Paid Google Reviews Vs Organic Reviews...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Syria War: Anger After Russia Vetoes Resolution At Un
http://
If anybody still thinks that Russia is a benign force in the world, they can now see, quite clearly, how Putin supports his friend, Assad the Butcher. This is now the 8th time that they have vetoed resolutions at the UN.
If anybody still thinks that Russia is a benign force in the world, they can now see, quite clearly, how Putin supports his friend, Assad the Butcher. This is now the 8th time that they have vetoed resolutions at the UN.
Answers
Can't argue with that mikey. Something has to be done, and soon. Innocent people are being murdered.
07:48 Thu 13th Apr 2017
i think even if an investigation proved assads regime was behind it, russia would say the information is flawed and that the west is conspiring against assad, and again entrench there support for him.
has russia ever admitted anything past or present, they bump off there own people who dissent against putin, so assad is small fry to them in the scheme of things.
has russia ever admitted anything past or present, they bump off there own people who dissent against putin, so assad is small fry to them in the scheme of things.
mikey; Assad (the ophthalmologist) has broken his silence, or has it been a long media black-out? and is now allowed his say, surely everyone deserves this much, even ophthalmologists.
http://
http://
Ever wanted to know what a bare-faced lie sounds like ?
" and we have never used our chemical arsenal in our history"
http://
Liar, liar....pants on fire !
" and we have never used our chemical arsenal in our history"
http://
Liar, liar....pants on fire !
jim; //Are you genuinely asking why someone clinging to power through waging war on (or against) his own people might lie about an incident that paints him in a very bad light? //
To call that a leading question is an understatement, that is what might be called the 'double think', classic ruse of propagandists.
No, I'm not asking that question, my question above is , why?
Can you answer it?
To call that a leading question is an understatement, that is what might be called the 'double think', classic ruse of propagandists.
No, I'm not asking that question, my question above is , why?
Can you answer it?
I'm not sure why I continue to bother but I guess it kills 5 mins (!)
Did you actually see the Assad interview with AFP khandro? He even contradicts the (latest) Russian explanation, namely that it was an attack on a rebel weapons store. According to him there weren't any chemical weapons involved. Maybe he doesn't know about the very real video evidence, the scientific tests that have been carried out etc. Maybe he thinks the attack on the hospital later succeeded in its possible aim of destroying the evidence as well as mopping up the survivors.
You display classic conspiracy theory mentality: disregard any evidence whatever that does not fit with what you would like to be the truth.
Did you actually see the Assad interview with AFP khandro? He even contradicts the (latest) Russian explanation, namely that it was an attack on a rebel weapons store. According to him there weren't any chemical weapons involved. Maybe he doesn't know about the very real video evidence, the scientific tests that have been carried out etc. Maybe he thinks the attack on the hospital later succeeded in its possible aim of destroying the evidence as well as mopping up the survivors.
You display classic conspiracy theory mentality: disregard any evidence whatever that does not fit with what you would like to be the truth.
ichi; //Maybe he doesn't know about the very real video evidence, the scientific tests that have been carried out etc.//
Which video evidence? are you so dumb that you accept every piece of film shown on your TV matches the accompanying accusations?
Which 'scientific tests' show that the regime was responsible?
and for the umpteenth time; why would he, at this moment want to do this? a question you and jim seem incapable of answering.
Which video evidence? are you so dumb that you accept every piece of film shown on your TV matches the accompanying accusations?
Which 'scientific tests' show that the regime was responsible?
and for the umpteenth time; why would he, at this moment want to do this? a question you and jim seem incapable of answering.
Leaving the insults aside, I'd simply ask you (and naomi) this:
When the police investigate a crime they tend to look for evidence. They may have suspicions, etc, they may even have a prejuduce about who may have committed the crime, but when all is said and done only facts and evidence count.
Despite your casual dismissal of it, there IS evidence, and a lot of it, and not just circumstantial.
What actual evidence can you present? Other than your feelings and suggestions of ulterior motives?
Because when it boils down to it, that is all that matters.
When the police investigate a crime they tend to look for evidence. They may have suspicions, etc, they may even have a prejuduce about who may have committed the crime, but when all is said and done only facts and evidence count.
Despite your casual dismissal of it, there IS evidence, and a lot of it, and not just circumstantial.
What actual evidence can you present? Other than your feelings and suggestions of ulterior motives?
Because when it boils down to it, that is all that matters.
I've just been reading a book which dissects the great conspiracy theories of the last century or so, from the Jewish Protocols, the Priory of Sion, the Stalinist purges, Pearl Harbor, the death of Marilyn Monroe, Kennedy assassination, Hilda Murrell, Princees Di, the Clintons, 9/11, the Obama passport fuss - and all have one thing in common: zero evidence but a willingness to believe, for whatever reason.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.