US attacks inside Syria risks a new world war

[hater]

Exclusive: America’s neocons are back pounding the war drums, urging President Trump to escalate U.S. military attacks inside Syria even if that means hitting Russian targets and risking a new world war, reports Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

The U.S. mainstream media’s near universal demonization of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – along with similar hatred directed toward Iran and Hezbollah – has put the world on a path toward World War III.

Ironically, the best hope for averting a dangerous escalation into a global conflict is to rely on Assad, Putin, Iran and Hezbollah to show restraint in the face of illegal military attacks by the United States and its Mideast allies inside Syria.

In other words, after the U.S. military has bombed Syrian government forces on their own territory and shot down a Syrian warplane on Sunday – and after Israel has launched its own strikes inside Syria and after Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies have financed and armed jihadists to overthrow Assad – it is now up to the Syrian government and its allies to turn the other cheek.

Of course, there is also a danger that comes from such self-control, in that it may encourage the aggressors to test the limits even further, seeing restraint as an acceptance of their impunity and a reason to ignore whatever warnings are issued and red lines drawn.

Indeed, if you follow The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and other big U.S. news outlets, perhaps the most striking groupthink that they all share is that the U.S. government and its allies have the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world. Their slogan could be summed up as: “International law – that’s for the other guy!”

In this upside-down world of American hegemony, Assad becomes the “aggressor” when he seeks to regain control of Syrian territory against armed insurgents, dominated by Al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS), or when he protests the invasion of Syrian territory by foreign forces.

When Assad legally seeks help from Russia and Iran to defeat these foreign-armed and foreign-backed jihadists, the U.S. mainstream media and politicians treat his alliances as improper and troublemaking. Yet, the uninvited interventions into Syria by the United States and its various allies, including Turkey and Israel, are treated as normal and expected.

[hater]

So, you have Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal editorial, which praises Sunday’s U.S. shoot-down of a Syrian military plane because it allegedly was dropping bombs “near” one of the U.S.-backed rebel groups – though the Syrians say they were targeting an Islamic State position.

Although it was the U.S. that shot down the Syrian plane over Syria, the Journal’s editorial portrays the Russians and Syrians as the hotheads for denouncing the U.S. attack as a provocation and warning that similar air strikes will not be tolerated.

In response, the Journal’s neocon editors called for more U.S. military might hurled against Syria and Russia: “The risk of escalation is real, but this isn’t a skirmish the U.S. can easily avoid. Mr. Assad and his allies in Moscow and Tehran know that ISIS’s days are numbered. They want to assert control over as much territory as possible in the interim, and that means crushing the SDF [the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces].

“The Russian threat on Monday to target with anti-aircraft missiles any U.S. aircraft flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria is part of the same intimidation strategy. Russia also suspended a hotline between the two armed forces designed to reduce the risk of a military mistake. Iran, which arms and assists Mr. Assad on the ground, vowed further Syrian regime attacks against SDF, all but daring U.S. planes to respond amid the Russian threat.

“The White House and Pentagon reacted with restraint on Monday, calling for a de-escalation and open lines of communication. But if Syria and its allies are determined to escalate, the U.S. will either have to back down or prepare a more concerted effort to protect its allies and now U.S. aircraft.

“This is a predicament President Obama put the U.S. in when his Syrian abdication created an opening for Vladimir Putin to intervene. Had the U.S. established a no-fly or other safe zone to protect refugees, the Kremlin might have been more cautious.”

As senior U.S. commanders have explained, however, the notion of a sweet-sounding “no-fly or other safe zone” would require a massive U.S. military campaign inside Syria that would devastate government forces and result in thousands of civilian deaths because many air defenses are located in urban areas. It also could lead to a victory for Al Qaeda and/or its spinoff, Islamic State, a grisly fate for most Syrians.

[hater]

Propaganda Value

But the “safe zone” illusion has great propaganda value, essentially a new packaging for another “regime change” war, which the neocons lusted for in Syria as the follow-on to the Iraq invasion in 2003 but couldn’t achieve immediately because the Iraq War turned into a bloody disaster.


