advertisement


US bombs Syria

maxflinn said:
There's no doubt that the White Helmets: Al Qaeda terrorists with white hats and cameras, in conjunction with the CIA will stage another false flag attack soon,

The problem then is the Zionist Neocons controlling the US government and the sick Zionist-owned media will demand that Trump acts again. And of course he has set a precedent now himself - any chemical weapons 'attacks' cross his 'red line'. Plus he knows the only way they'll cease with all the Russian bull shit is if he relents and carries out their evil demands for more warmongering/terrorism and ultimately, regime change in Syria. Then he even gets support from Democrats and will be able to move forward with the domestic policies that they're all blocking.

Now, this question isn't for any of our resident New York Times quoting US/Zionist shills - but what about the rest of you; do any of you actually believe that - even suspending reality and assuming Assad carried out the first attack - he will do another one?

Is there one person on this forum that can actually say hand on heart that they would believe that he would do this now, carry out a chemical weapons attack?

No, obviously not, unless you have an agenda and of course then you'd be lying anyway.

So when the next staged chemical weapons attack is blamed on Assad, and the lunatic Zionists in the US begin banging their sick drums of war again, and demanding that 'their president' acts, just remember what is happening. Be aware of it, and be aware of the dire consequences that may come from the actions of this warmongering clique of elitist racist supremacists. Your government fully supports them, and in fact is in thrall to them. Subservient to them.

You don't need to be. These bastards are a stain on humanity. Don't be a fu**ing fool. They will cause WW3 if they're not stopped. Speak out and demand that your government and media ceases support for them!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Max.

I asked a few days ago (maybe on the Trump thread) if you could clarify things for us, and you came back to do so.
 
maxflinn said:
The problem then is the Zionist Neocons controlling the US government and the sick Zionist-owned media will demand that Trump acts again. And of course he has set a precedent now himself - any chemical weapons 'attacks' cross his 'red line'.
Click to expand...

It's like our informed observer hadn't given up PFM for lent.

So if it's the "sick Zionist-owned media" demanding Trump acts again, does that mean any media who doesn't isn't Zionist controlled? That will make it easier when looking at news sources. For clarity (that will lead to confusion) can a media outlet be Zionist owned and not support further action? Could they be Zionist controlled but not owned? Is it ok to support further action if out outrage occurs?
 
Cloth-Ears said:
I am pleased to see the return to posting of Max Flinn. I didn't like the way he was treated sometimes. While I disagree with Max on certain things I am glad to see that he has had the heart to bother again.

I think it is a continuing mistake to invoke the term "Zionist" to describe the nature of the power driving past and now returned, US behaviour. There might be an element of it, but its more about maintaining a uni-polar world, keeping Russian interests at bay, advancing the interests of allies and own corporate interests.

As for the white helmets picture, as pointed out that could well have been a training exercise and it was I think unsafe to cite it as evidence that the Whtie Helmets are a sham. Me, I think they genuinely do do helpful work for the innocent victims but that they also go along with stuff they shouldn't. My guess.

But anyway, welcome back Max Flinn.
Click to expand...
Cloth-Ears, it is not a mistake to invoke the term "Zionist" to describe the nature of the power driving past and now returned, US behavior. The terms Neocon and Zionist are interchangeable. This Neocon/Zionist power clique has been the driving force of all US foreign policy since 9/11. This will become very clear to anyone who is prepared to dig deep and investigate the matter objectively.

People are wary of using the term Zionist as they fear being labeled an anti-Semite. However, it is the term which best describes the Greater Israel Project/Yinon plan for the Middle East region: http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

It is important we differentiate the great mass of Jewish people from the Neocon/Zionist elite who ultimately direct US war policy. The problem is the actions and objectives of this Zionist warmongering elite and most definitely not the great mass of Zionist Jewish people. It is important the two do not get conflated.

It is also important in the interests of free speech that this topic is allowed to be discussed and debated. The establishment and those which set the the politically correct parameters for debate, especially in this country, are far too quick to cry antisemitism whenever Zionist power and objectives are brought into the debate on the ME situation. This need to stop. It stifles debate and is intellectually dishonest.
 
