Short & sweet summary of the hypocrisy of Syrian situation

**husaberg** · 15th April 2018, 16:02

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Big fucking deal. That all ya got? Fuck yeah. Nuke them!!!

Blows your stupid take on things out of the water though quite nicely.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 15th April 2018, 16:11

Originally Posted by husaberg

Blows your stupid take on things out of the water though quite nicely.

Like fuck it does. Clown. And seeing as you think it's obviously a great idea to launch millions of dollars of rockets at them (rather than spend the money on some of the serious problems they have at home), tell me this? Just what do you think it might achieve? Even *if*, and it's most def still an if, despite your *facts*, just what do you think it will matter to Assad? Is it worth antagonising Russia over?

Just what do they (you) hope to see happen? Cause it's not like it's gonna stop him doing it again, if it's been him all the time is it now?

**husaberg** · 15th April 2018, 16:15

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Like fuck it does. Clown.

Lets see you make a big deal inferring Iraq did not have WMD.
I pointed out they clearly did, So instead of actually admitting you were clearly wrong. you pulled a Stevie and went on another rant.....

**george formby** · 15th April 2018, 16:21

Originally Posted by husaberg

It was proven the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ie Nerve Gas. Was that not mentioned on any of Steve and Oldies websites.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wmd

Not wanting to butt in but thought I would mention a bit of history re Iraq, seeing as hypocrisy is in the thread title.

During the Iran / Iraq war, Britain supplied Iraq with chemical agents and technology to produce more. Mustard gas, mainly, IIRC. The tanks which Britain sold to Iraq and Iran were capable of firing gas shells. Once the Brits figured out which way they wanted the war to go they stopped supplying Iran with spare parts..

It was a filthy war which barely gets mentioned now but demonstrates exactly how we are miss-led and the deviousness which has continued unabated in the Middle East.

Quite convenient to use this as a pretense for another war a few years later.

**husaberg** · 15th April 2018, 16:25

Originally Posted by george formby

Not wanting to butt in but thought I would mention a bit of history re Iraq, seeing as hypocrisy is in the thread title.

During the Iran / Iraq war, Britain supplied Iraq with chemical agents and technology to produce more. Mustard gas, mainly, IIRC. The tanks which Britain sold to Iraq and Iran were capable of firing gas shells. Once the Brits figured out which way they wanted the war to go they stopped supplying Iran with spare parts..

It was a filthy war which barely gets mentioned now but demonstrates exactly how we are miss-led and the deviousness which has continued unabated in the Middle East.

Quite convenient to use this as a pretense for another war a few years later.

I agree entirely Also I am pretty sure the USA supplied him with them as well, as did Russia too at various times. A lot of the stockpiles, plus new Russian ones allegedly ended up in Syria. The thing is though, Sadam was ordered by the UN to destroy them, but he didn't. He also repeatidly failed to allow the UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to his sites in what was a breach of the UN resolution.
It was his refusal to co-cooperate that I believe eventually sealed his fate.

**george formby** · 15th April 2018, 16:39

Originally Posted by husaberg

I agree entirely Also I am pretty sure the USA supplied him with them as well, as did Russia too at various times. A lot of the stockpiles, plus new Russian ones allegedly ended up in Syria. The thing is though, Sadam was ordered by the UN to destroy them, but he didn't. He also repeatidly failed to allow the UN weapons inspectors unrestricted access to his sites in what was a breach of the UN resolution.

That implies the UN was complicit or had the wool pulled over it's eyes. Maybe they were just fed up with him gassing his own people. Or not doing as he was told.

He was a fucker. Marsh Arabs were blamed for allowing arms to be smuggled through their waterways and marshes. Sadam brought in a load of generator trucks and electrified large areas of water, fried the poor buggers. Ultimately he resented their lack of obedience.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 15th April 2018, 16:40

Originally Posted by husaberg

Lets see you make a big deal inferring Iraq did not have WMD.
I pointed out they clearly did, So instead of actually admitting you were clearly wrong. you pulled a Stevie and went on another rant.....

