I can’t defend this action whatsoever. As I’ve said numerous times already, one of the main reasons I supported Trump, was because of his promise to not escalate things in the Middle East. As far as I’m concerned, he just broke that promise.
I’m deathly afraid that seeing as Assad is such a close ally of Russia’s that this could force Russia’s hand and cause them to retaliate. I do not want to see a confrontation break out between Russia and America, because that conflict has the potential to destroy us all. I also think this will have the potential to make the migrant crisis, currently destroying Europe, even worse than it already is. It certainly doesn’t help in any way. I’m disgusted with the media and political establishment for promoting this agenda, and I’m furious with Trump for falling for it.
This is not going to be a happy post. The truth is, I’m very worried right now. Remember about a week ago, I wrote a post about how America was no longer calling for Assad to be removed from power in Syria? I felt very good at the time, because I believed that doing this would eliminate any possibility of a conflict developing in the region between America and Russia. Such a conflict, I feel, could have potentially escalated to the point of war between the two. If that was to happen, it would in fact be the beginning of World War 3. That is not an exaggeration. That’s why I was so relieved to see Trump agree to allow Assad to keep power.
Then this had to happen:
So as soon as Trump agrees to back off on Assad, a chemical weapon attack happens, and innocent civilians, including children are effected. From a logical stand point, it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to do this. With the help of his Russian allies, he’s already winning the civil war, and is rapidly approaching a total victory. There’s no logical reason for him to start committing war crimes all of a sudden, and provoking a response from the United States, after they have agreed to leave him alone. Such an action could only be undertaken by an idiot or a madman, and anyone who has actually taken the time to listen to Assad speak, will know that he is neither. Nevertheless, the media and Western shill politicians instantly jumped to the conclusion that Assad and his regime were to blame, without even waiting for an investigation to be conducted first.
Some informative comments from the video above.
A British journalist in Syria offers this suggestion as to what actually happened:
According to him, what actually happened was that the terrorists (who America had been backing against Assad, before Trump came to power) had a factory that they were using to develop chemical weapons. The Syrian air force destroyed this factory, possibly without any knowledge of what was really being developed there, and this caused chemicals to leak out and harm civilians. In contrast to what the Western media is saying, it wasn’t a deliberate chemical attack from the Assad regime on his own people.
Unfortunately, Trump seems to be buying into the lies:
Some informative comments from the video above.
I just want to make it quite clear that this war is a red line issue for me with Trump. One of the main reasons I supported him at all, was because of his insistence on ending the wars in the Middle East, and his desire to forge a better relationship with Russia, unlike Hillary who was literally campaigning on shooting down Russian planes, operating in Syria. If Trump goes back on those promises, and ends up starting a war over this, I’m done with him. I will renounce my support for him, that’s how serious this issue is to me. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail here, and he’ll do the right thing. I really really hope that he does.
Fantastic news. It seems that under Trump, America has finally come to its senses in regards to Syria, and now realises, that getting rid of Assad, probably isn’t the best idea. In case you’re wondering as to why I think it’s a good thing to support keeping Assad in power, please read these two previouspost of mine.
The US diplomatic policy on Syria is no longer focused on making the war-torn country’s president Bashar al-Assad leave power, the US ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, in a departure from the Obama administration’s initial and public stance on his fate.
This is the logical decision. I’m not saying that Assad is necessarily a saint himself, but the only alternative to him, was allowing the country to be overrun and conquered by ISIS, Al-Nusra, and other jihadist groups. Despite the propaganda in the western media, there is no evidence that any viable “moderate opposition” to Assad even exists.
The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Mr Assad must step down. “You pick and choose your battles and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,” US Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters.
Isn’t it funny, how the West always talks about how much they respect “democracy”, yet when a leader they don’t approve of is democratically elected, he has to go? It’s even worse, when you also consider the fact that Russia is backing Assad. They’re willing to risk a confrontation with Russia, all to get rid of a leader they don’t approve of.
“Do we think he’s a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No. What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.”
A good change would be to stop supporting the terrorists that are trying to destroy the country.
The Obama administration, in its later years, was focused on reaching a deal with Russia that would eventually see Assad go, though it also shifted its focus to the fight against Isil, who captured swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014.
As presidential nominee, Donald Trump said defeating Isil was a higher priority than persuading Mr Assad to step down.
There it is, stated outright, that getting rid of Assad, was a higher priority to them than stopping ISIS, before Trump took over. Does any normal person (even those who don’t approve of Assad) honestly believe that ISIS is the lesser of two evils? You can be sure as well that if Hillary had won the election, she would be continuing Obama’s policies right now, even going as far as setting up a no-fly zone in Syria, possibly shooting down Russian planes in the process, and therefore starting World War 3 with Russia.
But who cares about that, right? Sure, a third world war would be bad, but at least she doesn’t say mean words, make jokes about grabbing pussy, or enforce basic immigration laws, like that monster, Trump.
“We can’t necessarily focus on Assad the way that the previous administration did,” said Ms Haley. “Our priority is to really look at how do we get things done, who do we need to work with to really make a difference for the people in Syria.”
I approve of this.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Hawaii indefinitely extended an order blocking enforcement of Mr Trump’s revised ban on travel to the US from six predominantly Muslim countries.
US District Judge Derrick Watson turned an earlier temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit brought by the state of Hawaii challenging Mr Trump’s travel directive as unconstitutional religious discrimination.
And this piece of shit judge is an idiot. Besides the fact that the US constitution only applies to US citizens (so it doesn’t matter if the ban discriminates against the religion of prospective immigrants, because, the US constitution doesn’t apply to them), the law is entirely on Trump’s side. In fact, it can be read right here.
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. “
^I don’t think it could be any clearer than that. This judge is just playing politics and is only wasting time. It’s inevitable that after it’s appealed, that a higher court, such as the Supreme Court (assuming it has a judge that interprets the law fairly) will overturn it. In the mean time, because of this judge, while we’re waiting for this to happen, potential terrorists, who would have been banned, will get into the country, and anybody who is killed by them, their blood will be on his hands.