At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.”
Instead, the neocons had to settle for a proxy war on Syria, funded and armed by the U.S. government and its regional allies, relying on violent jihadists to carry out the brunt of the fighting and killing. When Assad’s government reacted clumsily to this challenge, the U.S. mainstream media depicted Assad as the villain and the “rebels” as the heroes.

In 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency, then under the direction of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, warned that the U.S. strategy would give rise to “a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria.”

Flynn went further in a 2015 interview when he said the intelligence was “very clear” that the Obama administration made a “willful decision” to back these jihadists in league with Middle East allies. (Flynn briefly served as President Trump’s national security adviser but was ousted amid the growing Russia-gate “scandal.”)

Only in 2014, when Islamic State militants began decapitating American hostages and capturing cities in Iraq, did the Obama administration reverse course and begin attacking ISIS while continuing to turn a blind-eye to the havoc caused by other rebel groups allied with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, including many outfits deemed “moderate” in the U.S. lexicon.

But the problem is that almost none of this history exists within the U.S. mainstream narrative, which – as the Journal’s neocon editors did on Tuesday – simply depicts Obama as weak and then baits President Trump to show more military muscle.

[hater]

The Journal editorial criticized Trump for having no strategy beyond eradicating ISIS and adding: “Now is the time for thinking through such a strategy because Syria, Russia and Iran know what they want. Mr. Assad wants to reassert control over all of Syria, not a country divided into Alawite, Sunni and Kurdish parts. Iran wants a Shiite arc of influence from Tehran to Beirut. Mr. Putin will settle for a Mediterranean port and a demonstration that Russia can be trusted to stand by its allies, while America is unreliable. None of this is in the U.S. national interests.”


Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
But why isn’t this in U.S. national interests? What’s wrong with a unified secular Syria that can begin to rebuild its shattered infrastructure and repatriate refugees who have fled into Europe, destabilizing the Continent?

What’s the big problem with “a Shiite arc of influence”? The Shiites aren’t a threat to the United States or the West. The principal terror groups – Al Qaeda and ISIS – spring from the extremist Saudi version of Sunni Islam, known as Wahhabism. I realize that Israel and Saudi Arabia took aim at Syria in part to shatter “the Shiite arc,” but we have seen the horrific consequences of that strategy. How has the chaos that the Syrian war has unleashed benefited U.S. national interests?

And so what that Russia has a naval base on the Mediterranean Sea? That is no threat to the United States, either.

But what is the alternative prescription from the Journal’s neocon editors? The editorial concludes: “The alternative would be to demonstrate that Mr. Assad, Iran and Russia will pay a higher price for their ambitions. This means refusing to back down from defending U.S. allies on the ground and responding if Russia aircraft or missiles attempt to take down U.S. planes. Our guess is that Russia doesn’t want a military engagement with the U.S. any more than the U.S. wants one with Russia, but Russia will keep pressing for advantage unless President Trump shows more firmness than his predecessor.”

So, rather than allow the Syrian government to restore some form of order across Syria, the neocons want the Trump administration to continue violating international law, which forbids military invasions of sovereign countries, and keep the bloodshed flowing. Beyond that, the neocons want the U.S. military to play chicken with the other nuclear-armed superpower on the assumption that Russia will back down.

As usual, the neocon armchair warriors don’t reflect much on what could happen if U.S. warplanes attacking inside Syria are shot down. One supposes that would require President Trump to authorize a powerful counterstrike against Russian targets with the possibility of these escalations spinning out of control. But such craziness is where a steady diet of neocon/liberal-hawk propaganda has taken America.

We are ready to risk nuclear war and end all life on the planet, so Israel and Saudi Arabia can shatter a “Shiite arc of influence” and so American politicians don’t have to feel the rhetorical lash of the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks.

[rjv]

neocons run our foreign policy. on one side, you have maniacs like McCain who gets a hard on every time the chance to go to war with N. Korea or Russia opens up, and then there is the democrat faction hillary led which insists on pushing russia further and further against the wall. meanwhile, a large faction of so called liberals are so bent on following the russian narrative that they are blind to the military aggression at play here. and then there is trump, who lacks any brain of his own...

