a month ago russian generals were saying a false flag chemical attack is about to happen. two weeks later it happens just as they foretold it.


Usa says isis is beaten months ago, trump anounces they will pull back out of syria. two days later the chemical attack happens. Assad was firmly in control the last two months at least and already won, with only a small number of rebels still to surrender as they have no chance in hell to fight and survive.

win in the pocket, but lets gas some rebels and civilians now that its all over and get the whole world to turn against you.

where are the allegations of chemical attacks coming from in the first place? mostly from organizations that have never stepped foot in syria and organizations that are present in syria like the white helmets who have been caught many times staging photos of aleged war crimes.

Quality post.

The White Helmets are just a propaganda organization that invents convenient excuses for the west to attack Israel's enemies. They're the same Al-Qaeda members that the CIA was arming and training earlier in the war.

https://southfront.org/double-life-of-white-h...ht-photos/

jews larping as syrians.

a month ago russian generals were saying a false flag chemical attack is about to happen. two weeks later it happens just as they foretold it.

What doesn't that just mean that the russians did it :S?

It's Saddam's weapons of mass destruction all over again, albeit this tiime it doesn't seem to work since the Syrian army seems to be winning despite all the financial and material aid the EU, US and Israel have given the "moderate rebels"

Is there any civilian left to bomb, gas or torture?

You can do better. Citing a clown news agency and a Russian proxy organisation doesn't exactly help your case... Just saying, I bet you could find arguments to support your case from more traditional media, give it a try?

Do you have a better argument than an appeal to authority? Otherwise, it's a statement that your propaganda news is more true than my propaganda news... The only source your "more traditional media" has is Al-Qaeda member's propaganda videos- and the links I posted debunk those.

Why does Russia block an independent of Syrian war crimes in the UN council?

Why does the USA, UK, France bomb Syria before the OPCW investigation of the alleged attack, attacking before any proof and delaying the revelation of any proof?

I can't respond to your post because I don't know what you're specifically talking about. Which blocked UN resolution are you referring too?

Why does Russia put troops and mercenary companies on the ground like in best Bush times?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-cr...SKBN1DG31I

Before/after what what?? I think your concept of time is a little off.

Because their ally (Assad) asks for their support? Which is completely different from invading a country like Bush.

Let me put a timeline down for you:

White helmets alleged chemical weapons attack
OPCW tries to launch an investigation to see if the attack was real and who could have done it
USA, UK, and France attack Syria with cruse missiles before any credible evidence is shown that the attack happened, delaying the OPCW investigation

It's just very obvious that the countries that attacked Syria did not care about any proof of the attack.

Also that link you posted explains why pretty well: USA wants an investigation on its terms, Russia wants an investigation on its terms too. In the end, nothing is passed with such a stalemate.

The how many-eth attack you mean?

Appeal to authority. LOL.

Appeal to authority is an inform...Sigh

"more traditional media"
lol at this! you mean media whos lies you prefer? :)

badass mofo? more like dumbass mofo.

I guess even news broadcast onto American national television like OANN isn't "traditional media" to some people anymore... the standards are getting pretty high now

Both sides are known to make such fake media news. So i dont make an opinion when i wasnt there myself to verify an attack or not.

On the other hand its most likely the US faked it because there was no reason for syria to attack the city.

thanks but I already know that.
don't really need any sources(even though there are plenty by now), just use common sense:
1) US(+UK +France) fired their missiles BEFORE the investigative team even had a chance to arrive at the scene to do their job. lol! nr1
2) who builds a chemical weapons facility within their own goddamn capitol city? lol! nr2

skripal poisoning was also false flag staged by US/UK. as usual they accuse russia from the start with zero evidence. classic red scare distraction.

US claims all 100+ missiles hit their targets. in reality, only about 20 did.

OPCW found no evidence of chemical weapons in syria

The source is Russian military. Try to find a more objective outlet, if you want to dictate it as "reality". Eliminate bias as best or you are just adding to the dumpster fire of disinformation.

you can be skeptical if you want that's fine(I think it makes perfect sense - the whole 'all missiles hit' is just classic trump fake boasting). but in any case it's totally irrelevant now :) since the whole thing was staged, there aren't any actual targets to hit. the missiles were fired before an investigation could even begin, also without authorization from congress, so, it was an all-around illegal attack violating regulations.

