Has donald trump shown to be a zionist bankster puppet and islamic terrorism enabler?

[BhForce]

I agree that an attack on Syria by the US is generally bad.

But you may want to consider some interesting facts:
-The US gave notice to Russia before the attack. I can't imagine a situation in which the Russians, having received notice, would not have informed Syria. So, in effect, the US informed Syria before the attack.
-Despite having lobbed 59 Tomahawk missiles, the US did not destroy the runway. i would think that if 59 missiles were dispatched randomly, at least 1 would have cratered the runway, but no. So I can't help but to think that the runway was deliberately protected.
-Russia has deployed a airdefense system which was well within range of the missiles. Yet the Russians did not activate their defense.
-The Tomahawk missiles were slated to be decommissioned anyway.
-Finally, the "attack" was so inconsequential that airplanes are already taking off from the runway, a day after the attack.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion that the "attack" was no attack at all, but rather an orchestrated drama to fool the warmongers crying for the destruction of Syria. If Trump had done nothing, the din of warmongering would have become deafening. Now, they have been silenced. I think Trump has outsmarted the warmongers.

[dallysingh101]

48 minutes ago, BhForce said:

It's hard to come to any other conclusion that the "attack" was no attack at all, but rather an orchestrated drama to fool the warmongers crying for the destruction of Syria. If Trump had done nothing, the din of warmongering would have become deafening. Now, they have been silenced. I think Trump has outsmarted the warmongers.

I know what you are saying. In this day and age we can't put anything beyond these people. What, with unlimited resources and contacts throughout the media - they could manufacture any 'situation' and project it to the masses.

For all we know Putin, Assad and Trump might will be in cahoots in all this. 

Trump wins by looking strong and getting rid of a bunch of old missiles that will need to be replaced. This also distracts from any domestic problems he may be having. I remember how Clinton decided to attack Bosnia at exactly the same time all the Monica Lewinsky crap came out. Trump also looks less like a Russian bum-chum now. 

Assad looks more acceptable to other independent minded Arabs for becoming an American pariah. He looks less like a western puppet now. 

If Russia and Trump are colluding, and one in the other's pocket - this totally deflects that.

It's like in the old days certain rappers would manufacture 'beefs' with other rappers and create 'diss records' which would fly off the selves and make both sides richer. 

[jkvlondon]

3 hours ago, BhForce said:

I agree that an attack on Syria by the US is generally bad.

But you may want to consider some interesting facts:
-The US gave notice to Russia before the attack. I can't imagine a situation in which the Russians, having received notice, would not have informed Syria. So, in effect, the US informed Syria before the attack.
-Despite having lobbed 59 Tomahawk missiles, the US did not destroy the runway. i would think that if 59 missiles were dispatched randomly, at least 1 would have cratered the runway, but no. So I can't help but to think that the runway was deliberately protected.
-Russia has deployed a airdefense system which was well within range of the missiles. Yet the Russians did not activate their defense.
-The Tomahawk missiles were slated to be decommissioned anyway.
-Finally, the "attack" was so inconsequential that airplanes are already taking off from the runway, a day after the attack.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion that the "attack" was no attack at all, but rather an orchestrated drama to fool the warmongers crying for the destruction of Syria. If Trump had done nothing, the din of warmongering would have become deafening. Now, they have been silenced. I think Trump has outsmarted the warmongers.

if they had the heads up why did russian warships move forward to engage with the US navy positions?

[genie]

4 hours ago, BhForce said:

I agree that an attack on Syria by the US is generally bad.

But you may want to consider some interesting facts:
-The US gave notice to Russia before the attack. I can't imagine a situation in which the Russians, having received notice, would not have informed Syria. So, in effect, the US informed Syria before the attack.
-Despite having lobbed 59 Tomahawk missiles, the US did not destroy the runway. i would think that if 59 missiles were dispatched randomly, at least 1 would have cratered the runway, but no. So I can't help but to think that the runway was deliberately protected.
-Russia has deployed a airdefense system which was well within range of the missiles. Yet the Russians did not activate their defense.
-The Tomahawk missiles were slated to be decommissioned anyway.
-Finally, the "attack" was so inconsequential that airplanes are already taking off from the runway, a day after the attack.