Seeker_UK said:
Gosh, that's just what Vladimir Putin said.
Click to expand...

Putin is smart. Most smart people would assume and say the same.

The problem is there's not enough smart people to win the public vote.

Max's synopsis was intelligent and believable.
 
As max promised, US-Soviet relations have greatly improved since Trump was elected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39573744

'Russian President Vladimir Putin has said relations with the US have worsened since President Donald Trump took office in January.

He told Russian TV that trust between the two countries had particularly deteriorated "on the military level".

The remarks were released as Russia's foreign minister met his US counterpart in Moscow, amid rising tension over a suspected chemical attack in Syria.

The US has been urging Russia to end its support for the Syrian government.

But Russia has denounced US air strikes on a Syrian airbase, launched last week in response to the government's attack on a rebel area in Idlib province.

Asked by Mir television about accusations that the forces of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons, Mr Putin reaffirmed that Syria had given up its chemical stockpile.

Speaking about relations between Moscow and Washington, he added: "One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level, has not improved, but rather has deteriorated."'
 
jackbarron said:
.... It would be great if Russia could be persuaded to put pressure on Assad to call a ceasefire. Then a UN peacekeeping force might have a chance. America and the UK are going the wrong way to achieve this though.

Jack
Click to expand...

I am sorry to tell you, Jack, that the UN peacekeeping is not a force that you can trust. We have bad experience with them, take the war in Syria for example: The agreement between Israel and Syria that was signed in 1974, created two several kilometers wide weapon free strips. One on the East side of the Israeli/Syrian border, the second in the West side. UN "peacekeepers" were sitting in both strips watching that Israel and Syria are keeping these strips clean of weapon. Since 1974 until the war, Syria perfectly kept this agreement. As the war in Syria started and forces started to fight near the strip in the Syrian's side, the "peacekeepers" immediately ran away and left the Syrian side. Now all "peacekeepers" are sitting in the Israeli side. This is not the first time. The UN soldiers are running away from places that put their life in danger.

Arye
 
I want to warn you, PFM members. If you will not behave and you will post contexts that I don't like, I will activate the dark Zionism power against you. (-: .

Arye
 
ariegur said:
I am sorry to tell you, Jack, that the UN peacekeeping is not a force that you can trust. We have bad experience with them, take the war in Syria for example: The agreement between Israel and Syria that was signed in 1974, created two several kilometers wide weapon free strips. One on the East side of the Israeli/Syrian border, the second in the West side. UN "peacekeepers" were sitting in both strips watching that Israel and Syria are keeping these strips clean of weapon. Since 1974 until the war, Syria perfectly kept this agreement. As the war in Syria started and forces started to fight near the strip in the Syrian's side, the "peacekeepers" immediately ran away and left the Syrian side. Now all "peacekeepers" are sitting in the Israeli side. This is not the first time. The UN soldiers are running away from places that put their life in danger.
Click to expand...

UN rules of engagement tend to make them less effective as a peacekeeping force if there's actual shooting going on. UNPROFOR's performance in the Bosnian war is not something you'd want to see repeated anywhere else.
 
marvin1882 said:
It is also important in the interests of free speech that this topic is allowed to be discussed and debated. The establishment and those which set the the politically correct parameters for debate, especially in this country, are far too quick to cry antisemitism whenever Zionist power and objectives are brought into the debate on the ME situation. This need to stop. It stifles debate and is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

Equally debate gets stifled here when people shy away from debate by putting those who hold a different view on their ignore list. Then this stops being a debate and becomes a monologue.

Look at my last questions to faxmlinn. I've taken a part of what he's saying and asked for clarity. If we get our news from newspapers etc then should we have the benefit of a self confessed informed observer's knowledge of the background of these news sources to see if they're reliable. I don't think any of us work for the UN or live in Syria so we have to get our news second hand. Are the sources we use any good?