You assume the conclusion.

Either narrative makes perfect sense if you just take assume the arguments that are given by either side. If you flip it and preemptively accept your oppositions claims, then they make perfect sense. But you probably aren't willing to do that with same credulity.

You really don't seem to be very vigorous with your skeptisim regarding the Russian narrative, while very adamant about calling bullshit on the US's. Be careful not fool yourself.

no you ignored the main point here which is that I don't really care how many missiles hit, since it's not relevant anymore - the whole thing was staged that's been proven, and the attack was illegal with no investigation and no authorization from congress.

furthermore, they have shown evidence for at least one of each captured missiles I quote: "One unexploded Tomahawk cruise missile and one high accuracy air-launched missile launched by the US and its allies on Syria on April 14 have been brought to Moscow" SO obviously that alone ALREADY refutes the US claim of 'ALL missiles hit'. nothing new here, US lies.

no you ignored the main point here which is that I don't really care how many missiles hit, since it's not relevant anymore

It seems that you are the one ignoring the main point, which actually were the discrepancy between how many missiles the US and Russia claims hit their target. You opposed the US claims by citing Russian military sources. Good job...

"One unexploded Tomahawk cruise missile and one high accuracy air-launched missile launched by the US and its allies on Syria on April 14 have been brought to Moscow" SO obviously that alone ALREADY refutes the US claim of 'ALL missiles hit'.

You are aware that a missile can hit the target without detonating right? So how does that refute the claim?

Your logic is pretty flawed.

Fake war -> Welcome refugees -> Succesful Kalergi plan -> NWO

-> State enforced homosexuality

Beside, what was the point of the random missile attack france and us did? "Oh, let's just indiscriminately bomb those chemical weapons stocking sites, what could possibly go wrong? It's not that the chemicals could come out and gas some civilians."

It's all so fake



But america and saudis want to build an oil pipeline trough siria, to be the only source of oil to the whole europe. They won't go away until they'll be able to do so, regardless how many they'll have to kill.

I'm pretty sure nothing happened they just sprayed parfume over the people.
Then the us shadow government thought long and hard how to make up a reason to missile strike Assad and said, wait a minute why not chemical attack thats so easy fake , easy to do, we can't think of nothing that can be more plausibly denied than a chemical attack. Then someone said, maybe a Rockefeller or Mr Burns from the Simpsons (we know that he is part of a conspiracy just google " Republicans renaming everything after Ronald Reagan (The Simpsons) " -the proof is right there...
so someone mentioned "But what about nuclear " but even trump thought that is nuts so they went with chemical. Crisis acting was not an issue fortunately if you inhale even the best french parfume it makes you sick.
What makes faking it even more plausible that we know that Assad already faked a similar attack by parfume in 2013 with similar fake effects but back then fake news wasn't a thing yet.

https://www.aljazeera.com/video/2013823181349586368.html

Ofc, russia wasn't convinved then, why should we now? People, just look at this friendly guy

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/common...atakia.jpg

he is waving to everyone, I'm sure he is not the culprit. He is a warm soft totalitarian.
Such a nice dude he is, reminds me of a similarly happy person with cozy personality traits found in leaders of the middle east

https://l7.alamy.com/zooms/d2f87e13d6c14aca94...b0hmaj.jpg

who also totally did not chemical attacked the kurds, because it was just not in his character:

Saddam himself told the court: "In relation to Iran, if any military or civil official claims that Saddam gave orders to use either conventional or special ammunition, which as explained is chemical, I will take responsibility with honor. But I will discuss any act committed against our people and any Iraqi citizen, whether Arab or Kurdish. I don't accept any insult to my principles or to me personally."

