SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
MOSCOW — If Russia once maintained at least a semblance of distance from President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, it rushed to his defense after the American missile strike ordered by President Trump on Thursday. The attack cemented Moscow more closely than ever to the notorious Syrian autocrat.
Even as the United States condemned Mr. Assad for gassing his own citizens and held Russia partly responsible, given its 2013 promise to rid Syria of chemical weapons, the Kremlin kept denying that Syria had any such capability.
By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.
"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." Attributed to Abraham Maslow.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by What planet is this on Monday April 10 2017, @01:18PM (41 children)
Putin must want that base on the Mediterranean pretty bad. I'm surprised Assad hasn't had an "accident" yet so he can be replaced by a smarter puppet. Hopefully Trump will continue to bitch-slap these two brats whenever they step out of line. Negotiation and trying to show them how "nice" we are is never going to stop these two from killing everyone who gets in the way of getting what they want.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Demena on Monday April 10 2017, @01:46PM
Bitch slap?
They lost a few, probably inoperable 'planes, Assad managed to get rid of one of his more risky generals, and they are flying again within 24 hours with half the world pissed at America for aggression and the other half pissed at America for taking stupid risks and starting something it does not have the will to finish.
Love those run on sentences.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday April 10 2017, @01:47PM (8 children)
You betcha. Without them, Russia's navy would need to cross through the Bosporus straight, controlled by NATO.
Maybe it will... at least as long as this will amuse China. You reckon it's a coincidence this happened while president Xi was visiting Trump?
I mean, quite a reversal of the orange one's in the love relation vis-a-vis Russia and China - the later is no longer evil, eh? Have you heard anything new about China's artificial islands lately? No? Mmmm... it may be a coincidence... or not, time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @02:17PM (2 children)
Putin must want that base on the Mediterranean pretty bad.
You betcha. Without them, Russia's navy would need to cross through the Bosporus straight, controlled by NATO.
Yeah... controlled by NATO...by member country Turkey... with its glorious leader Erdogan... who is in the same league as Putin and Assad.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 10 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)
Who also doesn't play as Putin's interest dictate... it downs russian planes now and then [bbc.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @10:11PM
That was then, when Erdogan still thought the US would be useful to him.
Times have changed and he's gone full-putin since.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday April 10 2017, @05:29PM (2 children)
You betcha. Without them, Russia's navy would need to cross through the Bosporus straight, controlled by NATO.
Or, it's the usual suspect: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-09/russia-iran-warn-trump-they-will-respond-force-if-syria-red-lines-crossed-again [zerohedge.com]
Btw, Trump's new found interest in Israel-Palestine peace? You could skip Syria and cut through Jordan and Israel directly to the sea if you didn't have to worry about Palestinians blowing up the proposed lines.
compiling...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
Couldn't you at least come up with a source better than zerohedge? That site is just infowars for hipsters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:19AM
Those ideas are older than Zerohedge.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @07:17PM (1 child)
Yes, it could just be a coincidence.
China's trademark review board announced in September it had invalidated a rival claim for the Trump trademark, clearing the way for Trump to move in. In November, soon after the election, it awarded the trademark to the Trump Organization.
-- http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/17/news/companies/trump-china-trademark/index.html [cnn.com]
Matthew Dresden, a lawyer with Harris Bricken in Seattle who specializes in Chinese intellectual property law, said it was atypical that all the trademarks were “approved at once.”
-- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/business/china-trademark-donald-trump.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by arulatas on Tuesday April 11 2017, @03:01PM
Make America Great In China (MAGIC)
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 4, Touché) by Thexalon on Monday April 10 2017, @01:54PM (7 children)
He's already got a port that gets him access to the Mediterranean, in Crimea. No, I'm pretty sure he's fighting for the defense of an allied nation against internal rebellion and foreign aggressors. Just like the US is in Yemen.
The fact that Assad is still in power after a half-dozen rebel groups and ISIS and the US have spent years trying to force him out means he's either not an idiot, or very very lucky.
By spending $100 million on missile strikes that had no appreciable effect [thedrive.com]?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Touché) by captain normal on Monday April 10 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)
Eh...Crimea is on the Black Sea. The only outlet from there to the Mediterranean is through the Bosporus.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 10 2017, @10:06PM (2 children)
Of course Crimea isn't on the Mediterranean. That hasn't put any kind of dent in the ability of the Russian navy to get to the Mediterranean.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Monday April 10 2017, @10:19PM
Has the US been conducting "freedom of navigation" patrols in the Bosphorus to protect the Russian Navy from the outrageous unchecked construction conducted by the Turkish along the strait?