Anyway, no point focusing on that. I’m just glad to know that America is finally going to do the right thing in regards to Syria. Not only will this be good in the sense of fostering a better relationship between Russia and America, but if the war is brought to its end, it takes away the justification for the current ongoing migrant crisis in Europe. I don’t expect migration to stop of course (because the war was only a convenient excuse to justify it), but when it keeps on happening after the war is over, and when migrants already in Europe aren’t getting sent back, it might wake up more people as to what is actually going on.
I want you to cast your mind back to about a year and a half ago. It was at that time, that the world was introduced to one of the most iconic photos of recent years. I am of course referring to…
When this image hit, there was outrage all across the Western world. Suddenly, social media was flooded with people who had probably never even heard of Syria (let alone, the war that had been taking place there for about four years at that point), virtue signalling about how we needed to open up our borders and allow infinity people into our countries to live among us, so that something like this would never happen again. It didn’t seem to matter to these people that the child and his family were already safe and settled in Turkey, and the only reason they got on the boat in the first place, was because his father wanted to come to Europe to get dental work done, thus putting the child in this dangerous situation unnecessarily. No, we can’t blame the child’s selfish father for his death. It’s all Europe’s fault for having the audacity to control our borders, and not allowing infinity people to flood and overrun us from perfectly safe countries.
The dental work story was confirmed by the child’s aunt, in an interview with Sky News, as we can see in this video here.
Anyway, the Aunt made a media appearance again recently, and she had some pretty interesting comments to make, comments which more or less line up with things that I’ve already been saying.
The Western countries have done nothing to resolve the Syrian crisis, pursuing their false narrative instead, while the real situation in Syria stays underreported, the aunt of a Syrian refugee toddler who drowned in 2015 on his way to Europe told RT.
But…but… that’s impossible. The Western mainstream media is a bastion of integrity. Well except for all those lies they always seem to tell, such as the ones listed in this video for example.
“Our country is being destroyed by outsiders,” said Tima Kurdi – a Syrian-born Canadian lawyer and the aunt of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old Syrian boy who died in September 2015 en route to the Greek island of Kos from Turkey – adding that “Western countries are not doing anything” about that.
She said the death of her nephew became “a wake-up call to the world, a message from God, who told us [that] enough is enough,” adding that the Syrian people “were suffering for four years [at that time] and Syria was crying out to the world for help but nobody was hearing” to these pleas, as “there was not enough media coverage until” the picture of the body of her nephew washed ashore in Turkish resort city of Bodrum made global headlines.
That image prompted politicians in many Western countries to open their borders and take in refugees. However, “months later, they started to forget that image and just got back to their everyday business, but the suffering [of the Syrian people] continued,” Kurdi said.
Yeah, they opened up their borders alright. The problem though, is that they weren’t just opened to Syrians fleeing the war. They were opened up to pretty much the entirety of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, and this has caused all kinds of chaos in Europe.
She went on to say that the West not only did “nothing to end this terrible war,” but also conducted a “terrible” regime change policy in Syria that actually only made the situation even worse. The Western funding of the so-called moderate rebels only prolongs the suffering of the Syrian people, Kurdi stressed, adding that “there are no moderate rebels in Syria.”
There was no “also” about the attempted regime change. Getting rid of Assad was the sole reason that the US and its allies, had any interest in interfering in the war. They wanted to do this because Assad is one of Iran’s closest allies in the region, and thus, one of the greatest threats to Israel.
“When [Western governments] fund the ‘moderate’ rebels, their [aid] somehow eventually ends up in the hands of the most powerful groups on the ground, which are Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL],” she said.
It’s just an unlucky chance occurrence that “somehow”, the weapons intended for the non-existent “moderate rebels” always seems to end up in the hands of the terrorist groups that Assad and Russia are fighting against, and which the US also claims to be against (yet won’t cooperate with Russia and the Syrian government against them).
The military solution would never work in Syria, Kurdi said, and “we will just see more suffering and more people will die.” She added that she does not take any side in this conflict and supports neither Syrian President Bashar Assad nor the opposition, but she had talked to many Syrians who live in refugee camps in Turkey, and believes that the Western media coverage of the Syrian conflict is biased.
The Western media report that “only President Bashar [Assad] kills his own people,” she said, adding that this sounds absurd to the Syrians. “I want people to understand one thing: if President Assad wants to stay in power in his country, he has to fight for his country but he would not kill his own people as he needs their support.”
But…but… he’s clearly insane. Sure, he needs their support to maintain power, but clearly, he’s just brutally murdering his own citizens, because he’s an unfeeling monster, who takes a sadistic pleasure in murdering his own people for absolutely no reason.
Also, it doesn’t seem to matter if he’s killing them, because the Syrian people are all clearly stupid, seeing as they chose to re-elect him anyway. That narrative makes perfect sense, right?
The reports in the West on Syria “do not make sense,”
as “there is more than just the [Syrian] government and Russia there, there are many rebels, who are fighting and killing my people,” she said, adding that “nobody [in the West] reports about rape” committed by the rebels and stressing that those stories are “terrible.”
If I didn’t know better, I would start thinking that maybe the West has a biased agenda here, and are trying to demonise only one side in this conflict, while ignoring the atrocities committed by the other.
Tima Kurdi admitted that Assad’s forces “did hurt the Syrian people,” but did so unintentionally. She also stressed that Syria was “peaceful and safe” before the war.
EXCEPT FOR ALL THOSE TIMES THE BRUTAL MADMAN ASSAD WOULD BARREL BOMB HIS OWN PEOPLE FOR NO REASON!!!!
“Most Syrian people were just living their lives before the war and did not get involved in any politics,” she said, adding that “all kinds of religions” co-existed peacefully in Syria. “Sunni, Shia, Druze, Alawites, Christians – we all lived together and respected each other,” Kurdi, who was born and initially lived in Damascus, told RT, adding that “most Syrian people did not want to leave their homes” when the war came.
She then addressed the issue of the refugee crisis and said that the only way to stop it is to put an end to the war in Syria.
Ideally, that would be the case, but as I’ve said before, helping the Syrian people, was never the real motivation behind this push for “refugees” to enter Europe. It was just a convenient excuse to justify it to the public. As soon as the Syrian war ends, the powers that be, will just try to find some other excuse to justify the fact that millions of people from countries other than Syria are entering Europe, allegedly to escape the Syrian civil war.
