Breaking.............US now bombing Syria

[slvrbugjim]

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/09/23/379663/pentagon-us-begin-airstrikes-in-syria/

[crimethink]

The official Evil Muslim whipping boy, Assad, was not sufficient to get the boobs whipped into hysteria to destroy another obstacle for pretend Eretz Israel.

The new official Evil Muslim whipping boys, ISIS - complete with fake "beheadings" - have proven sufficient.

[slvrbugjim]

Yes they will be bombing Assad soon if they have not already started, or US will say Assad has fought back no now he's a gonner

[crimethink]

Yes they will be bombing Assad soon if they have not already started, or US will say Assad has fought back no now he's a gonner

ISIS is a product of the CIA, and probably Mossad, too. It is a "menace" that can be turned on and off like a faucet. The real target is Bashar al-Assad and his anti-pretend Israel government.

[Ponce]

Bankers must have wars against anyone in order to survive, and more now than ever........blood is the fuel that makes the Federal Banks printing machine run, it does not matter if it is the blood of their boys or the blood of OUR boys. We need more fuel for the printing presses, the draft will soon make an appearance..........in the name of freedom...are you ready to loose one of your loves one for the bankers war?

V

[slvrbugjim]

The Petrol Dollar savior is here via a new war that could include Russia, great news

[General of Darkness]

Ummmmmm, how is this LEGAL?

[Ares]

Ummmmmm, how is this LEGAL?

Because Obama says it is. Who are you to question Obama?

/sarcasm

[Serpo]

I forgot, what war is this one again.............its hard to keep up

is this the bombing isis in Syria or the bombing Assad in Syria but pretending to bomb isis or is it the,,,,,,,,,,,never mind
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411442386478_wps_33_Syria.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411438798562_wps_16_The_U_S_and_partner_natio.jpg


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411439088731_wps_18_Iraq_and_Syria_Isis_contr.jpg




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2765982/Pentagon-US-partners-begin-airstrikes-Syria.html

[EE_]

Because Obama says it is. Who are you to question Obama?

/sarcasm

Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The language is unambiguous. Absent a declaration of war or a statutory authorization from Congress, the president can't introduce the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities save in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States." If the president lawfully begins hostilities abroad due to such an attack, then he has 60 days to engage in hostilities without congressional approval. A 30-day extension can be obtained, but only if "the President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." The War Powers Resolution is not a 90-day blank check for war! It's the same statute the Obama administration violated when it attacked Libya.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/the-congress-shall-have-power-to-declare-war/379189/

[palani]

how is this LEGAL?

How is abortion legal? How is alcohol legal? How is pot legal?

[Ares]

Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The language is unambiguous. Absent a declaration of war or a statutory authorization from Congress, the president can't introduce the U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities save in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States." If the president lawfully begins hostilities abroad due to such an attack, then he has 60 days to engage in hostilities without congressional approval. A 30-day extension can be obtained, but only if "the President determines and certifies to Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces." The War Powers Resolution is not a 90-day blank check for war! It's the same statute the Obama administration violated when it attacked Libya.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/the-congress-shall-have-power-to-declare-war/379189/

A spineless do nothing congress will not lift a finger to this imposter. Bush got away with it, Obama will too.

[BrewTech]

A spineless do nothing congress will not lift a finger to this imposter. Bush got away with it, Obama will too.

I don't think it is because they are spineless. I think it is because these actions serve Israel's interest (as they always have), and congress is stacked with Israeli agents. Why would they restrict action when promoting same action is exactly why they are there in the first place?

[EE_]

http://wtfrly.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/secdefhagel.jpg

"We are seeing a new world order being built in the early 21st Century. The United States of America has some responsibility to help lead that"

Chuck Hagel



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

[Ponce]

The only ones that can make a law "legal" is the US is Congress, anything else is the law of the gun..........I wonder how much money was spent yesterday to kill 8 civilians yesterday, five men and three kids.

V

[BrewTech]

Fear not... no money was spent, only debt to joo banksters incurred.

"Put it on my tab!"

[mick silver]

tomahawk missiles are what 5 million for one and how many did they fire off , was it 50 are so
The only ones that can make a law "legal" is the US is Congress, anything else is the law of the gun..........I wonder how much money was spent yesterday to kill 8 civilians yesterday, five men and three kids.

V

[crimethink]

A spineless do nothing congress will not lift a finger to this imposter. Bush got away with it, Obama will too.

Congress has been America's Reichstag for decades. It is purely for make-believe. A show. The "representatives" in Congress don't represent us. They represent who put them there, and continue to fund them. It is unfair to call them "spineless" since they are doing exactly what they're supposed to do: pretend.

[crimethink]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

September 11, 1991 - ten years prior to the public end of the Bill of Rights. The video repeats yours, but then has the clip from his 9/11/91 speech to Congress.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48V41HqIyRw



And a few years before that..."the suspension of the American Constitution"...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8tQAYYtLok

Jack Brooks was one of the last to actually have any courage in Congress. "National hero" Daniel Inouye ordered him to shut up on the "highly sensitive and classified area."

[FreeEnergy]

Nobel Prize Winner is now bombing what, 7th country? Is that a record? incidentally, 7th MUSLIM country?


What he's now, an official jew-moneychanger shabez boy?

[Horn]

Yes, avoiding entanglements at all costs.



Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting (http://online.wsj.com/articles/syria-opposition-says-it-was-informed-strikes-would-begin-1411459825?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12584803618636143833504580171350153606676.html) (subscription) that the U.S.-led effort involved coordination with the Free Syrian Army, which has also just become the recipient of some American weapons.


This is a joint coalition effort of which the Syrian opposition is a full-fledged member," said Oubai Shahbandar, a senior adviser to the coalition who was briefed of the U.S. strikes in advance. He was addressing concerns some elements of the opposition had that the U.S. would turn its back on the armed group and instead partner with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to defeat Islamic State militants."


Russia was quick to condemn the airstrikes. TheWashington Post noted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-condemns-us-airstrikes-against-islamic-state-in-syria/2014/09/23/de639dc6-42f4-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html?hpid=z1) that Russian President Vladimir Putin — the patron saint of territorial integrity — decried the airstrikes as a violation of Syria's sovereignty.


http://news.yahoo.com/russia-condemns-u-airstrikes-isis-al-qaeda-assad-113157006.html