Asking for a Chinese friend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @10:23PM
Of course Crimea isn't on the Mediterranean. That hasn't put any kind of dent in the ability of the Russian navy to get to the Mediterranean.
Why do you say that? Bosporus Strait in the hands of a foe would be an impassible bottleneck should things come to a shooting war.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AudioGuy on Monday April 10 2017, @11:07PM (2 children)
Lets have a look at the sequence of events.
Trump position - he campaigned on 'no regime change wars'. This position is also visible in various public talk show appearances going back 15-20 years, so is probably sincere.
Putin position - Initially criticised Assad publicly, blaming Assads problems on his lack of properly taking care of his people, even suggested some constitutional changes. But made it clear he does not believe in regime change wars either. When the US initially started supporting so called 'moderates' like Al Nusra/Al Queda, he criticised this, saying this would lead to a mess as ALL these groups were terrorists. He said 'FIRST stop the terorism, THEN deal with Assad.'
Assad has publicly said he will hold elections as soon as the terrorists are gone.
Obama seemed content to let Russia, Iran, etc mostly handle this, and so did Trump apparently. The US position was still suportive of regime change, but this was not pressed. Russia and Iran want Assad to stay. The US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel all want Assad gone, each for different reasons.
Great progress was made in removing ISIS by all parties. Russia had some peace talks beginning.
Recently, support for the so-called 'moderate' terrorists was stopped by US.
A bit later, there were speeches by State (Tillerson) and our UN rep stating that 'regime change was not a priority'.
At this point, from Assads point of view, he was in the best position he had ever been in. ISIS was on the run. The US had publicly apparently changed its poition to not require 'regime change'. And he had multiple forces helping him rid his country of terrorists.
-At this exact point-, within 48 hours of the apparent US change in position, he decides to use gas, a move guaranted to piss off the US and probably Russia as well. If this is true he has to be the dumbest dictator to ever live.
There has been determinations that both Assad and various terrorists have used gas in the past by an independent UN monitor. So it is not necessarily certain immediately who used gas.
Despite this, instead of allowing the the UN to investigate as in the past, the US press goes into full bore warmongering mode within hours, blaming Assad and calling for action. And full propaganda mode, with pictures of dead babies etc.
The US state department and UN rep suddenly reverse position, and begin calling for regime change.
Trump makes a speech in full war propaganda mode, cute dead babies, etc. Also reversing his position.
Now at this point I would have expected the US to contact Russia, which they already had both human contact and intelligence contact with on the battlefield, and show them the evidence of Assads chemical attack, and inform them of our response. Since Syria is Russias ally, this would be a sensible thing to do to try to avoid problems.
Instead, a missile strike is ordered, with Russia given just one hour to get their people out. This seems absolutely guaranteed to piss them off as much as possible without actually causing an incident that would force a retaliation (because of dead Russians).
The missiles come not from bombers but from two recently positioned US warships, suggesting the possiblility of pre-planning.
The people on the ground able to report on the inital gas attack are our 'moderates' (who recentlly lost funding), and the so-called 'White Hats' who are funded by the US, and whose neutrality has been seriously questioned.
To me, this just REEKS of a possible false flag operation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:15PM (1 child)
Assad has publicly said he will hold elections as soon as the terrorists are gone.
Anyone who believes that isn't just willfully ignorant, they are living in an alternate reality.
There is not one single middle-eastern dictator who has ever run an even remotely fair election.
That's what the Arab Spring was all about FFS.
I have no idea about the factual nature of half of the other things you've posited, but you sure wrecked your credibility with that one.
(Score: 2) by AudioGuy on Tuesday April 11 2017, @07:27PM
My intended point was that it provides leverage for later action to insure that promise is kept. Which I did not make clear.
My personal opinion is that Putin had the right idea, deal with the terrorists first, then deal with Assad. There is no doubt he needs to go, but -how- he goes may be the difference in creating chaos there or a stable government.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @01:56PM (15 children)
I'm surprised Assad hasn't had an "accident" yet so he can be replaced by a smarter puppet.
Assad isn't completely stupid. Such a puppet will be hard for Russia to come by. A common strategy is the house of cards. It is a sort of dead man's switch for self-destruction of the country with the dictator's presence being the key stabilizing influence. Remove the dictator and the whole thing collapses into chaos, such as happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Somalia over the past few decades.
(Score: 1) by higuita on Monday April 10 2017, @02:10PM
Add Libya to the list... and Tunisia and Egypt barely escaped civil war, with Egypt still unstable
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @02:27PM (9 children)
It's a good thing that a clown puppet could never happen in the United States.
