---

@carls*world wrote:

Of course, I know I'll soon wear the label "Conspiracy theorist".

---

maybe. but i think monsanto is winning without miltary help (it isn't hard to introduce GM food, they could just seed from a plane drop)

the miltary industrial complex, you know the one that makes us mortgage the house to buy planes and other almost always late military hardware. i'd be pointing at them.. Lockheed Martin etc.

LL you are not a "chem trail nut" nut by any chance?

Anyway the real issues:  blame Maccas, and replenish the ammunition.

Have they actually received an official report from the weapons inspectors yet? I haven't seen any mention of it.

TGSE: "Have they actually received an official report from the weapons inspectors yet? I haven't seen any mention of it."

Not yet TGSE, however the inspectors are supposedly only tasked with confirming the presence/effects of a chemical agent, not how delivered, and from whom.

nɥºɾ

It seems like just another war that the US has to have to keep its economy buoyant and clear the streets of thugs by turning them into cannon fodder in another country.

Anyone ever wondered if perhaps the US may have had a hand in the use of chemical weapons as part of a false flag covert op? 

---

@carls*world wrote:

to permit "all necessary measures" to protect Syrian civilians

 

 

Which would ultimately mean going in and killing thousands more of them, calling it "collateral damage" (as history shows)

---

That's the part that gets me Carl which is exactly right the minute they go in any form of military intervention from the US using the defence of protecting the humanitarian rights of the Syrian people will result in far greater casualties to the Syrian people and should be weighed up very carfully by the US before doing so.

The UN's objective has been to assess if it was chemical based the attack rather than the confirming who the perpetrator of it was though the US has claimed somewhere that their intelligence has confirmed the Syrian Government initiated the attack.

Something about this is just not smelling right, they are to quick to want to go in rather than looking to achieve a far better solution via negotiation or to act as mediaters in that particular situation in Syria.

A ver big 'hmmmm'

---

@monman12 wrote:

LL you are not a "chem trail nut" nut by any chance?

 

Anyway the real issues:  blame Maccas, and replenish the ammunition.

 

---

i hope not ..

---

@monman12 wrote:

TGSE: "Have they actually received an official report from the weapons inspectors yet? I haven't seen any mention of it."

 

Not yet TGSE, however the inspectors are supposedly only tasked with confirming the presence/effects of a chemical agent, not how delivered, and from whom.

 

nɥºɾ

 

---

Well those little details don't really matter do they?

US...... Intelligence....... in the same sentence?

POD what planet are you on? : "Anyone ever wondered if perhaps the US may have had a hand in the use of chemical weapons as part of a false flag covert op? "

The inspectors are from different countries and laboratories , chemical agents can be sourced by composition,  there is no such thing nowadays as secure covert, and as for " false flag covert op" gosh, for what purpose?  Bearing in mind a secret is secure if only one person knows it.

I do wonder what  anti-Maccas people  would have thought of  John Curtin's decision to invite the Americans to use Australia as their Pacific base.