It's hard to come to any other conclusion that the "attack" was no attack at all, but rather an orchestrated drama to fool the warmongers crying for the destruction of Syria. If Trump had done nothing, the din of warmongering would have become deafening. Now, they have been silenced. I think Trump has outsmarted the warmongers.

Trump is not smart he is a clown a dufus a TV personality showman the people he has around him and "working for him" are the ones with the actual brains.

You are right about the points you raised generally about trying to deflect attention with links to putin's russia and just to show he is tough and taking action against syria even though its one of russia's main allies.

Alot of commentators and geo political analyzers on social media have also pointed out that the tomahawk missles were outdated ones so he was getting rid of redundant stock. The syria Mig fighter planes that were attacked were basically old soviet era planes mostly used for training and no real bombing missions. Russians were warned in advance to ensure their troops didnt come in direct line of fire... and the russians informed the syrians.

The Russians have deployed advanced missile systems (s-300 and s-400) that can take out advanced western planes and big missiles but they cant take out a barrage of relatively cheap and numerous missiles like the tomahawks as it wouldn't be cost effective to deploying expensive interceptor 59+ missiles against 59 tomohawks raining down. But Russians will be supplying and selling syria with more advanced systems to intercept these kinda missles now I am sure. There is alot of money to be made from the weapons trade during any conflict. Arm dealers in russia, middle east and USA are getting very rich at the back of the middle east conflict

But this was not an orchestrated attack by opposing sides (russian and americans) covertly agreeing where and when to do it. This military strike was mostly a symbolic gesture, a strike on a false pretext and false premise just like in 2013 obama tried to take the same action over false chemical attack which was actually done by the jihadi salafi rebels from turkey, also dailymail had reported obama was reported to have said there needs to be a false flag operation created in syria to blame it on asad so that america can get involved in the war that article is still available on google archives somewhere and on info-wars. The problem is now that trump has taken this action over his emotions over some death pics while he was playing golf or taking a dump in his gold plated toilet, then it shows neo-con zionist handler puppet masters that control him are willing to make him strike other targets that may have unintended consequences and trigger a big war such as attacking russian bases or troops in ukraine or syria or iran.

I suspect this aggressive military strike was to send a message not only to Russia but also to China, north korea, iran and other players that America will carry out non-defensive acts of aggression when and where they chose meaning other world powers may follow suit and use the same justifications if they want to show they wont be bullied by a competitor global power in the race to grab resources and energy market.

[jkvlondon]

interesting how much of the foreign policy portfolio has fallen to his SIL Jared ...and he is the young jew on the block

[Guest Jacfsing2]

1 minute ago, jkvlondon said:

interesting how much of the foreign policy portfolio has fallen to his SIL Jared ...and he is the young jew on the block

He's got power for being Trump's Rishtadhar, not because he was Jew.

[jkvlondon]

Just now, Jacfsing2 said:

He's got power for being Trump's Rishtadhar, not because he was Jew.

didn't mean it that way , he was positioned rather conveniently don't you think ...jews do not marrying their sons out as Jewishness follows the maternal line ... 

[genie]

8 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

al asad too is not innocent.He has oppressed secular opposition for the last 40 years with brutality.He has done the same with peaceful protester since 2011 essentially pushing Syrians sunnis towards radical ISIL.An average syrian who has lost his family or loved ones by asad forces and now that person want revenge he is more likely to turn towards isil coz they have got weapons and all that stuff. Bashar al Assad has brought this on himself.His days are numbered.

Your partly right but there is no good alternative to al asad and to other dictators in middle east because sadly your muslim countries has too much islamic mullah control and influence and not enough secularist pluralist nationalist people running the show. They will never become true modern civilized secular democracies because:

1) House of saud is allied and controlled and funded by western jewish zionists banksters and thus house of saud brainwashes muslims with their salafist wahaabi ideology and creating extremists and jihadis to do the west's bidding like a chess game.

2) The islamic religion is a dictatorial brainwashing religion that needs a strong man to control the masses because islam means submission and people at the top (ie the mullahs and rulling families) will always use islam to beat up the population and make them follow what their own personal agenda is

3) Any secular democratic movement or freedom fighters that have a secular democratic vision for an arab country will always get beaten up, killed and overtaken by the more extreme and suicidal salafi extremist groups as libya and syria has shown. Also the opposition will be tainted as they will be controlled by outside powers mostly funded by the west who have their own strategic interests in keeping middle east in their pockets.

