https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527246040696437&set=a.1577967909746 99.40772.157750900979288&type=1&permPage=1

In article ,
says...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527246040696437&set=a.1577967909746 99.40772.157750900979288&type=1&permPage=1

You have never heard of the Geneva Convention, have you dip****?

On 9/9/2013 7:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:25:19 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527246040696437&set=a.1577967909746 99.40772.157750900979288&type=1&permPage=1

You have never heard of the Geneva Convention, have you dip****?

I am not sure that the Geneva convention actually applies to a civil
war and Syria never signed it anyway.


They also have not signed on to the chemical warfare convention either
(1938?)... But it really doesn't matter because Assad didn't use the
weapons in my opinion. All logic leads to it being the Rebels/AlQueda
(who just today we find out we have been helping for a year and a half)
who used chemical weapons on their own folks, to bring heat down on
Assad...

I mean, do the math... If Assad used them and got away with it, he would
have used them again. If Assad used them, he would have used them
against the rebel army. I mean if you are going to "cross the red line,
why not get a good military victory out of it. If Assad was going to use
them he would not be using them on civilians which he knows would bring
down the heat of the world. If he were going to use them he would have
used them on the rebels to put real fear into the opposition military,
not to mention because he has never signed on, it would not have even
been illegal for him to use them on a military force....

If Alqueda used them with the rebels they *would* absolutly use them
against civilians, as a false flag operation and we know damn well,
AlQueda "does" work that way, as a matter of course... If AlQueda used
gas, it would be "not sarin", so it would be easier to control, and
there would be no clean up, they could send in cameras to make video, it
would get the world to turn against Assad.... it's all right there for
you, just do the math.........

On 9/9/13 7:29 PM, skin a cat wrote:
On 9/9/2013 7:03 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:25:19 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527246040696437&set=a.1577967909746 99.40772.157750900979288&type=1&permPage=1


You have never heard of the Geneva Convention, have you dip****?

I am not sure that the Geneva convention actually applies to a civil
war and Syria never signed it anyway.


They also have not signed on to the chemical warfare convention either
(1938?)... But it really doesn't matter because Assad didn't use the
weapons in my opinion. All logic leads to it being the Rebels/AlQueda
(who just today we find out we have been helping for a year and a half)
who used chemical weapons on their own folks, to bring heat down on
Assad...

I mean, do the math... If Assad used them and got away with it, he would
have used them again. If Assad used them, he would have used them
against the rebel army. I mean if you are going to "cross the red line,
why not get a good military victory out of it. If Assad was going to use
them he would not be using them on civilians which he knows would bring
down the heat of the world. If he were going to use them he would have
used them on the rebels to put real fear into the opposition military,
not to mention because he has never signed on, it would not have even
been illegal for him to use them on a military force....

If Alqueda used them with the rebels they *would* absolutly use them
against civilians, as a false flag operation and we know damn well,
AlQueda "does" work that way, as a matter of course... If AlQueda used
gas, it would be "not sarin", so it would be easier to control, and
there would be no clean up, they could send in cameras to make video, it
would get the world to turn against Assad.... it's all right there for
you, just do the math.........


Moron.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:25:19 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527246040696437&set=a.1577967909746 99.40772.157750900979288&type=1&permPage=1

You have never heard of the Geneva Convention, have you dip****?

I am not sure that the Geneva convention actually applies to a civil
war and Syria never signed it anyway.

Let me get this straight, if a certain country didn't sign the Geneva
convention we shouldn't uphold the Geneva convention?