[hater]

neocons run our foreign policy. on one side, you have maniacs like McCain who gets a hard on every time the chance to go to war with N. Korea or Russia opens up, and then there is the democrat faction hillary led which insists on pushing russia further and further against the wall. meanwhile, a large faction of so called liberals are so bent on following the russian narrative that they are blind to the military aggression at play here. and then there is trump, who lacks any brain of his own...

Good points and that has been like this for decades

I guess as long as America wins we shouldnt have too much problem with this besides having blood on our hands

But the real red lines imo should be:
A) never ever support jihadists. We are failing this one
B) never back up the 2nd most nuclear against the wall. Failing this as well

Those 2 should be no brainers and we should never even get close to doing those

Yet the maniacs in control of the armed forces are doing those 2 to the extreme

[Pavlov]

Putin not against any wall. hater poorly understanding of Mother Russia.

[clambake]

you afraid to die?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

neocons run our foreign policy. on one side, you have maniacs like McCain who gets a hard on every time the chance to go to war with N. Korea or Russia opens up, and then there is the democrat faction hillary led which insists on pushing russia further and further against the wall. meanwhile, a large faction of so called liberals are so bent on following the russian narrative that they are blind to the military aggression at play here. and then there is trump, who lacks any brain of his own...

Trump president not neocons.

[rjv]

Trump president not neocons. so trump is finally "winning" with a policy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so trump is finally "winning" with a policy?

He's supporting our allies where Obama would not. I approve.

[hater]

He's supporting our allies where Obama would not. I approve.

Hes supporting jihad in Syria with our tax dollars just like Obomba was just with a little longer leash for the neocon lunatic mass murderers

Hes just doing in slow motion what Killary woulda done in a matter of weeks

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hes supporting jihad in Syria with our tax dollars just like Obomba was just with a little longer leash for the neocon lunatics

Hes just doing in slow motion what Killary woulda done in a matter of weeks

FSA and peshmerga are not Tahrir Al Sham and co but thanks for taking the Russian State media line.

[hater]

FSA and peshmerga are not Tahrir Al Sham and co but thanks for taking the Russian State media line.

:lmao you mean the SDF those are the "allies" of US. They are mostly composed of foreign jihadi fighters.

Jihad as in allu akbar

Who the hell you think composes the SDF? Nondenominational seculars? :lmao

This is like saying the taliban which we helped in the 80s were not jihadi :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao you mean the SDF those are the "allies" of US. They are mostly composed of foreign jihadi fighters.

Jihad as in allu akbar

Who the hell you think composes the SDF? Nondenominational seculars? :lmao

This is like saying the taliban which we helped in the 80s were not jihadi :lol

The Sunni Wahhabists seeking to set up an alternate caliphate are Tahrir al Sham. That is their coalition. Then of course you have ISIS itself.

The FSA officers who couped 5 years ago and the Peshmerga are the core of the SDF and the leadership. There are several militias from the area and they have all been permeated with foreign fighters but this notion that they are seeking to set up a theocracy just as the mujahideen were or the like is just false.

The reason why the Assad regime bombs them is because when they are done with ISIS they are going to come after him. They did revolt after all to start this whole thing.

Specifically what factions within the SDF are you claiming are salafists? Or are you just going to go with all arab fighters are like the Taliban?

[pgardn]

The Sunni Wahhabists seeking to set up an alternate caliphate are Tahrir al Sham. That is their coalition. Then of course you have ISIS itself.

The FSA officers who couped 5 years ago and the Peshmerga are the core of the SDF and the leadership. There are several militias from the area and they have all been permeated with foreign fighters but this notion that they are seeking to set up a theocracy just as the mujahideen were or the like is just false.

The reason why the Assad regime bombs them is because when they are done with ISIS they are going to come after him. They did revolt after all to start this whole thing.

Specifically what factions within the SDF are you claiming are salafists? Or are you just going to go with all arab fighters are like the Taliban?

Hater makes things simple

Assad-------->Russia----------->not US

The messy nature of changing allegiances and power vacuums has escaped him for some time now. Not to mention the complicated nature of strongmen in Muslim areas already conflicted by centuries of religious and cultural disagreements. Now throw in Iran, the Kurds and Turkish interests...