What an honorable person! I miss him dearly :/

this is a choice of what and whom to believe. claiming to certainly know the truth and act as if that's the case literally shows that one is an idiot, since unable to recognize that one judges on incomplete information... and in the end of the day have religious trust in sources which could be faked about as easily as the opposing ones (or any information that discredits the opposing sources). besides, sources don't need to be deliberately faked to be wrong. people err a lot on their own already.

the sad thing is that if people fail to realize that, they start accumulating shit... turning back ain't easy as soon as all media of a certain list were classified as missinformation agencys for sure (based on the same principles of false certainty... unless you maybe are part of everything everywhere yourself and made the necessairy experiences, and definitely did 0% missinterpretations from them... which is higly likely of course :X). the conclusions that result from a shit "assumptrion" are likely also shit. and the conclusions from that shit... well.
this certainly accounts for everybody - "conspiracists" as well as "normals". but - and that's where I think there's one satistical difference - I've got the impression that most, if not all "conspiracy theorists" go FULL retard on definitely uncertain assumptions. people who believe to be superior and knowing for sure while actually just too easy minded. doing some sort of religious super fanatism. maybe for similar psychological reasons (like positive distinction f.e.). I find only a few "normal" people who can't imagine the US having faked a chemical incident in syria f.e. But every random clown on the street who once decided to missbelieve most established media and who has researched on the topic for 12.5min will claim to know the truth for sure.

anyway, we all gotta make trust decissions. but stay open and critical to your own assumptions... try to find arguments pro and contra several possibilities and stay aware of what you actually don't know for sure (even it sems adequat enough to believe). uncertainity might be unsatisfing but it will help you to prohibit conesquential error escalation.

side note: in this particular case i as well believe it's been staged. can't say who had how much knowledge about it though...

don't want to be on the wrong side but really all it is is a struggle over who gets to control some oil pipeline so the means to get there are all bogus on both sides. russia simply wants to retain the control over syria so that qatar can't build their oil pipeline over syria soil to turkey and then to europe and thus compete with russia on oil prices since russian oil is more expensive to produce and qatar and saudi oil is much cheaper. if we look at history russian sattellites aren't really that better off than usa satelites, on the contrary usa had build much better sattelites that sustain themselves over longer periods of time be it germany or japan, unlike russia where most of ussr satellites from cold war era are calling russia a totalitarian occupator who meddled in their affairs and didn't let people live a well deserving life. living in russia is a struggle truly i wish i was born somewhere in europe like france or germany any way you look at life in russia is much worse than any developed european country and moreover seeing my country meddling in other peoples affairs makes me think like our leaders are total idiots since they can't make life in their own country better and instead of improving things in their own country they take it upon themselves to meddle in other countries, yeah that totally makes sense. usa for the most part can prove that their sattelites are much better off on all sides and russian sattelites are kinda like fallout zones that sooner or later implode due to social unrest.

Funny how you think america destroying several middle eastern countries just for profit is somehow justifiable. Without even saying why, it just is.

I guess you're so used of america genociding populations and attacking and destroying third world countries that it doesn't even seem strange anymore.

And russia is in the state it is as a consequence of several decades of the most extreme, toxic and bloody communism any nation has ever suffered in history. What happened in russia under stalin is straight out of a horror movie. Snuff movies, actually.

If you look at the socio-economical parameters of russia in the last 20 years since the collapse of its cancer, it's incredible how much it progressed and bettered the economy and living conditions of its people. Russia is still healing itself and has decades to go before fixing the most part of its dire past, but it's literally blossoming and returning to life.

Sure, they have some interests in Syria not falling.

But they aren't the ones that attacked a peaceful, sovereign nation just because it didn't accept to be raped by the us and have a pipeline forcefully built in it.

i agree with you somewhat but calling russia a peacemaker is kinda like calling stalin a tyrant who wasn't part of russian culture, people did support stalin which is why he ruled the country, same with communism, it was part of russia and supported by its people. stalin and communism are really the kind of things that russian people are used to tolerate and is really part of russian way of thinking, many people in russian politics still do defend communism and stalin so really it's the way many people in russia think, if you think communism isn't part of russian culture than you are wrong.

i am not saying usa is an angel but russia has really no interest in peace in syria other than a money interest caused by blockage of qatar-syria pipeline, the reason russia didn't save kaddafi or sadam was that they simply weren't making money for russia. there isn't a single war that didn't have a money interest in it, if there is some money to be had it would happen.

