Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:I seriously doubt that the Florida school shooting is like a false flag of sorts or diversionary. Where you getting your information? That's just complete stupidity. Stop doing crack. As for chemical weapons, "Deep State" don't need to organise anything, the cards are already stacked. Any chemical weapons attack, by any kind of militia, US will blame Assad and Russia.

As for Trump, even if he didn't want to, will be backed into a corner to take action or people all around, mass media, Democrats and Republicans in his own party will give him hell. Based upon previous actions, he'll strike out to make everyone happy.

The US aren't in Syria just for ISIS, and Trump unless he's completely dense, knows this. His recent statement that the US is there for ISIS and will then pull out is disingenuous.

Yes it was a false flag attack.The FBI knew about the shooter and threats he made and were warned about him and they did nothing to intervene or to stop him. Did not even question him about the threats he made.Also it was predicted that there would be false flag attacks to destract and then they happened and this Florida School shooting is a destraction. I see no reason to be pessimistic about Trump striking out,seeing how he has used the troops in Syria to block ISIS terrorists from escaping so that Russia could take them out,these are the forces that Trump controls,not the rogue CIA forces that were able to shoot down the Russian fighter.It is these rogue CIA forces the Deep State wants to remain in Syria that Trump will have to pull out soon.Because if it goes to the UN the US will have no leg to stand on to keep them in Syria,because Syria is a soveriegn country that these rogue forces cannot legally remain in.The US would not allow it,also.

I suppose anything us possible, but at the end of the day I don't believe the FBI would purposefully target it's own civilians, especially not kids. The PD there also had stuff they could have acted upon and didn't, as I understand. There is just no real correlation, so it remains in the realm of conspiracy theory.

Kurieuo wrote:I suppose anything us possible, but at the end of the day I don't believe the FBI would purposefully target it's own civilians, especially not kids. The PD there also had stuff they could have acted upon and didn't, as I understand. There is just no real correlation, so it remains in the realm of conspiracy theory.

The FBI just did not do anything to prevent it from happening like they could have and just waited to see if something would happen and it did.It is about is destraction and also taking our guns away and using children to do it,they are being paid.It seems like a conspiracy theory because you probably did not hear the warnings of false flag attacks coming,which I did,and when they came the predictions were confirmed true.I mean those of us in the know were watching and looking for false flag attacks to destract away from things that are happening and then they happened.

Remember the train crash with the Republican Congressman on it? It would have been alot worse of a crash had it not been for military drones that saw the truck on the train tracks and warned the train to slow down,so that it was not nearly as bad as it could have been.This was supposed to be a warning to Republicans to back off the investigations into Uranuim One,the Seth Rich murder,The DNC dossier paid for by Clinton and the DNC,investigations into vote fraud during the election,etc.However it was thwarted because of our military.

Then the school shooting also. And we should be on the look out for more false flag attacks because the Deep State is getting desperate and everything they try is falling apart. The MSM would rather try to propagandize society to give up our guns than report about the good things that are happening. Still Trump cut off funding to those rogue CIA forces in Syria and so I don't think they will be able to do another false flag attack in Syria to blame on Assad,but they will if they can.I just don't think they will be able to. They are losing more and more power as time goes on but are striking out in ways they still can.

I came across a video which summarises the vilification of Assad and certain recent words spoken that there was no evidence of chemical weapons attacks by Assad (Trump and Mattis), which I found surprising when said a few days ago.

The only thing that apparently exists towards such, are untrustworthy reports from rebel militants and white helmet "heroes" who always seem to be where the terrorists are fighting from -- the faces of whom are often found elsewhere with weapons, participating in killings and beheadings... I know many believe otherwise, Netflix even made available an awesome propaganda documentary on them, but really I think this picture says it all.
Trump was saying during the elections about not repeating the same mistake in Iraq, Libya and the like i.e., in Syria. Remember he even applauded Saddam on actually being good to killing off terrorists. He's been rather disappointing however since his election, quite opposite to many things he stated during his campaign. So then, it has been refreshing at least, to see some of the latest statements made that "actually" there is no real evidence of Assad using chemical weapons.

