Syria: Thousands Suffering Neurotoxic Symptoms

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    Seems to me like the only true "national interest" we have in Syria is to prevent Islamic radicals from securing supplies of chemical weapons which they might then use against us. I'm pretty certain that's not enough reason for us to involve ourselves in this particular fight; I rather see us seal the borders and let them fight it out like Kilkenny cats.
     

    AtTheMurph

    SHOOTER
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 18, 2013
    3,147
    113
    Its just another atrocity from our government. They lead the rebels in and gas them to make it look like the Syrian gov is responsible. The global elite war mongers are just itching for a new war. If you look at the time and date stamps on some of the videos of supposedly suffering people they're dated the day prior to the alleged chemical attack. Its the global elites ploy to get back into a nice juicy war. Dont think the false flags just happen here they'll use them worldwide to get there way!

    Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack - National Government | Examiner.com

    Hacked e-mails reveal 'Washington approved' plan to stage Syria chemical attack

    Phil
    We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
    We’ll have to deliver a CW (chemical weapon) to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
    They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
    Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
    Kind regards
    David
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,294
    113
    Martinsville
    Syrian Rebels Will Probably Get Chemical Weapons - Business Insider
    Dec. 18, 2012, 12:18 PM

    Syrian rebels aim to use chemical weapons, blame Damascus ? report ? RT News
    Published time: June 10, 2012 10:09
    Edited time: June 10, 2012 14:12

    U.S. 'planned to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad' | Mail Online
    PUBLISHED: 14:16 EST, 29 January 2013 | UPDATED: 14:16 EST, 29 January 2013


    Of course by now everyone should already know this.
    The US government is funding foreign terrorist organizations that use WMDs on their peers, and doing it openly. And that's the best case scenario, worst case, the US government did it themselves.
     

    deal me in

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 14, 2012
    321
    18
    Avon
    One of the main reasons for intervention in Syria is so that the Fed will have a reason to keep printing money. Deficits have gone down over the last year and the Fed is starting to have a difficult time finding debt to monetize. Basically, the gov't needs a reason to spend more money and there is nothing like a little war to create some gov't spending. The gov't can't reduce deficits much less pay down debt in a fiat monetary system.
     

    Jludo

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 14, 2013
    4,164
    48
    Indianapolis
    One of the main reasons for intervention in Syria is so that the Fed will have a reason to keep printing money. Deficits have gone down over the last year and the Fed is starting to have a difficult time finding debt to monetize. Basically, the gov't needs a reason to spend more money and there is nothing like a little war to create some gov't spending. The gov't can't reduce deficits much less pay down debt in a fiat monetary system.

    Military Keynesianism for the win, has never steered us wrong before.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    Left in 2003/2004 - "IMPEACH BUSH FOR INVADING IRAQ (with Congressional approval)"
    Left in 2013 - "I'm cool with O bombing Syria. With no congressional approval."
     

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,452
    113
    Innocent civilians being gasses, or killed in any other way, is bad. The problem in Syria is that there are no "good guys" to back. Sure Assad is no prize, but I'll take a secular totalitarian over a religious totalitarian any day. If his government falls what fills the void? You can bet your arse it won't be a Jeffersonian democracy.
     

    HeadlessRoland

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 8, 2011
    3,521
    63
    In the dark
    Looks like even the turn em to glass crowd isn't sold on this new war yet.

    I'm fine with a quick total war. But they're never quick or total. They're long, drawn-out, meandering engagements that take forever and drain the treasury. Or drained the treasury back when there was still real money in the treasury. And we keep re-fighting them. Gulf I, OIF/OEF (Gulf II), what's next? If you're going to do wrong, you have to do it right.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    Wow. Just now, Jay Carney: "The options we are considering are not about regime change (in Syria)."

    So apparently we're just launching missiles for fun, then.

    Good god, the people running this country don't have a ****ing clue what to do about anything unless it includes a gay basketball player or Ben Affleck playing Batman.

    Seems crazy-odd that the President granted immunity to Bush over "war crimes" just a few days ago.
     
    Last edited:

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,452
    113
    Ben Affleck playing Batman.

    WHOA! Wait a gol-darn minute there pardner! Ben "Gigli" Affleck as the Caped Crusader? Holy Adam West! Say it ain't so!:lala: I can't even find Syria on a map, but my Congressman is gonna hear about this she-it.:soapbox:
     
    Top Bottom