Nor could our government fall into deeply partisan bickering. Nor the White House have bitter infighting under an ineffective president always on vacation. Nor a dictator wannabee who thinks executive orders can accomplish anything. Nor a senior advisor publicly endorsed by the nazi party. Oops, godwin.
It's a good thing the US is safe from foreign interference, massive disinformation, hacking and destabilization.
Q. Why doesn't Trump wear a wedding ring?
A. Because they don't make rings small enough for such tiny hands.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by https on Monday April 10 2017, @03:52PM (8 children)
The biggest horrorshow in the tragedy the Americans are living with right now is that even if someone successfully assasinates Trump, they then have Pence in charge. There's not enough whiskey to fend off those nightmares.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @04:02PM (7 children)
It may turn into an ironic fight whereby GOP tries to get rid of T to get Pence, but Democrats prevent it because they'd rather live with a bumbling clown than a "normal" Republican like Pence who could actually get right-leaning legislation passed (rich-tax-cuts & dereg).
The Orange Monkey Wrench sure makes politics interesting. Maybe both parties deserve to be tripped up a bit. Let's just hope he doesn't break something important on the journey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
I hope he does break something important.
It's the only way to shock Americans out of their conspiracy-clouded complacency.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @07:13PM
I hope he breaks something important affecting rich people. Bigly.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)
This is the best situation I can imagine. The Republicans try, desperately, to impeach Trump. Blocked at every step by the Democrats. Pence doesn't end up in power -- because he might be somewhat more effective than Trump at breaking things, and because he believes gays can be cured with electric shocks.
Trump remains in power. Is even more ineffective because both parties in congress work against him. By 2018, the Republicans are tainted with the stench that will not wash off. Hey, they could have invoked emergency measures even after this clown was nominated. The party of Trump rather than Lincoln.
Maybe both parties might wake up and realize that the offices they hold have a duty to the public attached to them. Something called Public Service. And I'm not pointing my fingers at any single party.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday April 10 2017, @10:33PM
> The party of Trump rather than Lincoln.
Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W., W, Trump
vs
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama
In the last 56 years, that's quite an imbalance. If Johnson didn't have Vietnam...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:32PM
If grump is impeached that shit will smear all over pence too.
Pence might still be in office, but GOP political capital will be nil.
They won't be able to get anything done either.
The republicans were only a unified front when they were opposed to obama. But now that the black man is out of the white house, the asshole-faction of the party is in open war with the party members who still have some shred of decency. For example, last week Kansas missed a veto-override in support of medicaid expansion (aka obamacare) by just 3 votes. [reuters.com] That's Kansas,FFS, as in the state that is so insanely ideologically republican that they keep screwing themselves with punitive spending cuts that have killed their economy. [motherjones.com]
Impeaching grump will kill gop congress members chances of re-election just due to the fallout of admitting what all the sane people can already see. Its going to take something monumentally bad, like a video of grump fucking a high-school boy, before the republicans will seriously try to impeach him. Their position is so fragile anyway, they don't dare rock the boat.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 10 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
The proper solution, of course, is one that was used towards the end of the Nixon administration:
1. Impeach and remove the VP first for the nefarious stuff he's likely involved in.
2. Replace him with somebody who's not a complete nutter near the end of his career, who will simply try to finish out the term and not run for re-election.
3. Then impeach and remove the POTUS. The guy you picked in step 2 now becomes president.
And I agree both major parties deserve to be tripped up. More than a bit: Neither one has the approval of a majority of Americans (count me among the at least 10% that hate both of them). The trouble is, I don't think that the Orange Monkey Wrench is the person who will actually do that: His only real interest throughout his entire life has been to make money and publicity for himself. The problem that both major parties have is that they sold out the public interest decades ago and show no signs of reforming themselves, and the POTUS doesn't see any of that as a problem.
About the only political figure that has majority support right now is Bernie Sanders, and I think that's in part because a lot of people think the complaint from Democrats that he's "not a real Democrat" is a good start.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:06PM
About the only political figure that has majority support right now is Bernie Sanders, and I think that's in part because a lot of people think the complaint from Democrats that he's "not a real Democrat" is a good start.