[Pelicans78]

The Sunni Wahhabists seeking to set up an alternate caliphate are Tahrir al Sham. That is their coalition. Then of course you have ISIS itself.

The FSA officers who couped 5 years ago and the Peshmerga are the core of the SDF and the leadership. There are several militias from the area and they have all been permeated with foreign fighters but this notion that they are seeking to set up a theocracy just as the mujahideen were or the like is just false.

The reason why the Assad regime bombs them is because when they are done with ISIS they are going to come after him. They did revolt after all to start this whole thing.

Specifically what factions within the SDF are you claiming are salafists? Or are you just going to go with all arab fighters are like the Taliban?

He has no clue what you're talking about. The only term he knows is jihadi and terrorist. Everything else goes over his head.

[hater]

The Sunni Wahhabists seeking to set up an alternate caliphate are Tahrir al Sham. That is their coalition. Then of course you have ISIS itself.

The FSA officers who couped 5 years ago and the Peshmerga are the core of the SDF and the leadership. There are several militias from the area and they have all been permeated with foreign fighters but this notion that they are seeking to set up a theocracy just as the mujahideen were or the like is just false.

The reason why the Assad regime bombs them is because when they are done with ISIS they are going to come after him. They did revolt after all to start this whole thing.

Specifically what factions within the SDF are you claiming are salafists? Or are you just going to go with all arab fighters are like the Taliban?

The same SDF financed by the same Saudi guys that finance Al Qaeda and ISIS :lol

Yeah those guys are no radicals :lol

[hater]

He has no clue what you're talking about. The only term he knows is jihadi and terrorist. Everything else goes over his head.

But but they are "moderate" rebels I swear!

When they eat human liver they wash it first!

[Pelicans78]

But but they are "moderate" rebels I swear!

When they eat human liver they wash it first!

Yup proving my point Sandinista. Go back to celebrating the Soviet legacy while the big boys continue this discussion.

[hater]

Yup proving my point Sandinista. Go back to celebrating the Soviet legacy while the big boys continue this discussion.

Proving my point blind neocon. The liberations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia went oh so well!

They are basically utopias now thanks to the american and wahabbi liberators.

Wonder when you and fluffy are going to move to the suburbs of Baghdad to raise your family with your wahabbi brothers

So romantic

In what reality do you believe Syrias liberation would be any different than Iraq, Afghanistand and Lybias???

[hater]

"The pilot ejected from the plane above IS-controlled territory and is still missing."

:wow

Damn I didnt know this. Can you imagine if an ISIS torture/burn/behead video surfaces of this pilot??

Downed by the jihadi airforce none the less :wow

Hopefully the pilot died on impact or was able to suicide

Animals

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The same SDF financed by the same Saudi guys that finance Al Qaeda and ISIS :lol

Yeah those guys are no radicals :lol

The real concern is for them funding Tahrir al Sham or similar militias.

I get that you like Russian media insist that you are either ISIS or Assad. Nonetheless the FSA and the Kurds are coming.

[clambake]

"The pilot ejected from the plane above IS-controlled territory and is still missing."

:wow

Damn I didnt know this. Can you imagine if an ISIS torture/burn/behead video surfaces of this pilot??

Downed by the jihadi airforce none the less :wow

Hopefully the pilot died on impact or was able to suicide

Animals

you mean the guy bombing his own people?

[hater]

you mean the guy bombing his own people?

Are jihadist beheaders your people?

[hater]

The real concern is for them funding Tahrir al Sham or similar militias.

I get that you like Russian media insist that you are either ISIS or Assad. Nonetheless the FSA and the Kurds are coming.

What russian media? :lol

The journalist is american who has been working since reagan. He unmasked Contra

Oh and way to ignore my question. Why and how is the "liberation" of Syria going to go any different than Iraq and Lybia???

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What russian media? :lol

The journalist is american who has been working since reagan. He unmasked Contra

Oh and way to ignore my question. Why and how is the "liberation" of Syria going to go any different than Iraq and Lybia???

