It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
What this proves is that Assad knows words like "Deep State". We must expect him next to come up with "Illuminati" and "NWO".
If a foreign leader uses conpiracy theory language against an American leader, that doesn't really confirm conspiracy theory- it just confirms that the foreign leader and his advisers have been reading conspiracy theory.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ClovenSky
Since every president since Carter Thinks Syria is a terrorist state since it was added to the list in '79.
But hey why let a little thing like historical accuracy get in the way of a good Trump bash.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
Unlike some people I dont let a party dictate how i think.
Heres something to ponder.
Why are so many people dead set on aiding and abetting a known Russian Puppet dictator, and state.
Last week everything Russia was 'bad'.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: ClovenSky
It's not excuse.
It's a FACT.
Problems with Syria and US relations have existed for decades.
Long before Trump.
Long before Assad parroting American political neologisms.
What gives people the right the push foreign propaganda against a sitting American President ?
The law says that's treason/sedition.
Sorry that Freedom of speech triggeres you!
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
How crazy ?
America pulled out of Iraq. Let the power vaccum in Syria.
Next thing we know AQ changed their name brand to ISIS.
Went in to Syria.
Destabilized the Area.
Next thing we heard Russia 'hacked' our election.
For years chemical weapons have been used. Some disagree.
So doing nothing didn't work.
Doing something makes Trump bad.
Trump did nothing like Obama did and nurture that cluster eff has already proven.
We are damned if we do.
Damned if we don't.
Idealism doesn't work in the real world.
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: ClovenSky
I ask the same of my country which is a deputy dog country to the USA we have our national memorial day in 10 days where we remember a good dozen or so wars where people fought and died for our 'freedom'- bollocks the fight against the Japanese was the only justifiable war we have ever been involved in because they attacked us the rest have been misadventures.
Its called the ADF or Australian Defence Force, its not, its the Australian offence force.
There have been some adventures as an ally like Korea in the 1950's where you may argue our involvement was legitimate under international law but not recently,what concerns me is we have a mutual defense pact called ANZUS and if the USSA is attacked we will blindly and stupidly join in, especially as our Prime Minister is team Goldman Sachs,I wish we had New Zealand's guts to pick and choose our engagements.
WASHINGTON — President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war. Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria’s violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale. The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide — the president or Congress — whether the United States should attack another country.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
I'm not triggered.
I am sitting back laughing my snip off at Trump haters letting themselves be manipulated by Assad/ and Russia.
Can't win on the ground.
Win with bullsnip.