Ah no. I simply said big fucking deal.You and I both know, that's not the weapons they were saying they had. They simply tried to save face, just as you do you when you've been found to be (again) talking utter shit.

**oldrider** · 15th April 2018, 16:43

The new US concept of a “perfect” mission: 32 out of 103??? http://thesaker.is/the-new-us-concep...32-out-of-103/ Really kick-arse?

[Quote] Yup, he said “mission accomplished“, “perfectly executed” and that he was “so proud” of his “great military“.

That considering that 71 out of 103 missiles were intercepted.
That there were no Syrian (or Iranian or Russian) fatalities.
That not a single airfield was hit.
That the buildings destroyed were empty.
That only Syrian air defense were used.
That Russian air defenses were completely bypassed.[Unquote]

**husaberg** · 15th April 2018, 16:46

Originally Posted by george formby

That implies the UN was complicit or had the wool pulled over it's eyes. Maybe they were just fed up with him gassing his own people. Or not doing as he was told.

He was a fucker. Marsh Arabs were blamed for allowing arms to be smuggled through their waterways and marshes. Sadam brought in a load of generator trucks and electrified large areas of water, fried the poor buggers. Ultimately he resented their lack of obedience.

No I don't believe there was any sort of complicit plan to oust him involving the UN. I just believe Saddam just didn't appreciate that his failure to comply the the UN resultions and Weapons inspectors would result in his destruction. He is said to have said so himself in an interview with his integrators, He thought it was all a bluff and no one would dare to attack Iraq. I guess that's what eventually happens if you are a dictator surrounded only by yes men.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 15th April 2018, 16:49

Originally Posted by oldrider

The new US concept of a “perfect” mission: 32 out of 103??? B]

What do they cost per pop? Yeah, that'll show 'em!

**oldrider** · 15th April 2018, 16:54

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

What do they cost per pop? Yeah, that'll show 'em!

U.S., U.K., France Conduct Massive Missile Strike On Syria: Details http://thesaker.is/u-s-u-k-france-co...syria-details/

**husaberg** · 15th April 2018, 16:57

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Is that the same *proof* that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? That kind of proof, from the same kind of people?

Originally Posted by husaberg

It was proven the Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ie Nerve Gas. Was that not mentioned on any of Steve and Oldies websites.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wmd

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Big fucking deal.

Originally Posted by husaberg

Blows your stupid take on things out of the water though quite nicely.

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Like fuck it does. Clown.

Originally Posted by husaberg

Lets see you make a big deal inferring Iraq did not have WMD.
I pointed out they clearly did, So instead of actually admitting you were clearly wrong. you pulled a Stevie and went on another rant.....

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Ah no. I simply said big fucking deal.You and I both know, that's not the weapons they were saying they had. They simply tried to save face, just as you do you when you've been found to be (again) talking utter shit.

Only that's not was in the Resolution put to the UN though was it. Hint Unlike you I know what was in the UN Resolution that was adopted unanimously. So its you that's talking "utter shit."

On 12 September 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.These included:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations
Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

**oldrider** · 15th April 2018, 17:05

EMERGENCY WARNING FROM THE SAKER http://thesaker.is/emergency-warning-from-the-saker/

**oldrider** · 15th April 2018, 17:55

Trump Commits Another War Crime With Another Fireworks Display PR Stunt To Encourage The Jihadis & Prolong The War In Syria - http://ian56.blogspot.co.nz/2018/04/...rime-with.html

**Crasherfromwayback** · 15th April 2018, 18:30

Originally Posted by husaberg

Only that's not was in the Resolution put to the UN though was it. Hint Unlike you I know what was in the UN Resolution that was adopted unanimously. So its you that's talking "utter shit."

What a stalker! Seriously...how fucking long did you spend putting the together, after you first posted it? What an epic edit! Still waiting on the *proof* Assad did it. That, and what I asked regarding *outcomes*.