Its also in part that nobody has seriously campaigned against him. Yeah there are the hysterical bernie bros who think the DNC conspired against him, but when it comes down to evidence its a bunch of trivial shit that only the delusionally hyper-sensitive would think made much of a difference. Pissy emails and downplayed debates, OMG! Sanders has not been subject to balls-out opposition. For example, nobody has heard about how his wife basically bankrupted Burlington College because of some really bad real-estate deals she initiated while running the school. Whether you think that's fair criticism of Bernie doesn't matter, campaigns aren't about what's fair, they are about what sticks with the public and that story is one that could easily stick if a PAC with a couple of million dollars made the effort.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @02:27PM (3 children)
A common strategy is the house of cards. It is a sort of dead man's switch for self-destruction of the country with the dictator's presence being the key stabilizing influence. Remove the dictator and the whole thing collapses into chaos,
It is not a strategy to prevent their removal. Its a strategy to deal with the fact that civic institutions are a roadblock to autocracy. Dictators dismantle institutions because they aren't set up to obey their every whim. The fact that it makes society more fragile is a side-effect, not the intention.
You'll notice that Grump is trying really hard to weaken american institutions that don't roll over for him too. Its easily visible in his tweets like saying "so-called judge" and all this hysteria about the derp state. But his decision to clean house at various agencies like State and DoJ while simultaneously failing to even nominate appointees for hundreds of sub-cabinet positions has the effect of making them weak too, so weak will have a tough time lobbying for their own budgets in congress and of course his budget plan calls for drastic funding cuts to those very agencies.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 11 2017, @04:29PM (2 children)
It is not a strategy to prevent their removal. Its a strategy to deal with the fact that civic institutions are a roadblock to autocracy. Dictators dismantle institutions because they aren't set up to obey their every whim. The fact that it makes society more fragile is a side-effect, not the intention.
This behavior meets the definition of strategy when it is thought/planned out, so no, I disagree on your first comment. As to civic institutions, they are usually replaced rather than dismantled (there remains courts, schools, associations, etc, but these are ordered towards the furtherance of the state - and they usually have some sort of balance of power so that no group or agency gets too powerful). Further, there are structures that can't be dismantled, like ethnicity. In Iraq and Yugoslavia, the system had been set up so that ethnic groups were in relatively peaceful conflict with each other.
The dictator can reduce the potential for united rebellion along the lines of ethnicity by careful cultivation of ethnic conflict of interest and stoking distrust of other ethnicities.
You'll notice that Grump is trying really hard to weaken american institutions that don't roll over for him too. Its easily visible in his tweets like saying "so-called judge" and all this hysteria about the derp state. But his decision to clean house at various agencies like State and DoJ while simultaneously failing to even nominate appointees for hundreds of sub-cabinet positions has the effect of making them weak too, so weak will have a tough time lobbying for their own budgets in congress and of course his budget plan calls for drastic funding cuts to those very agencies.
You're trying hard to carry the water here. I don't believe most of that crap would qualify as a civic institution. It's just places public funding goes to be spent. As such, it really doesn't matter if there are dozens or thousands, or the alleged purpose of the spending. Second, everyone cleans house at agencies like State and DoJ. You won't find a president who hasn't put in their own ambassadors or prosecutors, for example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @05:31PM (1 child)
It is not a strategy to prevent their removal. Its a strategy to deal with the fact that civic institutions are a roadblock to autocracy.
This behavior meets the definition of strategy when it is thought/planned out, so no, I disagree on your first comment.
Are you really that fucking dumb?
I said it is a strategy to accomplish something else. And your rebuttal is "its still a strategy so you are wrong!"
You're trying hard to carry the water here. I don't believe most of that crap would qualify as a civic institution.
All that means is that you don't know jackshit about civics. Which is no surprise. Its always the most ignorant who are the most confident.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 12 2017, @12:49PM
I said it is a strategy to accomplish something else. And your rebuttal is "its still a strategy so you are wrong!"
And I disagree. It's not even that hard to describe how the strategy would work. Hussein for example played the three largest ethnic groups (Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd) of Iraq against each other. Thus, for a time he eliminated cross-ethnic collaboration as a source of potential rebellion.
All that means is that you don't know jackshit about civics. Which is no surprise. Its always the most ignorant who are the most confident.
A civic institution is something that encourages citizens to contribute to society - for example, courts through the jury system, voting through the election systems of the various states, and a huge quantity and variety of non profits.
You didn't actually mention a civic institution in your post and instead slid in the far broader and nebulous category of "American institution". Departments of State and Justice aren't civic institutions and the turnover that Trump implemented in those organizations is not unusual. And your discussion of subcabinet posts indicates you completely miss the boat. In fact, a fair portion of civic institutions in the US aren't publicly funded at all.