In any case, the reason why I posted, a video by Ben Swann. I've never heard of the guy before, but it provides a summary I think is worth sharing. Hopefully we are seeing a change in tune, but then such is probably too hopeful:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nruCoO478Kk

Here's the deal: You have a lot of really bad guys further stirring the pot in an ongoing civil war. Trump and co. are mindful that we need to do all we can to stay our of a civil war unless it begins to significantly bleed over into other surrounding nations. As our government, does not wish, under any circumstances, to immerse itself in additional quagmires, like Viet Nam and Iraq, this means that any actions would likely be done via air power or missiles launched from the gulf. NO one has the money or public support to put boots on the ground. So any degree of punishment will not be long in duration. The U.S. certainly doesn't want to go it alone on any extended actions. Yes, it is horrific that civilians have been targeted. But that has gone of for ages in other parts of the Middle East, though not necessarily due to chemicals or gas, but with conventional weaponry. As the resulting devastation is far worse with conventional weaponry, why are we suddenly all cranked up over chemicals or gas? Any one power that could control Syria would only be able to do so at horrific, long-term costs.

So why is Russian there? A comment in last June's "The Atlantic Daily" makes sense: "Russia is not in Syria to defeat ISIS,” Casagrande said, even though ISIS has attacked Russians and poses a serious threat to the country. Russia is in Syria to prop up its ally, the Assad government, and by extension to maintain its geopolitical influence in the Middle East and military presence on the Mediterranean Sea. Despite losing their stronghold of Aleppo in December, opposition fighters—not ISIS—are still the greatest threat to the Assad government and thus to the Russians."

It's all about influence and power, to Putin. Yes, it would be nice to bring peace to a neighborhood of warring tribalists and Islamists, but the only way to do so is to put boots on the ground. Yes, we can punish with air power, further sanctions on the Russians and Syria. But only boots on the ground or a negotiated peace will stop that war. And if Assad is overthrown, what fool believes that would end the civil war? Isn't it a case of the various factions thinking, "Now that my enemy has helped us eliminated our greater enemy, it's time to go back and finish our "friendemy" off!" So, only some enormous commitment of troops can stop that war, and then only staying there while fending off competing tribalists would keep a "peace." It would be Iraq all over again. There is no benevolent power willing to do this. Certainly Europe - the mess that it is - would never commit to such an operation and peace keeping. But let that war bleed significantly into Turkey (already playing to the fundamentalist Islamists, further west and north toward Europe proper, and then the game changes. The Russians could not win in a conventional warfare scenario - but what they do have are nukes. I don't think Putin is that crazy. Yet.

So, what could be done, and by what entities? And other than peaceful desires for the region, what is anyone's incentive to go into that nasty situation? I'm not seeing one.

Video of Syrian soldiers riding into battle, 2018 colorized

Seriously, these accusations would be comedic if it wasn't so sad and serious. Who comes up with these narratives to try stir up the hysteria? Is the US really looking to war with Russia? I have a feeling an incident will soon happen in Syria between US and Russia. These narratives being laid will be used as justification ie, "Russia left us no choice but to act."


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwiptL8meM

Hortator wrote:Video of Syrian soldiers riding into battle, 2018 colorized

Hortator,

I hope Nessa gave you permission to use her family video for your amusement.

Sheep don't put up with no bull!

Looks like a cow...
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:Looks like a cow...
.
.

It's transgender.

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Looks like a cow...
.
.

It's transgender.

How do you know?

I don't know what "transgender" looks like in that species. I kind of have a good idea of "transgender" when I see it in my own species.

Looks like a cow.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

RickD wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Looks like a cow...
.
.

It's transgender.

How do you know?

I don't know what "transgender" looks like in that species. I kind of have a good idea of "transgender" when I see it in my own species.

Looks like a cow.
.
.

The gif comes from a video about an experiment on a bull. They gave it a sex change. The bull's name is Caitlyn. Shortly after the video, Caitlyn became a SJW in Seattle. Iirc, they switched the bull to a strictly vegan/soy diet, then it became a cow. Let that be a lesson to all you vegan SDA.

RickD wrote:Let that be a lesson to all you vegan SDA.

I know more vegan non-SDAs than vegan SDAs.

Veganism is HOT in Los Angeles...and it's not the SDAs 'promoting' it. It actually tends to be, in my experience at least, a stereotype of the LGBTQ lifestyle and millennials in general. Go figure. My daughter loves vegan foods, though she isn't vegan. I've had some good vegan food. If you're ever in L.A. and want to try some good vegan food, go to Gracias Madre in West Hollywood. I don't like vegan food, but this was FEH-Nomehnull ! It's not even SDA owned!

As I mentioned in another post recently, veganism and vegetarianism USED TO BE a thing associated with nutty SDAs.

No more.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: ↑Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:29 am

RickD wrote:Let that be a lesson to all you vegan SDA.

I know more vegan non-SDAs than vegan SDAs.

Veganism is HOT in Los Angeles...and it's not the SDAs 'promoting' it. It actually tends to be, in my experience at least, a stereotype of the LGBTQ lifestyle and millennials in general. Go figure.

Oh, I figured you a long time ago Bav.