my view is that if a country can't cope with their own homeland affairs then they are better off not being involved in other countries affairs as things will only get worse as there is always a need for good military to keep peace inside including control of corrupted criminal politicians and their mafia that rob people of their money every day.

russia really lost ww1 because they had many problems inside the country which lead to communist revolution and instead of solving those problems inside the country russian leaders decided to put all their effort in fighting a war that eventually dried the country from resources to keep peace inside.

russia still is a hell-hole compared to most european countries and people in russia still barely survive without enough money to even buy medications or get a good doctor, those that do have money are usually involved in corrupt mafia style schemes and other illegal activities.

usa really wasn't interested in killing anyone, they simply fought for security of their homeland and others as usa stated sadam was suspected to have wmds and sponsoring terrorists and was really one of the suspects in promoting things like 911 so usa fought a preventative war to stop terrorism from spreading and to me isis really showed that usa was right to invade that country because it was harboring people that eventually became isis. big mistake was for usa to actually go away from iraq that caused isis to spread. again iraq is really showing that countries that lack control by usa really are hell holes where people die every day by "natural causes", we still aren't really sure how many people die in 3rd world countries like iraq from natural causes and i bet there are way more people dying from things like infections or local mafia.

some people agree that usa was wrong by invading iraq, but what would you do if things like isis existed inside a country, there was no way to do it if people who eventually became isis were part of iraqi military, meaning country was basicaly ruled by them, the way it was done might be wrong, but there was no intention to have a blood bath like it's described by many media. imagine if iraq was not invaded back in 2003 and those isis people would be in power now, possibly having chemical and nuclear weapons, remember isis consists of iraqi military that was part of the government before invasion so it would be a much bigger problem for the entire world more than even north korea as iraq would have not only nukes but self sustaining economy due to oil reserves and an army of isis terrorists ready to terrorize the whole planet.

some people agree that usa was wrong by invading iraq, but what would you do if things like isis existed inside a country, there was no way to do it if people who eventually became isis were part of iraqi military, meaning country was basicaly ruled by them, the way it was done might be wrong, but there was no intention to have a blood bath like it's described by many media.

imagine if iraq was not invaded back in 2003 and those isis people would be in power now, possibly having chemical and nuclear weapons, remember isis consists of iraqi military that was part of the government before invasion so it would be a much bigger problem for the entire world more than even north korea as iraq would have not only nukes but self sustaining economy due to oil reserves and an army of isis terrorists ready to terrorize the whole planet.

Nobody can really be this stupid, Jesus Christ.

of course if most people believe a certain media kinda like reading only russian or usa media. if you do read both you do question both and compare how people live in both countries, if a country lives like shit and its news media spouts shit really makes me double check the opinion of a crazy alcoholic or hobo on the street as opposed to educated person in a castle. same with countries, if a country is for the most part a hell hole i would really question anything that comes from it be it news or any other information. i am not saying a hobo can't be a jesus christ but statistically speaking there is much higher chance that a person is a hobo because they are really fucked up in the head and have no logic. same with news, whenever i compare russian media spouting shit at other european countries or usa makes me really think why people in russia have such shitty lives for the most part.

"imagine if iraq was not invaded back in 2003 and those isis people would be in power now"

:D :D :D

troll for sure

please do question information if isis came from iraq where else would they be in 2003? isis did not only originate in iraq but isis also created government structures in iraq meaning iraqi people supported isis.

