Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Chemical strike - so who would you believe?

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
9/5/2013 8:25:05 AMAUrankAdminSaktoth before revert after revert
Before After
1 Because the state-run Russian news agency doesn't have an agenda here? 1 Because the state-run Russian news agency doesn't have an agenda here?
2 \n 2 \n
3 The US has an agenda too, sure, but the US and NATO could have intervened ages ago, like they did in Libya, if they wanted to. Russia has been neck deep in this from day 1 (Well, it's been neck deep in the Assad regime since even before day 1). All these analysis (the 'data') are done independently by Russia with no third-party intervention. 3 The US has an agenda too, sure, but the US and NATO could have intervened ages ago, like they did in Libya, if they wanted to. Russia has been neck deep in this from day 1 (Well, it's been neck deep in the Assad regime since even before day 1). All these analysis (the 'data') are done independently by Russia with no third-party intervention.
4 \n 4 \n
5 I think the war went far beyond the point of both sides committing massive war crimes ages ago. That's been happening for a while now, with the wholescale slaughter of civilians or captured enemy combatants by both sides, and indescriminate bombing. Throwing accusations about which side is the worst for using chemical weapons, when they've been butchering people in wholescale slaughter for years, is pretty stupid. 5 I think the war went far beyond the point of both sides committing massive war crimes ages ago. That's been happening for a while now, with the wholescale slaughter of civilians or captured enemy combatants by both sides, and indescriminate bombing. Throwing accusations about which side is the worst for using chemical weapons, when they've been butchering people for years now, is pretty stupid.