“I encourage the governments of each country to help find a political solution and [to stop violence] in my country. Bring peace to Syria so that you won’t need to see those refugees anymore,” she told RT.
I can think of one political solution that might solve this problem.
Now of course, RT is funded by the Russian government, so it’s understandable that people might be hesitant to take any information they provide at face value (if only people were equally skeptical towards the likes of CNN, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, etc.). So rather than just taking the text at face value, here’s a video of the woman actually saying these things.
Just a brief post because I think this story is very interesting. I hope anybody who was whining about the situation in Aleppo, and calling for “something to be done” will see this story and realise that it’s a good thing that Russia and the Syrian government have liberated that city.
Russian troops have discovered mass graves in Aleppo with bodies showing signs of torture and mutilation, said the Russian Defence Ministry.
Remember how the Western media was crying about all the “atrocities” that Russia and the Syrian government were supposedly committing against Aleppo? What will they say now that these mass graves of people who were obviously killed by the forces that were in control of Aleppo the last few years, the same forces that Russia and the Syrian government were fighting against, have been discovered?
The Russians “found mass graves of several dozens of Syrians who suffered atrocious torture and massacre,” said ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov.
He said some of the bodies have been mutilated and some had gunshot wounds.
Who would have thought that the Western backed “moderate rebels” would behave in such a barbaric manner?
The Russian Air Force has helped Syrian president Bashar Assad to capture Syria’s largest city after weeks of a siege. Russia has since dispatched military police to the city.
Maj Gen Konashenkov also criticised the opposition rebels, who controlled eastern Aleppo before they were pushed out earlier this month, for laying multiple booby traps and mines across town, endangering the civilian population.
“But Russia and the Syrian government were the real danger to the civilian population.”
Anyway, it’s no great secret that the West was backing the forces that were in control of Aleppo. So in that case, shouldn’t those in power in the West have to answer for this?
These mass graves full of bodies of people who experienced torture at the hands of Western backed forces serve as evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the Western governments were complicit in these crimes, shouldn’t they have to take responsibility for them too?
No, my guess is, they’ll just dismiss the whole thing as yet another example of “fake news”, and try to ignore it all.
Good news everyone. Trump has made it clear that he is interested in working with Russia, rather than against them in the ongoing Syrian conflict. As well as guaranteeing peace between these two great nuclear powers, it will also likely bring the Syrian civil war much closer to its end. Not only will this benefit the Syrian people themselves, but it will take away a lot of the justification for the continuing migrant crisis currently destroying Europe, meaning that when the invasion inevitably continues anyway, more people will hopefully understand what isactually going on and will hopefully start waking up in greater numbers. The only real losers in this situation are the Syrian opposition forces.
President-elect Donald Trump has reaffirmed his campaign trail position that assisting the Syrian government in fighting Isis should be the US’ main objective in Syria, despite appeals from rebels for continued help in their fight against President Bashar al-Assad.
Oh yes, all those “moderate rebels” whodon’treallyexist, are pleading with Trump to help them overthrow Assad so they can install a functioning democracy instead… just like the one that was installed in Libya after that horrible, Assad-like dictator Gaddafi was overthrown by rebels with the help of NATO.
I just don’t understand how Trump can look at the great success of Libya, and not want something similar for the Syrian people. He must have a heart of stone… or perhaps he just has a functioning brain and can see what a stupid idea it would be to keep going down this path.
“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting Isis, and you have to get rid of Isis,” he said in a wide-ranging interview with the Wall Street Journal on Friday.
Mr Trump has stated that while he “did not like [Mr Assad] at all”, shoring up his regime is the best way to stem the extremism that has flourished in the chaos of the civil war and threatens the US.
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend”.
You don’t have to like Assad, but this just seems like basic sanity to me. ISIS needs to be crushed. ISIS are a far greater threat to the world than Assad is. How many terrorist attacks have been orchestrated in the West by Assad compared to those orchestrated by ISIS? In fact, forget actual attacks, how many times has Assad even threatened to use terrorism against the West? I sure can’t think of any, so it makes absolutely no sense to aid ISIS in this conflict.
He has also been emphatic about mending ties with Russia, Syria’s long-standing ally and military backer in the conflict.
“Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who those people are,” he told the Journal, referring to the hardline Sunni Islamist elements present in rebel ranks. If the US attacks Mr Assad, “We end up fighting Russia,” he added.
Which was of course the main reason why I supported Trump over Hillary. Yeah, there were plenty of other reasons for my support too: his contempt for political correctness, his opposition to free trade agreements like TTIP (which he hasalreadykilled off ), his calling out of international finance controlling the world, his opposition to prolonging this Syrian civil war, his stance against illegal immigration, etc., but it was his desire for peace and cooperation with Russia, that was the most important issue to me. I genuinely feared that with the decline in US/Russian relations, that we were on the verge of seeing WW3 break out, and that a Hillary Clinton victory would have all but guaranteed it. I’m so happy to see that things are turning out for the better now.
Mr Trump’s shock victory in the US election this week was welcomed by Moscow and Tehran, as well as Damascus, where aides to Mr Assad were cautiously optimistic in interviews on Thursday. The president is “ready” to cooperate with Mr Trump going forward, they said. To date the US has tacitly supported rebels in Syria both logistically and financially, along with Turkey and Gulf allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Yep, the US and their allies have been funding the rebel groups. However, it has also come out in Wikileaks that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have actually been funding ISIS itself, and that Hillary Clinton (and therefore presumably the Obama government) was well aware of this. So you have America funding and arming Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who are funding and arming ISIS, and America knows this, meaning that America is knowingly funding and arming ISIS through proxies, while at the same time telling the public that they’re only funding and arming these non-existent “moderate rebels” who allegedly have similar goals to ISIS in regards to toppling the Assad government.
The long-standing US position has been that Mr Assad must be removed from power and democratic elections take place to end the complex and multisided conflict, now in its sixth year.