It's true that the Sunnis of Iraq that formed ISIS were the same Sunnis who fought and benefited from Saddam's rule- but you aren't thinking about how an organization's behavior comes from the top-down. Both Baathist ideologies and Wahhabist ideologies were within the "overton window" of this group- but just because the group is capable of wahhabisim does not mean that it would adopt it because the existing Batthist power structure of Iraq favored them and could meet all of their needs. They only began fighting for wahhabist ideologies because of the new Shia government which did not benefit them or meet their needs. If they never lost power they would have no reason to create such a reactionary force.

the thing is if a person is capable of such behavior, sooner or later they will produce such behavior if provoked by any circumstances be it life obstacles and such. who could seriously guarantee that the next ruler succeeding sadam wouldn't be the same isis people who are now fought. the reason iraq was invaded is because even a slight chance of this happening would have brought the whole world into a crisis. sadam regime could have for example started sabotaging all oil exports coming out of middle east by staging terrorist attacks all over the place using chemical and biological weapons. north korea has no ways to influence world economy as it is somewhere far way away and it still can be a big pain in the butt for many developed countries including usa which to remind you is accountable for maintaining world economy even in russia. when people start questioning actions of usa or other european countries they never really present a solution to the problem they only refer to its actions as bad and such, and then when they do copy actions of usa they simply remind people that usa did such and such not realizing they are using the same methods all along if not to other countries then to their own people, treating them like property that can be dealt with any way they want.

>the reason iraq was invaded is because even a slight chance of this happening would have brought the whole world into a crisis.

This is just not true, Iraq was invaded based on fake intelligence that Israel provided about chemical weapons. Not a concern over the succession of Saddam leading to an ISIS-like group taking over Iraq. By the way, ISIS was originally funded by Saudi Arabia, if you want to look at the root of it's creation, it was not just the fall of Saddam and Baathisim but also Wahhabist Saudis pushing the region in that direction.

Really while Saddam was able to influence the world economy in such a way it is the responsibility of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to respond to the hypothetical acts of war you are describing. It's not as if Saudi Arabia was incapable of invading Iraq especially considering the amount of support the USA gives it as an ally.

The solution is simply to allow regional powers to solve the problem, and so I am not questioning the methods that the USA used to solve the problem, I am just saying that it is not the USA's responsibility to solve such a problem.

we can't know for sure what the rational was when those decisions took place, i highly doubt that us generals decided to intervene into iraq based on israel intelligence alone, and involving or should i say using a country like saudi arabia in this war would have been a disaster for usa as major importer of saudi oil as saudi arabia has poor knowledge of warfare and isn't capable to overwhelming iraq with sheer numbers like usa could over iraq so it could have lead to saudi arabia being overrun by iraqi forces or their oil fields could have been sabotaged. the rational i think was to prevent sadam from sabotaging oil exports as he was known to attack kuwait, a us ally before so he for sure was capable to do such things. letting countries solve those conflicts would actually make things worse as none of these middle eastern countries are capable to have clear victory on the battlefield on their own which would have lead to escalation of conflict.

I think you're right about Saudi Arabia being incompetent but I also think you're wrong about Iraq being able to overrun Saudi Oil feilds especially with US support. Really Iraq invading Saudi Arabia in 2003 is not a realistic military scenario, we can look at how badly it went for Iraq at the height of it's military power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khafji

After the gulf war Iraqi military power was totally destroyed, there was really no chance of Iraq having the potential to pull such acts of war off when their army was so weak. So I think that it's not reasonable to be afraid of Iraq.

Really my point isn't about how should the total amount of conflict in the middle east should be reduced, it's that the USA should not waste so much money and so many of our lives trying to reduce it. The US soldier exists to defend the USA... and the Saudi Soldier exists to defend Saudi Arabia... not saying that we shouldn't support our allies but we should not fight their wars for them. Besides I would rather see Saudi Arabia, who uses its money to promote wahhabisim and other forms of Islam all over the world, instead be forced to spend that money defending itself, so that it has less global influence, which is a much better outcome for the rest of the world.

when there is a proxy war you still have to consider the fact that there should be ground troops that are going to fight for us, who in that case would have been such ground forces? saudi arabia has no ground forces, iraq and saudis are both basically fighting for themselves, if you let them fight the spoils of war will be theirs. if iraq won saudis it would have been a disaster so either way no matter who won usa would loose because you would have a greater power in middle east who is going to create harsher terms for oil trade. usa benefits from smaller countries vs one big middle eastern power who is going to negotiate better deal for themselves and a big war like iraq vs saudi arabia in the middle east would create chaos on oil market.