YOu quote consortium news too but don't front like you don't go for RT as well. I'm ambivalent about consortium but the rest of your sources are complete shit.

Lybia was run by the French. Iraq was Bush. What scenario for an endgame are you talking about? Your question is so oversimplified as to be meaningless.

The Kurdish regions in the north and east I am not worried about a power vacuum forming. In Iraq we did everything and created a puppet government. In Syria there is already a non-wahabbist plurality with the FSA leadership at its head. If they win militarily they will have legitimacy.

Given the domestic militias and armies that are doing the heavy lifting it is not analogous to Libya or Iraq. From a sectarian standpoint its also not the same as there is not the signigicant shiite/sunni population split like in Iraq. Damascus has been a center of the Sunni world for over 1000 years.

The obvious concern is a pogrom against the Alawites but they are not that many of them like it was in Iraq.

[hater]

Lybia was run by the French. Iraq was Bush. What scenario for an endgame are you talking about? Your question is so oversimplified as to be meaningless.

The Kurdish regions in the north and east I am not worried about a power vacuum forming. In Iraq we did everything and created a puppet government. In Syria there is already a non-wahabbist plurality with the FSA leadership at its head. If they win militarily they will have legitimacy.

Given the domestic militias and armies that are doing the heavy lifting it is not analogous to Libya or Iraq. From a sectarian standpoint its also not the same as there is not the signigicant shiite/sunni population split like in Iraq. Damascus has been a center of the Sunni world for over 1000 years.

This is terrible and a bunch of lies. Try harder

We did lybia:
"We came we bombed he died" - killary roundass klinton

"Iraq was bush" what the fuck does that even mean? The same neocons working on syria did iraq

"We will not install a puppet government in Syria" :lol holy shit even you dont believe that post

So based on your logic things will go well in Syria because the french and bush are not involved and we will let them install their democracy once they win militarily

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is terrible and a bunch of lies. Try harder

We did lybia:
"We came we bombed he died" - killary roundass klinton

"Iraq was bush" what the fuck does that even mean? The same neocons working on syria did iraq

"We will not install a puppet government in Syria" :lol holy shit even you dont believe that post

So based on your logic things will go well in Syria because the french and bush are not involved and we will let them install their democracy once they win militarily

:lmao

Sarkozy led the coalition in Libya. It is what it is. That was when Obama was intent on multilateral foreign policy. He talked about it constantly. He never deployed ground forces for peacekeeping and the like.

Iraq was oppressed for over a generation and there was no plurality. We blackballed the Baathists and there was no one else. Sectarian militias were what rose organically from the large Sunni and Shia populations and the Baathists rebelled forming ISIS. The government we created had no legitimacy because everyone knew they were the product of foreign interests. We were occupying the country and overseeing their government after all.

In contrast around Damascus, you have the FSA which is the Sunni military establishment from 2013 and several regional militias including the peshmerga who are regional not sectarian as you claim. If they win militarily or diplomatically to depose Assad then they will have legitimacy as it will be they and not the 101st and 2nd armor that is accomplishing it.

There will not be a similar power vacuum like you saw in Libya and Iraq.

[hater]

Its not who does what. Its who decides to take out a government. The decision maker is Uncle Sam. France was just his bitch

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its not who does what. Its who decides to take out a government. The decision maker is Uncle Sam. France was just his bitch

France and Britain Lead Military Push on Libya

France and Britain continued to press their hawkish position on Libya on Friday, saying they intend to take the lead in enforcing a no-flight zone.

Both countries, the most adamant backers of the United Nations Security Council resolution to authorize military action in Libya, also pointed to the passage of the measure on Thursday as an important — if rare — example of European resolve.

“Despite all negative comments, Libya shows that there is a political and diplomatic dynamic of European construction and an active European voice in world affairs,” said Bernard Valero, the spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, perhaps still wary after he and other senior French officials were criticized as having too cozy a relationship with the now-toppled Tunisian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, met with leaders of the Libyan opposition on March 10, and announced that France had recognized an inchoate opposition group as Libya’s legitimate government. France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé, spoke openly this week of his unhappiness with Washington’s slowness and difficulty in defining its position, before the Security Council voted for a no-fly zone.