Mr Assad’s military strategy – including air strikes targeting civilian infrastructure, siege tactics and alleged use of chemical weapons – has been responsible for far more civilian deaths since 2011 than rebel groups or Isis militants, analysts and monitors say.
And yet they never seem to provide any evidence to back up these accusations. I wonder, are these analysts and monitors, the same people who also claim that Assad has no mandate to rule despite being democratically elected. Also, how do they explain the idea of the Syrian people choosing to re-elect Assad in a landslide victory in 2014 in fair and transparent elections, after three years of him allegedly committing war crimes against them? Which of these three narratives makes the most sense?
Assad commits brutal atrocities against his own people, but they choose to re-elect him anyway in legitimate elections because they’re stupid/suicidal.
The international observers who say the election was legitimate are all liars.
The international observers are all telling the truth and it’s actually the US who are lying, just like the times they lied in the past about the reasons for their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I know which narrative I believe.
Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton had proposed a no-fly-zone over Syria, a position rebels had been hopeful could stem the aerial attacks that have turned the tide of the war in Mr Assad’s favour since Russia began lending the Syrian government military support in September 2015.
And as I’ve mentioned many times in the past, such a policy could have resulted in America shooting down Russian planes, thus starting a world war between America and Russia.
So with everything we know so far, does it make any sense that we could have potentially seen WW3 because America wanted to protect from Russian planes, non-existent moderate rebels, who are fighting for similar purposes as ISIS against a democratically elected ruler, who was later democratically re-elected by his people, despite apparently horribly oppressing them and committing war crimes against them (with no evidence to support any of this), in elections that were fair and transparent, according to international observers who were present at the time?
Yes, my head hurts trying to comprehend this insanity too.
After Mr Trump’s victory this week, the main Syrian opposition group the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) reached out to his staff asking him to protect civilians.
President Anas Al-Abdah said the SNC had sent Mr Trump its congratulations and was in touch about a “comprehensive new approach” to Syria.
Might I suggest unconditional surrender as the “new approach”?
The US must “establish peace in our region and to find fair and swift solutions for the threat of terrorism… especially the state terrorism practiced by the Syrian regime against the Syrian people,” Riad Hijab, head of the opposition High Negotiations Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Still waiting to see the evidence of this state terrorism. I’m sure Assad is no saint himself, but when you look at the opposition, as well as some of the other regimes in the region that the US is allied with, he sure seems like one in comparison.
Other rebels on the ground were less enthusiastic, predicting more bloodshed no matter what Mr Trump’s policy ultimately ends up being on a war which has killed more than 400,000 people to date and driven half the Syrian population from their homes.
All so needless and pointless too. If only the US hadn’t caused this unjust war for Israel’s benefit, those people wouldn’t have had to lose their lives. Hopefully, when Trump is officially in power, and this war is brought to an end, the architects behind it will be brought to justice for their crimes.
“I guess most Syrians are reacting in a similar way today, trying to hide their disappointment by making [jokes],” said Wissam Zarqa, a rebel media activist in besieged east Aleppo.
“We live in hope… but the only bright side to this is that we will not live on false promises now,” he added, referring to the international community’s inability to stop Russian air strikes on the area’s 250,000 trapped civilians.
“With [US President] Obama, we had enough of his false promises and fake red lines.”
Abu Hamed, head of the military council of rebel group Liwa al-Haq Brigade, was similarly dismissive. “The Americans were never honest with us,” he said, speaking from Hama. “They left us in a quagmire that drowned the Syrians… everyone is trading with our blood and suffering.”
Of course they weren’t honest with you. They never gave a damn about any of you. You were all just tools to be used to their advantage.
This article fills me with a lot of optimism. After a scary year or so that seemed to be getting worse and worse in the past month or so, we’re already seeing some potential good coming from Trump’s victory, and the man isn’t even inaugurated yet. Who knows what more we could see happen in the near future.
I remember about a year and half ago when Donald Trump first announced that he was throwing his hat into the US presidential race, that I really didn’t think too much about it. I figured it was just a dumb publicity stunt and although I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points he was making, and thought he was pretty damn funny with how blunt and unapologetic he was in regards to the outrage he was causing, I didn’t take him all that seriously at first. However, after seeing the types of political hacks he was competing against, as well as the passionate hatred he was inspiring in the controlled media and political establishment, I started paying more and more attention, and soon realised that there was a lot more to him than I saw at first. However, it wasn’t until roughly one year ago when I first became aware of the escalating tensions between America and Russia (something a Hillary presidency will only make much worse), that I came to this conclusion.
Donald Trump, that pompous, arrogant, obnoxious, reality TV buffoon, may very well be the world’s only hope for survival.
Once again, I am faced with a story that fills me with dread. We’re just one day away from seeing the big decision being made, and yet we’re still seeing an escalation in tension between Russia and NATO, as if a conflict between the two is inevitable. But it isn’t inevitable. There is still time to resolve these problems, if the right decision is made tomorrow.
Up to 300,000 Nato troops have been put on alert amid rising tensions between Russia and the Baltic states.
Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary-general of Nato, said the alliance hoped to speed up the response time of thousands of its troops to allow it to react to a combat situation more effectively.
And yet I still haven’t seen any evidence that Russia are the aggressors, so I don’t know what they would need to respond to. To me, it looks more like they’re getting these troops prepared, not as a response to possible Russian aggression, but rather to attack Russia themselves.
“We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways,” Mr Stoltenberg told The Times.
“We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years – tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.
Can you really blame them though? With how much NATO has expanded since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the aggressive rhetoric being spouted against them from America, I honestly can’t blame them for building up their own military forces. It’s either that, or leave themselves defenceless against this aggression.
“We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among Nato allies and that is exactly the reason why Nato is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”
What propaganda? This sounds like projection to me. I’ve heard plenty of propaganda against Russia in regards to Ukraine, their actions in Syria, and their alleged (but still no evidence for) hackings in America. What propaganda is Russia spreading?
Mr Stoltenberg refused to be drawn on the specific number of troops being put on alert, but Britain’s outgoing Nato representative Sir Adam Thomson said it was likely to be around 300,000.
Sir Adam said the aim was to find a way to mobilise the troops within two months, instead of the typical time of around six months.