I was going on the premise that there would be " none of these middle eastern countries are capable to have clear victory on the battlefield" , as in no clear victor and an essential stalemate. I can't really find info on Saudi Arabia's ground strength in 2003-2008 where this hypothetical war would take place (search engine is polluted with USA politics as usual) but I would not expect either country to be able to escalate the situation too much, Iraq of course was very weak in 2003 and it's economy would not be capable of handling such a war... so again I don't think Saddam would have been capable of waging such a war. If Iraq somehow gets competent military commanders (but I doubt this) then sure, USA can get more involved. It's true that this is bad for the oil market, but can you say that the cost of the Iraq war was less than the cost of a destabilized oil market? I think that such a war would just weaken both sides and make Saudi Arabia more dependent on the USA.

we never know how that kind of war could have ended if Iraq did actually have biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, they could have irreversibly damaged the oil extraction sites and i am talking an oil crisis that could potentially have lead to global depression. sadam was a suni leader so i actually think that saudi arabia wouldn't be willing to fight him in an all out war but i might be wrong, in any case i think global war in the middle east could potentially trigger ww3.

" people did support stalin which is why he ruled the country, same with communism, it was part of russia and supported by its people."

Absolutely nope. Stalin and the small circle of olygarchs around him held the power by torturing and killing anyone who gave even a remote vibe of not being 1000% supportive of him and the regime.

Stalin did so much atrocious shit. He literally had killed the first person that stopped clapping at the end of one of his speeks. People kept clapping till their hands bled.

He had people killed for any reason, and just for fun too. The people close to him could literally go around in a car in any city, slow down near any female they wanted, and tell them to get in the car. If she refused, she was raped and killed. If she accepted, she was raped, and then given flowers amnd let go. The flowers meant she wilingly accepted what happened to her. If she refused the flowers she was killed.

And that doesn't even start to scratch the surface of the atrocities inflicted by stalin, lenin, and the other few olygarchs of the communist regime on the whole russian population.

In the last decades of the ussr regime, people weren't even sent to gulags for being political oppositors, no. When you were deemed as politically dangerous, they sent you to the gulags as a mentally instable individual. Because according to them, being against the regime was so deeply innatural one could only be crazy to oppose that.

Let that sink in.

There were microphones left hanging by the politburo in common people apartment complexes, in the stairs ramps. They were always listening, and whenever they heard something, you disappeared forever.

But you know all this and more. You're not even a troll, just desperately trying to twist the opinions in a certain way, by shamelessly lying and fabricating stuff.

Not gonna waste more time with you.

i have no idea where you are coming from but on all russian state television channels there wasn't a single stalin basher who wasn't promptly shot down by majority of russian politicians in discussions who now have power.

just because you think stalin is a tyrant doesn't change the opinion of majority and just to be clear no tyrant could ever have risen to power without public support, it's kinda like saying hitler rose to power by himself, of course even hitler was supported by many including people who fought in war for the third reich.

don't sugar coat your own country when you say things about your own leaders, there is no such thing as a single person state or a state operated by few people, any system is supported by millions of people who either support or choose to obey the leader, if stalin was a tyrant, then it means many many people who lived in that system did agree with him and shared his values to a degree.

communism wouldn't have existed in a country if millions of people didn't agree or tolerate its concepts. just because a few people think stalin is a tyrant doesn't make it so for the rest of the country.

i don't agree with stalin politics, but what you are saying is that stalin was evil and the rest of people in russia were all good, what i am saying is that stalin regime and communism is the way of thinking that many people in russia share and its systemic rather than based on a single person or group of people who tyrannized "poor people of russia".

Starve them if they don’t agree.

i am simply trying to explain what kind of regimes russia would support if they continue on this syria deal, there is no way they could afford a western style economy satellites as they simply lack proficiency in creating economic growth like in the western countries, so all those cheerleaders would either have to choose communist style dictatorship or some form of usa control which might result in casualties but would potentially save the country from communist style regime that could go on for decades.

