hazmat gear and they were unaffected.
"Part of the evidence against the official story is that the munition itself didn't explode; it was crushed from above." You know this how?

We already talked about how the attack on a storage warehouse "containing Sarin" might not cause a release of Sarin. In fact, this is quite likely. By design, even.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"Part of the evidence against the official story is that the munition itself didn't explode; it was crushed from above." You know this how?

We already talked about how the attack on a storage warehouse "containing Sarin" might not cause a release of Sarin. In fact, this is quite likely. By design, even.
What's the strongest evidence that supports the idea that the attack came from Assad or the Syrian government?
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
"Part of the evidence against the official story is that the munition itself didn't explode; it was crushed from above." You know this how?

We already talked about how the attack on a storage warehouse "containing Sarin" might not cause a release of Sarin. In fact, this is quite likely. By design, even.
Wait a minute. Don't conflate my concerns with Russian 'evidence'. I'm not buying the warehouse story either, for the very reason you suggest.

I posted a video containing an interview with a munitions expert who pointed out that the munition was clearly not exploded from within, as one would expect with an air dropped weapon. Instead, it was in a non explosive casing and was crushed under an explosive. That strongly suggested a setup.

Moreover, sarin remains in the environment for several days and touching surfaces contaminated with it is itself deadly during that time. Yet there are pictures of people in the immediate area with nothing more than painter's masks for PPE. That's utterly, suicidally inadequate. Further, there are pics that appear to show dead birds being planted onsite. Why put dead birds INTO a cage with food and water?

Turkish officials were the only ones who got to see the 'evidence'. Their alliances are well known.

As is often the case, none of this is itself conclusive, but there's just too much that doesn't add up.
 
Top