To me that makes it sound as if they are trying to speed up the schedule of getting this war underway. I think it’s interesting to note that even if Trump does win tomorrow, he won’t actually be inaugurated until January 20th, plenty of time for Obama to start this war that the American establishment so clearly wants, before Trump has a chance to prevent it himself.
The proposition was discussed by Nato defence ministers at a conference in October. “There are a large number of people in the armed forces of Nato allies, we are looking into how more of them can be ready at shorter notice,” Mr Stoltenberg added.
Nato is also responding to an increase in espionage, hybrid warfare and cyberattacks by Russia and other non-Nato states, according to Sir Adam.
Alleged cyberattacks which they still haven’t provided any evidence that Russia is guilty of. This is just one of the many examples of the big lie in action yet again. Keep saying something over and over, and people will eventually believe that it’s true, no matter how little proof is provided.
The alliance’s response is in part a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, as well as a bid to reassure ex-Soviet states, like Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all Nato members, who fear Moscow could try a similar tactic again.
Not a fair comparison. Crimea was historically part of Russia even before the existence of the Soviet Union. It became a part of Ukraine for administration purposes during Soviet times, when it was assumed that the Soviet Union would always be one anyway. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remained a part of Ukraine, though its population has always been an ethnic Russian majority, who favour close ties with Russia. When the Billionaire George Soros paid a group of thugs to topple the democratically elected pro-Russian, Ukrainian government, and replace it with a pro-EU/America, puppet government, Russia annexed Crimea to protect its own interests, and the Crimean people voted in a landslide to rejoin Russia (though I will admit, it is debateable if such a referendum can be considered fully transparent when Russia was in control of the region). The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to compare Crimea to those other ex-Soviet states, and I don’t think Russia has any interest in annexing any of them.
Yeah, that really wouldn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I reckon if it were not for America’s protection, Russia could probably overrun all of Europe pretty quickly, even the great powers like Germany, France, and the UK.
Nearly half of Russians fear Moscow’s intervention in the Syrian conflict could lead to World War III, a recent poll found.
And I think so too, though I don’t blame Russia (whose actions in Syria I believe are justified overall), I blame America.
I really have this weird fear that even if Trump does win, the establishment might just trigger the war anyway just before he takes power, making it that much harder for him to resolve things that it would, if he was to get in beforehand. Nevertheless, I still think from the point of view of peace, he’s the better choice. If the war does kick off between now and the time of inauguration, I would rather have him be the one to come to power in the hopes that he can make peace with Putin later. Hillary, will be only too happy to continue the war if she comes to power.
The choice is in your hands America. Please make the right one.
It’s really starting to heat up now. I’m actually going to come right out and say it. If Hillary Clinton wins the election in two weeks, then straight after I am going to go stock up on as much tinned food and other useful items as I can. Though then again, I might not get a chance to make use of them, seeing as we might all be vapourised anyway.
Britain said on Wednesday it will send fighter jets to Romania next year and the United States promised troops, tanks and artillery to Poland in NATO’s biggest military build-up on Russia’s borders since the Cold War.
Germany, Canada and other NATO allies also pledged forces at a defense ministers meeting in Brussels on the same day two Russian warships armed with cruise missiles entered the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark, underscoring East-West tensions.
I can’t believe it has actually gotten to this point. Well that’s a lie, nothing our global elites do really surprises me anymore. I guess I just can’t believe how little anyone is even talking about this situation,or trying to take the time to figure out how it got to the point that we’re at. I’m not even saying that my own analysis of what is going on is 100% correct, but at least I can say that I’m genuinely trying to understand.
In Madrid, the foreign ministry said Russia had withdrawn a request to refuel three warships in Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta after NATO allies said they could be used to target civilians in Syria.
Yes those damn Russians are going to Syria because they want to kill Syrian civilians for some reason. I’m not sure what that reason could be. They’re probably just sadistic monsters, who enjoy killing innocent civilians for no reason, all while pretending to be going after the terrorists that the West and their allies are backing.
The ships were part of an eight-ship carrier battle group – including Russia’s sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov – that is expected to join around 10 other Russian vessels already off the Syrian coast, diplomats said.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the troop contributions to a new 4,000-strong force in the Baltics and eastern Europe were a measured response to what the alliance believes are some 330,000 Russian troops stationed on Russia’s westernflank near Moscow.
OH MY GOD!!!
Russia has military forces… WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS!!!
That perfectly justifies sending troops half way across the planet and stationing them in an aggressive manner in neighbouring countries in response.
“This month alone, Russia has deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad and suspended a weapons-grade plutonium agreement with the United States,” Stoltenberg said, also accusing Russia of continued support for rebels in Ukraine.
But sure the West are angels, right?
Those damn Russians, supporting rebel groups. We’d never do that.
Those ballistic missiles can hit targets across Poland and the Baltics, although NATO officials declined to say if Russia had moved nuclear warheads to Kaliningrad.
Is there any evidence that Russia has any interest in nuking Poland? Look by all means, NATO are well within their right to defend their fellow members, but every story I’ve seen so far, suggests that NATO are the aggressors in this conflict, not Russia. If they would just provide some evidence to suggest that it was Russia who started all this, and that they’re just retaliating, then I might trust them a bit more. As it stands, I don’t trust them at all.
NATO’s aim is to make good on a July promise by NATO leaders to deter Russia in Europe’s ex-Soviet states, after Moscow orchestrated the annexation of the Crimea peninsula in 2014.
That was after the democratically elected pro-Russian government was toppled by George Soros financed “Neo Nazis”, and replaced by an unelected, pro-EU one. I mentioned that situation very briefly in this post. Then Crimea which was historically a part of Russia and had a population which was mainly ethnic Russians had a referendum on their status, and decided to secede from Ukraine because they considered new government illegitimate. Admittedly, I don’t know if I would necessarily say that this referendum was fully transparent and legitimate, but I hardly think the West can get on their high horse in light of their own actions in Ukraine.
NATO’s plan is to set up four battle groups with a total of some 4,000 troops from early next year, backed by a 40,000-strong rapid-reaction force, and if need be, follow-on forces.