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, genie said:

Your partly right but there is no good alternative to al asad and to other dictators in middle east because sadly your muslim countries has too much islamic mullah control and influence and not enough secularist pluralist nationalist people running the show. They will never become true modern civilized secular democracies because:

1) House of saud is allied and controlled and funded by western jewish zionists banksters and thus house of saud brainwashes muslims with their salafist wahaabi ideology and creating extremists and jihadis to do the west's bidding like a chess game.

2) The islamic religion is a dictatorial brainwashing religion that needs a strong man to control the masses because islam means submission and people at the top (ie the mullahs and rulling families) will always use islam to beat up the population and make them follow what their own personal agenda is

3) Any secular democratic movement or freedom fighters that have a secular democratic vision for an arab country will always get beaten up, killed and overtaken by the more extreme and suicidal salafi extremist groups as libya and syria has shown. Also the opposition will be tainted as they will be controlled by outside powers mostly funded by the west who have their own strategic interests in keeping middle east in their pockets.

Strong Man leaders are unfortunately needed in places where the population is volatile and prone to unruly behaviour, to put it mildly. They are a necessary evil. They are figureheads that dissuade the extreme elements of society from fomenting unrest and religious / sectarian based chaos, as well this particular brand of leader instigating the usual anti-democratic stifling of genuine political opposition in the same country. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi were two prime examples of such men. They both understood the nature of their people, and they ran their countries in a way that allowed them to cling to power for decades, but with a semblance of order and security for those who didn't upset the boat. Of course, there's the issue of Western involvement, eventual betrayals, instigating rebellion to cause destabilisation leading to the overthrow of such leaders, etc.

I can see the purpose and logic in having such leaders rule a besharam junglee people who fear and respect nothing but brute force. Although in the case of Syria i always assumed they weren't as "pendu" as some other populations in that part of the world.

[genie]

42 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Strong Man leaders are unfortunately needed in places where the population is volatile and prone to unruly behaviour, to put it mildly. They are a necessary evil. They are figureheads that dissuade the extreme elements of society from fomenting unrest and religious / sectarian based chaos, as well this particular brand of leader instigating the usual anti-democratic stifling of genuine political opposition in the same country. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi were two prime examples of such men. They both understood the nature of their people, and they ran their countries in a way that allowed them to cling to power for decades, but with a semblance of order and security for those who didn't upset the boat. Of course, there's the issue of Western involvement, eventual betrayals, instigating rebellion to cause destabilisation leading to the overthrow of such leaders, etc.

I can see the purpose and logic in having such leaders rule a besharam junglee people who fear and respect nothing but brute force. Although in the case of Syria i always assumed they weren't as "pendu" as some other populations in that part of the world.

I suspect that the western oligarchs that run the show in western military industrial complex knew that taking out these secular arab brutal dictatorial strong men would result in the chaos that has now developed in the middle east leading to creation of former baath party loyalists into salafi jihadi terrorist outfit ISIS, mass exudos of arab muslim men to the west and all the trouble that brings with intervention.

These oligarch's have experience of what happens when you remove a strong man like saddam from iraq or mubarak from egypt or Gadaffi from libya. The vacuum created is not filled by peaceful progressive moderate puralist arab nationalists or even violent arab revolutionaries seeking removal of tyrannical rule of the dictators rather it is replaced by another brutal strong man from the military or the religious tyrannical dictatorship of the salafi mullahs who are funded by the house of saud in saudi and who in turn are funded and whose power is maintained by the zionist oligarch western ruling class.

The arabs and muslims worldwide are brainwashed and indoctrinated to be submissive to an conquesting 7th century ideology that puts the mullah dictators right near at the top of social structure and they in turn are controlled by the rich royal families or ruling families of the state. They can never be civilized to have a real democracy because that would be against the interest of the rulers. So generally muslim masses need to be kept dumb and brutally controlled by state violence and islamic indoctrination so that they obey and do not rebel against the interests of the guys at the top.

The only way they can change and live a life like the average relatively free thinking western born person is by abandoning Islam but that would be against the interests of the western and their puppet arab ruling class families and thus it wont be allowed. Saudi arabia labelled atheism a crime in their country lol they wont even allow anyone to leave islam for another religion they have their population well and truly by the gonads.