Do you really not know it takes few guys to steer mind of entire country populace?

it's never that easy really, even hitler in order to relate to others had to relate to concepts that were created way before him by german philosophers like Nietzsche etc. i really don't believe that someone could rule anyone without relating to their own believes, any regime relies on things that are shared among the population, it couldn't be a set of concepts that no one could relate to. many russian people even in stalin times have eavesdropped on their neighbours before those were send to gulags and so on. even a tyrant relies on a big number of people who support him. we can't just say that a countries population has no control over its leaders to one degree or another.

we can't just say that a countries population has no control over its leaders to one degree or another.

Like in Ukraine where US sponsored new government?
The control is minimal if it even exists. And the control is controlable by media that don't belong to population.

that is if you only believe in russian media which i seriously doubt is completely true all the time including a subject like ukraine. i am half ukrainian even though i have no ties to anyone in ukraine an i do support ukraines sentiments to be part of europe as i feel much stronger pull to european culture rather than russian culture. if people of a country support to be part of european union why should they be cutoff from such will? just because russian media says that ukraine is part of russia doesn't make it so, as far as i know western and central ukraine was part of europe for many years in the past so its allegiance to russia is not complete and unquestionable the way russian media portrays it. there is a certain population in the east of ukraine that calls themselves russians but its not all of ukraine.

when the events in ukraine happened i really thought ukraine really was far better off in europe and part of me thought that russian side might at least be somewhat less of a bully, since then things really never really changed and russia continues to bully countries that decide to distance themselves from it which i particularly find it disturbing since russia always stands for so called sovereignity of its borders and its own elections.

if russia was a country like usa with fledging economy and good regard for its citizen, well its not.

i recently had a huge disaster of my own were i had a small burning reaction in the eye and went to a doctor who gave me unnecesary antibiotics without warning me of it's possible side effects which basically lead me to develop some dry eye infection which since then became chronic, it became so bad that i think i might loose my vision, since then i have been to several doctors including doctors from so called central institute of eye disease in moscow and none of them know how to cure it. this country is a piece of crap, its doctors not only know how to cure you but often make people sick and when i ask "please cure me" they say "you are fine". this is what communism truly feels like, a complete disregard for human life and dignity.

If you want some help with your eyes just ask gstructor :=)

i know it might sound funny but this problem keeps me awake at night, i have no idea how to cure it, i am so tired 4 months into this i have chronic weakness. this country is a mess, it's not only doctors, doctors are just icing on the cake, i don't even have money for medications or to have a full diagnostics at a paid clinic, and i am not a hobo by russian standards. a hobo on the streets would literally die in a few winters on the streets as they are not even admitted into hospitals without some bogus paperwork required for free healthcare. life in russia is like a perpetual struggle for survival and those clowns on russian tv are teaching europe how to live right.

:D

Who still trust to dirty katsaps today?



Remember what ruzki scum say about several dead kids in Syria in 2014? "They're not dead, they're imitate death and covered with a dust.
No, if you have deal with commies, or any other kind of liars - all dead bodies will be real, possibly they make a spectacle on you dead body. That's how TV works, and often military reporters are target pointers!
Remember what terrorussia say about poisoning of Skripal, killing of Nemtsov, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko? Vetoing MH-17 investigation in UN by terrorussia - is an fucking 3.5 years of nonsense. Dirty katsaps say that Boeing plane was staged, filled with dead bodies and vampires - to claim kremlin's Mordor in terrorism, ahah.

so you say we should not trust russia, even if we really want to believe in US led conspiracies?
Mind boggling!

i think we should not be a gullible believer in the fact that both countries tend to pretend to fight for freedom of people of syria and simply admit its a war over oil exports. usa at least has a long-term goals for development of the region, russia on the other hand protests but never actually has a plan and rather simply calls everyone else evil. there is no evil in this, there is simply fight over oil there and both sides do things that are very questionable and war is the result of clash between these sides that fight for oil pipeline from qatar to europe through syria. they all cover it as a fight against isis or a fight for freedom of people of syria but what they basically do is a fight over a piece of land for the right to build an oil pipeline over it.

Ok, I will put my thinking cap on. Tally ho chaps.

Officially, Russia have been invited by the internationally recognised government and appear to be doing things legitimately through the UN which is the world government or meeting place that requires consensus and is designed to prevent war.