As part of that, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced a “battle-ready battalion task force” of about 900 soldiers would be sent to eastern Poland, as well as another, separate force equipped with tanks and other heavy equipment to move across eastern Europe.
“It’s a major sign of the U.S. commitment to strengthening deterrence here,” Carter said.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that. It’s just provocation. I really haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that there is anything to deter on Russia’s part.
Britain’s Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said Britain would send an 800-strong battalion to Estonia, supported by French and Danish troops, starting from May. The United States wants its troops in position by June.
London is also sending Typhoon fighter aircraft to Romania to patrol around the Black Sea, partly in support of Turkey.
“Although we are leaving the European Union, we will be doing more to help secure the eastern and southern flanks of NATO,” Fallon said.
Others NATO allies joined the four battle groups led by the United States, Germany, Britain and Canada to go to Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. Canada said it was sending 450 troops to Latvia, joined by 140 military personnel from Italy.
Germany said it was sending between 400 and 600 troops to Lithuania, with additional forces from the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Croatia and Luxembourg.
See what I mean when I say it will be a “World war”? It’s not just going to be between Russia and America. From the looks of it, most of Europe will get dragged in too. Then of course, the Middle East will get dragged in because of the Syrian situation. Then with the problems between China and America over the South China Sea (likely to get even worse because of the actions of Duterte in the Philippines), I could easily see China getting involved. Then if China gets involved, that would probably drag in Japan and South Korea, which would then drag in North Korea. Fucking hell, it really blows my mind to think just how serious this whole situation might get.
Stoltenberg said allies’ commitments would be “a clear demonstration of our transatlantic bond.” Diplomats said it would also send a message to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has complained that European allies do not pay their way in the alliance.
They always have to drag Trump into everything. Yes I get it, you all despise Trump, but can’t you at least keep it for stories about him? He’s hardly the relevant issue in this situation.
For the Kremlin, the U.S.-led alliance’s plans are already too much given Russia’s grievances at NATO’s expansion eastwards, although Stoltenberg denied going too far.
I covered Russia’s grievances regarding NATO expansion briefly in this post.
But NATO’s troop announcements in the Baltic states and Poland were partly overshadowed by the dispute about whether Spain should refuel the Russian warships, which was later resolved by Moscow’s decision to withdraw its request.
NATO’s tensions with Russia have been building since Crimea and the West’s decision to impose retaliatory sanctions.
Yep. So just to reiterate again, they’ve been building ever since George Soros paid a bunch of “Neo-Nazi” thugs to topple the democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with an unelected government that favours the EU, thus isolating and threatening Russia’s security further than it already had been by the expansion of NATO.
And then of course, we have the Syrian situation were America and its allies financed, armed, and trained a bunch of terrorists to try and topple the legal Syrian government (an ally of Russia), and was operating in Syria’s borders, in violation of international law. Russia was then invited by the legal Syrian government to come help them stop these terrorists, made great progress doing so, at which point American animosity towards Russia increased.
But Russia are the aggressors apparently.
But the breakdown of a U.S-Russia brokered ceasefire in Syria on Oct. 3, followed by U.S. accusations that Russia has used cyber attacks to disrupt the presidential election, have signaled a worsening of ties.
And again, they haven’t presented any evidence that Russia really has been taking part in cyber attacks against. I don’t even dispute the possibility that they very well could be, but without any evidence to support it, I’m not going to take them at their word, when their word means nothing.
Even before the break down of the Syrian ceasefire, Russian President Vladimir Putin suspended a treaty with Washington on cleaning up weapons-grade plutonium, signaling he was willing to use nuclear disarmament as a new bargaining chip in disputes with the United States over Ukraine and Syria.
And there we have it. The tensions are getting worse and worse. It doesn’t seem like simple saber-rattling anymore. It really feels like we’re heading towards something big. I want to make it clear that I’m by no means a Russia supporter, nor do I think they’re necessarily “good guys” themselves. I just think that the West are the ones who are primarily to blame for what is happening, and that if we do end up going to war with Russia soon, it won’t be one that was justified by any behaviour on Russia’s part.
So the war might happen before the election at this rate. If that was the case, Obama would probably call a state of emergency, “postpone” the election, and stay in power for the duration of the war. At least it would stop that horrible hate filled racist/sexist, who says mean words from coming to power.
US President Barack Obama is set to discuss further US action in Syria with his senior foreign policy advisers at the National Security Council (NSC) on Friday. US officials say military options are to be mulled over, among other possibilities.
One scenario to be discussed involves direct US military action in Syria, including airstrikes on Syrian military, radar and anti-aircraft bases, as well as arms depots, Reuters reports citing high-ranking US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This is just absolute insanity. The Syrian civil war is being fought between two major forces: The Assad government and Russia, versus various terrorist groups (of which ISIS is the most notable). The US claim that in addition to the terrorists, there are “moderate opposition forces” as well, which are fighting against both ISIS and Assad, but if that was the case, then why would these “moderates” be living and fighting alongside actual terrorist groups?
They literally told Russia to stop bombing a terrorist stronghold, because moderate opposition forces were there too. Why would moderates be there, if they’re supposedly enemies off the terrorists?
It’s a complete bullshit narrative. These so called “moderates”, may not be ISIS by name, but they are in fact aligned with them. I think most people would also agree, that ISIS are by far the greater threat to the world right now than the Assad government, yet the US is actually choosing to attack the Assad government forces instead. This is actually beyond the realm of comprehension because of how insane it sounds. I guarantee if you were to ask any random person what’s going on in Syria, they would naturally assume that the US is fighting against ISIS, seeing as that would be the course of action that would make sense. Not only that, but because the reality of what is actually going on is so nonsensical, they would not be able to process it at all.
Another scenario to be considered is allowing coalition forces to provide the US-backed ‘moderate Syrian opposition’ with advanced ammunition and weaponry.
I’m actually responding to this article as I go through it (as in, I haven’t actually read through in its entirety yet, and am just breaking it up as I go along). Actually seeing the term “moderate Syrian opposition” now, after having used the similar “moderate opposition forces” term myself earlier, just shows how predictable they are with their overused lies.
This would not include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, as Washington fears they could be used against Western airliners.