And merely being an American institution doesn't magically make something a good thing. After all, the Mafia and the War on Drugs remain American institutions, but not institutions with collectively value. So sure, you could be right just like a stopped clock is right twice a day. But maybe we should try to reason here?
Moving on, you also don't get that the very "institutions" you complain about not being supported, can be unsupported for other reasons than merely autocracy. Federal agencies consume public funding to exist, and thus, have built-in costs in addition to their alleged benefits. And it's not at all a stretch that someone who has campaigned on reducing government spending would try to reduce government spending by targeting these very agencies.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @02:50PM (6 children)
If it doesnt lead to WW3. But it could very well, it was a dangerous risk to take by the US. Its pretty obvious that the US is in bed with many other governments that do worse, such as Saudi Arabia, and China, and now even sort of with Cuba. So why now the focus on Syria? Its pretty obvious that the US military industrial complex wants to provoke something. The tears over the children were crocodile tears, I gaurantee the US elites give a damn. its agiprop, Worse happens every day all over the world by governments the US supports. The gassing is horrible, dont get me wrong, assuming the information that is given is actually accurate, I dare say that information that comes out of the war mongering liberal-neocon complex in the USA is suspect.Trump originally promised to keep the US out of more wars. This is not living up to the promise, this is clearly on a track towards a conflict with Rusia and would make it more difficult to eliminate ISIS, actually sets it back because Assad and Russia were doing much of the work in that regard. the liberals included Clinton celebrated the strike, what does that tell you? That they are war hawks themselves and that Liberals are violent war faring fanatics no diffferent from neocons. The trump that was much hated, was the Trump that opposed the US getting into more wars, to create a cooperative relationship with Assad and Russia in eliminating ISIS, bringing stability to the region and reinstalling Assad and Russia who would stop ISIS and do what they did before, which was protect minorities in Syria. After Trump has begun to morph into Clinton-Bush with warfaring aggression pleasing the military industrial complex, suddenly the liberal started fawning over him. Trumps alt-right supporters are defensive domestically, non-aggressive globally, meaning to avoid contributing to conflict. This drove the left and the neocon nuts. The left in reality wants the US to be bankrupted by endless wars globally but overrun domestically with immigraton invasions. The left hated the alt right because they opposed the destruction of america with immigration invasions. The left are violent savages who are using immigration invasions as a weapon against American christians that they hate so much while using foreign policy to prop u extreme islam globally to destroy whats left of Chritian communities in the middle east. Why did Obama allow so few Syrian christians in, and used it instead to import ISIS? Because Obama created ISIS to destroy christian communities. Ironically what the US is doing by creting a void ISIS will fill it is cauing the massacre of christians en masse in Syria. Obama did this in country after country and is responsible for the killing of thousands. One thread runs through it all, the US elites hate christians and like radical Islam, nearly all of their policies have been geared towards enabling radical Islam to take over the middle east by removing moderate stabilsing governments. For instance Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt which would have unleashed a persecution of Christians after years of Christians being protected under Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the State Department under Obama making it all very clear that the Obama admin and really the US elite have contempt for moderate islam and christians and is strengthening radical islam. The feminist left in the US are basically war mongering islamophile fanatics who want to destroy the christian family to weaken the christian world so it an be taken over by Islam and the christians and can be exterminated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @03:04PM (1 child)
Addendum: The reason US elite want war on Assad is to create a power void so ISIS can finally take over. US supports ISIS through Syrian Free Army which is an ISIS front. The US Elite want war with Russia because this would destroy whats left of the West, allowing it to be overtaken by Radical Islam Globalism. A co-rulership by global superpowers of Radical Islam and Communist China is their plan for globalisation, along with extermination of White Christians and their replacement with Muslim and other third world immigrant invasions. The elite envision a white free world where the white christian has been eliminated. The US Elite hate Rusia because he is an orthodox christian and does not worship transsexuals so therefore he is a strong christian threat to globalist radical Islam. US Liberals hate the christian family, but they are actually tools of the radical islamic globalism and the US elite who are in fact on the side of Islamic globalism, want to exterminate the white christian in America and in Europe, and want to turn the west into a third world islamic theocracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:18PM
aaaaaaand off the deep end
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday April 10 2017, @03:59PM
The US MIC came up with a plan years ago. It's behind schedule, but they are still working on that plan [youtube.com]
.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 10 2017, @04:08PM (1 child)
Line breaks. Paragraphs. Use them.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @04:11PM
Medications too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:11PM
Someone call the White House, tell them we have the wall here and they can just drop it on the border. No one's getting through this one!