First question to ponder is whether or not the UN is doing their job as they are there to keep the peace by whatever means it can within the law of free peoples who do not want to be bombed. If not, why not? Is it because they are part of the problem and desire the war to continue? Is it not supposed to intervene? Why bomb? What is the purpose of it? Who would rather bomb than talk? Why would they rather bomb? Talk to these people and then find out wtf is their problem and if they won't talk, find out who backed them, who created their mindset that wants to bomb :)

I am not going to suggest the Syrian regime are wonderful but most countries have their issues as does Syria. Are they worse than x/y/z countries?

It is clear that the controllers or would-be controllers desire Syria for some purpose and have created instability in order to achieve it, to put their man in. Whereas Russia appear to fight those who created the instability in the first place, but perhaps they just want their keep their own man in? Who created the terrorists? Who recruited them? Or was it a grassroots movement? Some people who have been to Syria have a very different story to tell than the official story. Are they liars?

Who did create the present day instability? Whomever the mind-controllers are. I don't like mind-controllers personally, I'd rather get told wtf is going on rather than continuously bomb people. The news makers are responsible, its all propaganda to drive a goal. I don't know what the propaganda is like in Russia or Syria but I do know they use sources I presently believe to be truthful. The Arab issue appears to be engineered for regional redevelopment and control that would not pass at the local polling stations, so therefore requiring the achievement of that goal by creating instability inside the target country.

Construction and development? Hard to do this when you are being destabilized and blown up daily by these created instabilities when your houses and neighbours and schools down the street are being bombed by a plane or taken over by an extremist, brainwashed terrorist?

Hey if Assad is so bad, tell us what he has done? Meet him somewhere and have a chat? Or arm the terrorists and let them murder? We didn't bomb the Assads for like 50 years before today? Why now? I don't get it. Instead just keep blowing innocent people up! We rule! yay! its horrific, disgraceful.

Whatever is going on its those who would rather bomb than talk who need their heads testing because they are psychopaths and should be neutralised by means other than bombing. In any case, bombing isn't very nice for the people who try to live there, is it?

asad is a dictator who participates in killing of his own people through the use of army. it all started as a peaceful protest and escalated into war between asads army and protesters, russia is simply using a pretext that they were invited by asad to fight protesters. if a dictator asks a country to support his regime doesn't give that country or regime any more legitimacy.

both sides are violating many laws so it's no a one sided conflict of good vs evil. best course of action in that case would be for both sides to disengage rather than creating more cover for conflict in the form of calling protesters terrorists and so on.

asad regime is supported by the minority in the government so it's not like these "terrorists" are going anywhere anytime soon. they would only stop after majority of them are killed which might take forever if they start guerrilla warfare.


"The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Assad government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal were violently suppressed.[106]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War

thank you for answering my rhetorical so deeply

What has esreality become..

A shell of its former self.

Join date: 2013

http://www.esreality.com/post/2552603/what-wa...e-video-s/

Two days ago "died" a founder of propagandist TV channel Anna-news Marat Musin. He was known as a stupid katsap who filmed by himself a provocative "grad" shellings - in two sides between Ukrainian front and occupied Donetsk city:



- Oficially he died from heard disease, but we know well that's KGB perfectly stage assassinations masked as heart diseases.
If kremlin kill his executioners - it mean that's their plans are failed. When terrorussia failed with MH-17 in 2014 - they killed a RF presenter in UN Churkin, who was talking lot of liar for this. Also most of terrorussian generals who where occupying East of Ukraine - dead now. Russian ex-minister of defense died in "autocrash" two years ago.
Today the terrorussians TV-channels, like Sputnik, RT, etc - are closing all around the word. Humanity finally understood that ruzki scum was spreading tons of propaganda, dezinformation, blatant liar and schizophrenic agenda theories.
The biggest fake in a world history - project "Russia" is going to his end. And there is tons of gold and other treasures evacuated from there. This spring where two crushed planes who where overloaded with gold, ahahaha.)))) Now prepare to nuclear blast somewhere, which will bi it's end. The higher possibility that it will be in russia itself - a provocation to claim a western civilization.