Nonsense, nothing could possibly go wrong, allowing a bunch of primitive barbarians to get their hands on advanced weaponry. Nothing at…
The officials, however, stated it was unlikely that Obama would actually give the green light to US airstrikes on Syrian government targets, or that he would make any specific decisions at the upcoming meeting.
Why is he even considering it then? This is not a game. If he attacks the Syrian forces, that puts him directly at odds with Russia. Why, why would you even consider such stupidity?
One official noted that, as Russian and Syrian troops cooperate extensively, striking Syrian government forces could result in a direct confrontation between the US and Russia – something Obama has been trying to avoid.
Trying to avoid… yet he keeps provoking them anyway. This is absolutely ridiculous. The only possible explanation I can think of, is that he isn’t really trying to avoid it at all, but he doesn’t want America to make the first strike. Instead, he’s hoping to provoke Russia into attacking first, thus making them look like the aggressors in any conflict that results. Purely a public relations thing, because he knows damn well that the American people (and indeed, the world at large), won’t support a war of aggression against Russia, but retaliation against a Russian attack would be a different story.
The White House declined to comment on the speculation surrounding any possible decisions, but confirmed the NSC meeting will take place on Friday, Reuters reported.
US authorities have already raised the bombing of Syrian government forces as an option, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest telling reporters last week that although such action is unlikely to reduce violence, nothing can be taken off the table under the circumstances.
Might I suggest ‘Recognising the legitimacy of the Assad government, pulling your forces out of Syria, and cutting off all support to the terrorists’ as an alternative solution instead?
According to a recent report in the Washington Post, several top US officials have been considering striking positions of the Syrian military covertly and without a UN Security Council resolution.
Illegal under international law. Not that they haven’t been acting illegally already, but this is bad even for them.
The NSC meeting comes just ahead of the ministerial talks on Syria in Lausanne, Switzerland. On Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Russia, the US and a number of regional powers will have a meeting “in a narrow format” on October 15 to discuss possible steps for a Syrian settlement.
Commenting on the upcoming Lausanne talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed hope that they “will launch a serious dialogue on the basis of the principles contained in the Russian-American deal, which was broadly welcomed but which unfortunately was not launched.”
Again, Russia is trying to be reasonable here, just like when they agreed to that stupid US orchestrated ceasefire, that the terrorists broke about 24 hours later. They really are trying their best to avoid this war. I can guarantee that if it does break out anyway, that there will be a lot of anti-Russian propaganda in our media, holding them responsible for causing it. That’s why I think it’s important to get the facts straight now, before it happens, so we can see through the lies when we hear them.
The US State Department noted that Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry are likely to focus their discussion on the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo and “getting cessation of hostility in place,”which could enable conditions for political talks to resume.
Last week, Washington officially suspended bilateral cooperation with Moscow, ending a brief period of close cooperation aimed at sustaining the ceasefire in Syria, which had been agreed by the sides on September 9 after months of negotiations. The move followed mutual accusations of failing to fulfill the obligations agreed upon. The US claimed Russia didn’t deliver on a promise to ensure Damascus suspended its military campaign and provide humanitarian access to besieged areas of Syria, while Russia accused the US of failing to separate the moderate opposition under its control from the jihadists, particularly from Al-Nusra Front (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), as was agreed, and organize the withdrawal of militants from Castello Road to allow humanitarian aid supply to Aleppo.
In his interview to Russia’s Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper earlier this week, Syrian President Bashar Assad said there are no “moderates” fighting in Aleppo, as all armed groups there “work with Al-Nusra in the area that’s controlled by Al-Nusra.”
This should be obvious just from using common sense. If there really were moderate forces who are opposed to both Assad and the extremist groups, in the extremist controlled regions, then wouldn’t the extremists have killed them already? It wouldn’t make sense to keep any other armed forces around in areas under your control, unless those other armed forces were actually your allies.
Assad denied criticism that Russian and Syrian air forces are bombing the positions of moderate rebels, stressing that anyone who holds a weapon is a terrorist. Concerning the United States and its actions in Syria, the leader said Washington is using the battle against terrorists as an excuse to achieve its own objectives in the wider Middle East as well as those of its allies, while trying to keep the “hegemony of the Americans around the world.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. You would think it would be obvious by now.We saw the same tricks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya already. Are people really going to fall for it again, and believe that America has good intentions in Syria?
Well they’ve finally come out and said it outright. It was obvious to me many months ago that this was going to happen. In fact, it was a point that I specifically brought up back in February when I wrote my post about “Why I support Trump”. I made it quite clear that America’s relationship with Russia is deteriorating, and that it would only get worse to the point of potential war between the two, if Hillary Clinton was to come to power. Trump on the other hand has made it clear that he wants to improve America’s relationship with Russia and as far as I’m concerned, that’s probably the most vital issue of this election.
You see, I don’t care about the man’s personality flaws. I don’t care that he’s said things that are considered taboo to say in our insane, overly politically correct world. In the grand scheme of things, none of that stuff really matters. All they are, is just fucking words. Nobody is going to get killed by them. There’s no way anyone can try to claim the moral high ground by supporting the woman who may very well lead us into the most destructive war, with the greatest potential for lost human life in human history, over a man who says stuff that people take offence to. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking moron.
So anyway, an ally of Putin has come out and stated what was obvious to me months ago… that America needs a Trump victory, or else nuclear war could be inevitable.
Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
Just in case it isn’t clear, this is not a threat, even though it might look like it. Rather, it is a plead to the American people to see sense and make the right choice. If you’ve read any of my previous articles on this topic, you would know that America, not Russia, have been the aggressors in this situation, and that Hillary Clinton is one of the most aggressive of all. A Hillary victory is 100% guaranteed to result in her going after Russia even more, and this is what this Russian guy is hoping to prevent. He wants someone that Russia can actually cooperate with, not an unstable lunatic like Hillary, who seems to have a vendetta against them.
Even as far back as mid 2013, she was already threatening them. Make sure to read the video comments as well to get a better insight.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
By contrast, Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia’s parliamentary election last month.