France and Britain had been calling for a no-fly zone for two weeks, he said Wednesday, but other nations dragged their feet. “It often happens in our recent history that the weakness of democracies gives dictators free rein,” he said. “It’s not too late to break with this rule.” He added that it was not enough just to call on Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to quit, as leaders in the United States and other nations had done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19europe.html?mcubz=2

You have no credibility.

[hater]

Its always been Uncle Sams final say.

Britain or France dont move a finger unless US commands it

[Pavlov]

Now hater say Trump nothing.

Always play both sides.

Always.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its always been Uncle Sams final say.

Britain or France dont move a finger unless US commands it

Except when they do.

You sound like those guys that say Manu always goes left. It always amazes me how dumbing shit down is comfortable for people.

[hater]

Except they dont. Name one example france or brits have gone bomb a middle east country with US objecting in the last 25 years

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except they dont. Name one example france or brits have gone bomb a middle east country with US objecting in the last 25 years

That is irrelevant. We are talking about who led the attacks against Libya not whether or not the US was against it. I just showed you where France and Britain went ahead with the strikes despite our ambiguous stance.

[hater]

No examples. Thanks thats what I thought

U know Europe was sucking US dick for a while until trump told them they better get off their knees and do something besides suck his dick

Thats why euro fags are confused now but they still treat US as the boss. Dont think France would go to war at behest of US anymore thou

After Trump the relation is a but different. Trump told them to cook him a sandwich besides suck cock and they got mad

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No examples. Thanks thats what I thought

U know Europe was sucking US dick for a while until trump told them they better get off their knees and do something besides suck his dick

Thats why euro fags are confused now but they still treat US as the boss. Dont think France would go to war at behest of US anymore thou

After Trump the relation is a but different. Trump told them to cook him a sandwich besides suck cock and they got mad

Your question is meaningless to the point I was making. You avoided that argument to move right into a lot of homoerotic imagery though which was strange.

[hater]

Your question is meaningless to the point I was making. You avoided that argument to move right into a lot of homoerotic imagery though which was strange.

Oh my question is very relevant to your point. You said Lybia was all France. I said France did it at the behest and orders of the US.

Even Killary admitted herself: "we came we bombed he died"

So my question stands. Answer it give me an example where Brit or French forces bombed or invaded a middle east country Without US public support.

Only Russia is the country who acted alone (and Iran but they have for a while) thus why both countries are in the US blacklist

Thus why US crying about Russia interference with "their democratic process"

Bullshit. They are just ticked off a western country did shit without asing the master

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh my question is very relevant to your point. You said Lybia was all France. I said France did it at the behest and orders of the US.

Even Killary admitted herself: "we came we bombed he died"

So my question stands. Answer it give me an example where Brit or French forces bombed or invaded a middle east country Without US public support.

Only Russia is the country who acted alone (and Iran but they have for a while) thus why both countries are in the US blacklist

Thus why US crying about Russia interference with "their democratic process"

Bullshit. They are just ticked off a western country did shit without asing the master

No, I didn't. I said they led the attacks. I showed where the French and British were bombing and the US was noncommittal.

I already did you just weren't paying attention. That we came around is besides the point.

[hater]

I already said it doesnt matter who does the work but who makes the decision

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I already said it doesnt matter who does the work but who makes the decision

And I already showed that while France had decided to attack the US was noncommittal.

[DMC]

Here's some more stuff.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-military-escalation-in-syria-towards-us-russia-confrontation/5595434
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-escalation-in-syria-and-the-threat-of-world-war/5595498
http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-military-halts-syria-sky-incident-prevention-interactions-with-us-as-of-june-19-moscow/5595490
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-downs-syrian-warplane-over-syria-amid-war-on-isis/5595387

I am incredibly confident no one here read any of that shit.

[hater]

I am incredibly confident no one here read any of that shit.

I read some tbh

[boutons_deux]

Trash has delegated war-making to his generals, so he can blame them, like he did earlier, when they fuck it up, again, and again, and again.

[pgardn]

I read some tbh

Of course you did.

Did we go to the moon?