:lol:

So why do you still not get it?

If military force is used, it must be used massively, and even with disregard for human life so that the relevant item is destroyed. Embarrassing are so many so emotional as to confuse a 'big dic' attack on irrelevant items with a strategic objective.

Objective of that Syrian attack was intentionally avoided. They did not even take out fuel depots or munitions dumps. The Donald's $100 million attack could only be more trivial had he attacked corn fields.

Get you head out of your ass, this isn't World of Warcraft. They don't know where the gas is stored or where it's being made, it could be Mrs Murphy's kitchen. The only option was to knock out the air delivery system.

But they didn't.

Because you changed the definition of "smoking gun" for your discussion of why Israel was allowed to bomb Syria's nuclear facility.

Can you see that yet? We have to agree on your definition or we can't move forward.

View the satellite photos. Encircled are bunkers where planes were hit. Also pointed out were the fuel depot (not attacked), storage facility for Sarin (not attacked), all runways (not attacked), and where the Russians and their helicopters were located (far from any attacked bunker).

Get your head out of your intestines. Stop acting as ignorant as that cheapshot artist. Photos in numerous responsible press outlets showed all that only 24 hours after the expensive and irrelevant attack. Why do you know by ignoring satellite pictures even on the front page of newspapers?

What did The Donald not know? If he did not know where the Sarin was made, then he could of acted intelligent like Clinton - who delayed his attacks on Iraq until those locations were accurately identified. But that means The Donald would be patient - not knee jerk emotional.

Oh, did it have Sarin Storage Facility painted on the roof? :rolleyes:

The smoking gun existed long ago. Israel and Syria were still 'technically' at war. Israel was periodically attacking Syria by air. That smoking gun existed long before concrete was poured. I guess that was not obvious. I thought it was.

Give intelligence people some credit. Don't act like Cheney.

How did Kennedy know those were immediate range nuclear missiles inside crates? You need not see Sarin to identify the equipment necessary to store and deploy it. Satellite photos identified Sarin gas storage facilities.

How did they know Sarin came from that base. It could have come from five other airfields? Give the intelligence community a little bit of credit.

"technically" :lol: even you put quotes around it! What's that supposed to mean? When did the "smoking gun" condition begin, 1982? 1967? 1948?

2000 years before Columbus was born.

Sarin is like Meth, it can be put together in a bedroom, a cellar, an attic, Betty Crocker Instant Sarin Mix.

Sarin and munitions can be moved from location to location and even kept on the move in mobile units. Just because it was at a particular location yesterday doesn't mean it will still be there today for an airstrike.

More importantly, if we strike a Sarin location, there's no guarantee it's going to instantly destroy all of the agent. It can disperse the agent (even mixing binary munitions), which is dangerous in both liquid and gaseous form (high volatility), can be lethal even in low concentrations, and works through inhalation or skin absorption (even vapor concentrations can penetrate the skin). Clothing contaminated with Sarin can release the agent for another half an hour.

The US would have no control over the fallout pattern from the explosions, who might be directly exposed to the Sarin; or, secondary exposures through contact with those already contaminated. Others would be able to claim that US strikes targeting CW had the effect of a CW attack. With people (especially Russians) in the area, it would take something like a developmentally impaired mind to think that targeting CW would have been a good idea.

sexobon: ∞ and beyond, tw: -3

Even June Cleaver is a potential terrorist! Leave it to Beaver to raise a mom like that.

If the US attack on Syria made Ivanka happy, it was good for America.

*mind your own goddamned business, keep your friggin' hands to yourself
 

When are our employees gonna stop muckin' around in the affairs of pissant, prehistoric, countries?

The U.S. track record on successful 'interventions' reads like a rap sheet.

Bad enough the employee in chief 'felt' the need to slap syrian wrists, now he and his wanna boot the bad guy out and (help to) install a good (read 'less bad') guy.

Really, somebody has got to put the kibosh on this 'world's policeman' manure.









*the only real justification for U.S. intervention, but that only works if america practices what it preaches, which, of course, it (we) doesn't (don't)

Syria is Fatty III's whipping boy. ;)

I'd prefer it if we dealt with psycho-chunk directly rather than through proxy-example.

I disagree with Ben Shapiro on most things.

But the Washington Post is not allowed to do this and still be considered a credible major newspaper.

Alternate take: He's dipped so far into ethno-nationalism that he can't mention buzzwords like "Western civilization, which was built on the Judeo-Christian heritage" without it coming off as rooted in a desire to drop Islamophic-slanted talking points at every opportunity. That's on him. Don't be a douche and you won't get called a douche.

I listened to Bill O'Reilly's radio show for a while (it was between other shows I liked), and I still remember his weird emphasis whenever he said "our Judeo-Christian heritage", usually when he meant "the US Government should be able to do explicitly Christian activities, but I don't want to seem anti-Semetic".

Weirdly enough, I just had an argument this afternoon with my dad about the Washington Post. Not because he reads it, but because he heard someone on Fox Business marveling at the presence of a WaPo OpEd titled, "Fox News Has Been Right All Along." And, of course, my father bought the narrative that this is some sort of new, dramatic capitulation, which they must surely have done with their tail between their legs and which CNN and MSNBC would commit suicide before ever admitting.

As he's ranting, I casually brought up the following page on my laptop: https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/gary-abernathy

That same columnist has been writing for WaPo all along. He's got dozens of variously pro-Trump and pro-conservative articles over the last several years. No one ever fired him, and if they ever censored his content, then he must be writing like a madman given everything that did get through.

I'd use the phrase "fair and balanced," but that's been co-opted for other meanings just as surely as "our Judeo-Christian heritage" has been.

And so they adamantly promoted the lies about Saddam's WMDs. And then never apologized for the 5000 American soldiers uselessly killed because of that lie. They also could not bother to discuss realities such as Phase Four planning - that was not done. As a result we are still stuck wasting treasures in both countries ... because Phase Four planning was never done. "Mission Accomplished" proves how fair and balanced Fox News really is.

Meanwhile so many facts, bluntly posted here, and accurately saying Saddam did not have those WMDs - Washington Post reporters were many sources for those facts - that were correct.

Fox News lied. But it is popular with adults who are still children. Who want their emotions enthralled and cannot be bothered with the long dissertations necessary to know reality. Fox News is a propaganda outfit - not news.
UT and I had it out over the Mission Accomplished lie because the Washington Post got so much right. UT did not like those now well proven realities.

UT even denied that Saddam had no WMDs - even after George Jr finally admitted WMDs did not exist. Honest sources including CBS News, NY Times, ABC News, and Washington Post provided what were proven to be honest facts - because each is not a propaganda machine. But a Fox News disciple will deny it forever. That reality does not provide the necessary emotions.

I didn't deny that; and also, I didn't fall for the two-year-long conspiracy theory called Russiagate, as you and the Washington Post did, over and over and over again, out of no facts at all but sheer childish emotion.

"Fox News is a propaganda outfit"
 

Yep, just like your favorite outlet.

If you view your favorite outlet as more trustworthy than Fox, then you, sir/madam, are terminally naive, or are just so friggin' skewed as to be *insane (or, mebbe, you're just **'evil').









*if you think I'm talkin' about you, you're right

**if you think I'm talkin' about you, you're right

So, you deny denying being in denial without having denied plausible deniability.

Remember, this concerns foreign entities and we have a FISA court that can subpoena everyone in the Cellar who might have knowledge of something that can be used against you.

It all started when Cronkite retired. :(

You are Donald Rumsfeld and I claim my £5. ;)

"we have a FISA court that can subpoena everyone in the Cellar"
 

non serviam