See what I mean? The Russians don’t want things to get worse. They actually do want to find a peaceful solution. It’s just that they recognise the fact that the current American establishment (of which, Hillary is a major player in), can’t be reasoned with at all.
It’s not as if they haven’t tried reasoning with America. They just wouldn’t listen.
Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.
“Relations between Russia and the United States can’t get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts,” said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia’s State Duma, or lower house of parliament.
“Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it’s war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere.”
Again, not a threat. Simply a statement of fact. If Russia and America were to go to war it would cause major destruction worldwide, because of the firepower that both countries possess. The fact that people like Hillary and her backers aren’t concerned, leads me to believe that they must have somewhere safe to go and hide when all hell breaks loose.
The ordinary citizens on the other hand…
Zhirinovsky’s comments coincide with deep disagreements between Washington and Moscow over Syria and Ukraine and after the White House last week accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations.
Without any evidence to back up these accusations.
Even as WikiLeaks released another trove of internal documents from Clinton’s campaign on Wednesday, Putin insisted his country was not involved in an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election.
He wouldn’t even need to. From what I understand, the “hacked” documents came from John Podesta’s Gmail account. As far as I know, Google’s servers weren’t hacked, it was only his account, which means that whoever “hacked” him had to get his password specifically. He probably just responded to a phishing email, or he may have just used a very weak password that could have been guessed easily, or was perhaps used on multiple sites. You wouldn’t need Russia to do something as simple as that.
Zhirinovsky likes to shock liberal public opinion and he has frequently heaped scorn on the West, which he and other Russian nationalists regard as decadent, hypocritical and corrupted by political correctness.
I wonder how he got that impression of the West.
His combative style, reminiscent of Trump’s, ensures him plenty of television air time and millions of votes in Russian elections, often from the kind of blue-collar workers who are the bedrock of the U.S. Republican candidate’s support.
Zhirinovsky once proposed blocking off mostly Muslim southern Russia with a barbed wire fence, echoing Trump’s call for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Must be another hate-filled Islamophobe, who hates Muslims for no reason, just like Trump. If only these hate filled bigots would learn that Islam is a religion of peace. They media even tells us so every single time a terrorist attack is committed by someone claiming to represent Islam, and it must be true, because our media would never dream of lying to us.
Zhirinovsky, who said he met Trump in New York in 2002, revels in his similarities with the American businessman — they are the same age, favor coarse, sometimes misogynistic language and boast about putting their own country first. Zhirinovsky has even said he wants a DNA test to see if he is related to Trump.
But unlike Trump, a billionaire real estate developer who casts himself as the anti-establishment candidate in the U.S. presidential race with no past political experience, Zhirinovsky is a consummate political insider who has sat in the Duma for more than two decades.
Putin has also praised Trump as “very talented”, while the Republican candidate has said the Kremlin boss is a better leader than U.S. President Barack Obama. Clinton has accused Trump of being too cozy with Putin and questioned his business interests in Russia.
In other comments that have delighted Moscow, Trump has questioned the value of NATO for Washington, has spoken ambiguously about Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and suggested that the United States under his leadership would adopt a more isolationist foreign policy.
And sure, why shouldn’t they? Look at all the damage they’ve done to the world in the last few years by interfering in the affairs of others. They destroyed Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They would have destroyed Syria, if Russia hadn’t gotten involved when they did. All they’ve done is destabilised the world, and caused the loss of so many lives, that never should have been lost. That’s why I have to laugh as well at anyone who is outraged at what Russia is doing to Aleppo. No, it isn’t the ideal scenario, but at the same time, it wouldn’t even be happening, if America hadn’t trained, armed, and financed, a bunch of terrorists, to destabilise Syria in the first place.
“He (Trump) won’t care about Syria, Libya and Iraq and why an earth should America interfere in these countries? And Ukraine. Who needs Ukraine?,” said Zhirinovsky, who once counted himself a friend of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and whose deaths he still laments.
“Trump will have a brilliant chance to make relations more peaceful … He’s the only one who can do this,” he said, adding that Trump could even win a Nobel peace prize.
Hey, if Henry Kissinger could win one, then I don’t see why Trump couldn’t.
Clinton ‘craves’ power
In contrast, Zhirinovsky described Clinton as “an evil mother-in law” and said her record as secretary of state under Obama in 2009-2013 showed she was unfit to lead her country.
I agree. Actions speak louder than words, and Hillary has proven herself to be unfit for office, whereas Trump is a great unknown. If the choice is between a guaranteed disaster, or a wild card who could go either way, then the choice is obvious to me, I’ll take my chances on the wild card.
“She craves power. Her view is that Hillary is the most important person on the planet, that America is an exceptional country, as Barack Obama said,” said Zhirinovsky. “That’s dangerous. She could start a nuclear war.”
In typically chauvinistic remarks, Zhirinovsky said Clinton’s gender should also bar her from the presidency.
“Most Americans should choose Trump because men have been leading for millions of year. You can’t take the risk of having one of the richest, most powerful countries led by a woman president,” he said.
Whether you agree with this or not, it’s not the most important to take from all of this. Feel free to condemn the man for his comments about women in general if you wish, but don’t think for a second that just because you disagree with that point, that it suddenly makes Hillary any better than she was. She’s still the same, unstable, psychopath that she always was, regardless of whether you condone his comments about women or not.
Asked about lewd comments Trump made about women in 2005 that have harmed his campaign, Zhirinovsky defended the Republican: “Men all round the world sometimes say such things that are just for their comrades. We must only consider his business (and political) qualities.”
Again, something I agree with. Plenty of us say things in private, that we wouldn’t consider appropriate to say publicly. What really matters is the actions that we take. If we’re really going to go down that path of bringing private conversations into the mix, then there’s plenty that can be used against Hillary too. Again, if you want to condemn either one of them for things they’ve said, then do as you wish. You’re perfectly free to disagree with them if you want. However, none of it is relevant to the presidency, as far as I’m concerned. Only the actions that they’ll perform in their role as president matter, and the way I see it, Trump is the superior choice for the role.
Though Putin and Trump have never met, Zhirinovsky said he believed they could establish a close working relationship, adding: “Victory for Trump would be a gift to humanity. But if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever.”