Don't forget that two here were happy to call me a fascist. Don't just blame the mention of Zionism as the cause of debate stifling. I asked for the evidence and it was apparently something I didn't say! Mindbending mind reading. I don't think they generously paid an honour debt to PFM either.
 
ariegur said:
I am sorry to tell you, Jack, that the UN peacekeeping is not a force that you can trust. We have bad experience with them, take the war in Syria for example: The agreement between Israel and Syria that was signed in 1974, created two several kilometers wide weapon free strips. One on the East side of the Israeli/Syrian border, the second in the West side. UN "peacekeepers" were sitting in both strips watching that Israel and Syria are keeping these strips clean of weapon. Since 1974 until the war, Syria perfectly kept this agreement. As the war in Syria started and forces started to fight near the strip in the Syrian's side, the "peacekeepers" immediately ran away and left the Syrian side. Now all "peacekeepers" are sitting in the Israeli side. This is not the first time. The UN soldiers are running away from places that put their life in danger.

Arye
Click to expand...

This might well be the case Arye. Mind you if I was a peacekeeper I wouldn't hang around if there was a chance of being shot or bombed.

Jack
 
fay spook said:
Equally debate gets stifled here when people shy away from debate by putting those who hold a different view on their ignore list. Then this stops being a debate and becomes a monologue.

Look at my last questions to faxmlinn. I've taken a part of what he's saying and asked for clarity. If we get our news from newspapers etc then should we have the benefit of a self confessed informed observer's knowledge of the background of these news sources to see if they're reliable. I don't think any of us work for the UN or live in Syria so we have to get our news second hand. Are the sources we use any good?

Don't forget that two here were happy to call me a fascist. Don't just blame the mention of Zionism as the cause of debate stifling. I asked for the evidence and it was apparently something I didn't say! Mindbending mind reading. I don't think they generously paid an honour debt to PFM either.
Click to expand...

I agree, putting those who hold a different view from you on the ignore list, and for this reason alone, is immature.

Maxflinn does make some very good points. I would argue that he is a better informed and more knowledgeable poster than most on this site when it comes to the subject of contemporary geopolitics.

I am an occasional lurker on this site with a genuine interest in music and audio. I have joined in this particular debate as it is a subject area I am interested in.

We all need to question MSM news reporting. There is very little, independent investigative journalism taking place within the MSM these days. It is largely biased and agenda led with the majority of journalists just repeating the official/establishment narrative in an unquestioning fashion. Unfortunately, it is very often 'fake news' which they put out. Similarly, we must also question much of the output from the so called Independent Media now prevalent in this Internet age. But in many cases it is no more less-trustworthy than the MSM. On balance, independent media/reporting is a positive thing as long as it aims to be intelligent and objective in its output. The likes of Infowars and a lot of these other large-scale alt-right channels, which seem to be springing up all over the Internet/YT at this moment in time, are not really independent. They very clearly have large financial backing and their output is often sensationalist and agenda led. In many ways they are modern day propaganda channels, a form of pseudo alternative media. Part and parcel of the alt-right movement which I suspect has been initiated and controlled by TPTB from the get go. We are very much living in a time of Information war and we must question everything we see, hear and read whatever the source.
 
For my part, I think Max's message # 254 represents a willingness to try to make points with, at best, a reckless disregard for the truth.

I find this true so often with web-sourced 'news' that I distrust just about all of it.
 
marvin1882 said:
Maxflinn does make some very good points. I would argue that he is a better informed and more knowledgeable poster than most on this site when it comes to the subject of contemporary geopolitics.
Click to expand...

I also think Max is a knowledgeable poster, but to my mind his conclusions are often wrong. He is wrong about US foreign policy under Trump, he is wrong about Corbyn winning the next election and wrong about Assad. He was also wrong about Cameron and pig-gate. He is nevertheless presents his arguments well even if they stem from a global conspiratorial viewpoint that I don't share.
 
Max is a gullible fool. Get over it and do some decent research, rather than regurgitate this pap.
 
From WikiLeaks.

AQ = Al Qaeda:

17903873_1547035231973851_6314049644819042191_n.jpg
 
But the "Otherwise, things have basically turned out as expected" line suggests that AQ being on their side was an unexpected thing.

You are reading it with just one meaning in mind rather than with an open mind. It's unclassified so they are hardly going to be admitting AQ is their ally.

Original email here https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

Anyway, max, you'll like this... Gee, he was sooo right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top