Syrian Army Hacks Marines.com

Now I am convinced none of those are active duty

seems fine from here

http://www.marines.com/home

Syria are entitled to a few dirty tricks in the war of propaganda, if not just to neutralize the lies which are being used against them. However the main reason that the West can't attack is because the propaganda has tied itself in knots, that's why Obama is now employing fiction writers, if only Obama had splashed out on Stephen King he'd already have his own people in control of Syria by now.

it's useless

Check Google cache

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&hl=en&ct=clnk

Site marines.com does NOT work and tab title is Hacked by SEA

"Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you,

fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland.

You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it.

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA "

"I, XX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

why? it works fine now. so what if it was hacked for .00003 milliseconds.

i mean it's neat and all that you have the world figured out and everything all tied together and pointing back to the rothchilds 100+ years ago.

but overall, the frontpage being *hacked* for a bit is really of no consequence to anyone or anything and doesn't really further your agenda.

Nobody cares about that stuff when they are about to get shot at.

It got a debate going in your forum, so be grateful.

That's the thing. They signed their life away with the military.

the only debate in this thread is you debating me on the relevance of it.

This should be considered an act of war. Let's go.

i stand corrected.

Syria are looking for a chink in the armor, some of these Marines will be mentally vulnerable given that the Western propaganda has failed so badly. After many years of being trained that Al Qaeda is evil, now they're going to merge become one and go out for pint together

the chink in the armor plan was revealed with the bullshit chem attack. it's pretty clear some entity over there is wanting us to get involved. obama gave them a way to do that with the red line bullshit.


the tail is wagging the dog here.

I'm already picturing a Marine, a SEAL, and a Ranger sitting at the table with Abdul munching on pretzels and tipping back a cold one.

Sad thing is, he probably believes most of the shit he spouts.

Chechen terrorists (yeah, Boston if you forgot) have already announced their welcome to "brothers" from the US army in Syria that will them with the Holly Jihad against Assad and other "infidels". Let's the show begin!

P.S. The wise USA leaders always knew which side they have to play at: Saddam, Taliban, Bin Laden, Chechen terrorists, Al Qaeda in Syria

I didn't read the article, but I was watching it on BBC a few evenings ago that they've hacked the Huffington post, CNN and a bunch of other websites these past few weeks.

Them Syrian Army guys got mad skilz

so we shouldn't meet with people we disagree with? or you just automatically assume that by meeting with them, there's something underhand being schemed?

it's not only no win in syria for the usa it's no win period then right? we can't meet with them to discuss, obama was the 1st pusa in a long time to even suggest (promise?) that, but now, with your view and people like you, we can't even do that.

Disagree??? WTF was that???

i'm just going by the meme you attached and your comments.

usa has had a longstanding policy that we don't talk to or negotiate with terrorists. obama even hinted during his 1st pusa campaign that he was going to change that.

here's more.

bush jr said:

this is the reply:

even mentioned syria specifically.

uh... did you even read that quote by reagan?

the US very heavily supported saddam, the taliban, and others we now consider "terrorists" during the 70's and especially the 80's and early 90's(sans saddam, obviously, for the 90's).

when we were done, we threw 'em to the dogs and basically bailed on all of the promises we gave them to get them to do our bidding.

and thus... blow back.

Dude, if the taliban grow in strength and numbers you will be killed. Considering their history it will not be cinematic. The taliban are murdering everyone who is not taliban.

I am glad to send you to speak with them if I can have that new guitar you just picked up. Before you go.

uhh brainiac, yes i read the quote by reagan and i even know the context it was used in, which was not re: the taliban or even the middle east or that fucking picture.


you can base your views on international diplomacy a meme, i'll pass though.

you know what, i couldn't be bothered. honestly. if they come to kill me, i'll offer em a bowl and try to not ruin a song on the guitar for em. who gives a shit really. if they're that pissed off at me not much i can do about that because i have not done shit to them.

currently have that guitar apart and cleaning all the finger goo off it! ugh, used music gear is pretty disgusting, it's like there's an unwritten rule not to ever clean it.

I stand corrected, though I do know the CIA under Reagan pretty heavily supported what we call "terrorists" today.

Stop paying your admins $15/hr and the site won't get hacked! Haha

well, i didn't mean to wax over your blow back comment because it is right. nevertheless, it's extraordinary for me to hear that obama went straight to bombs, no un, no nothing- bombs are on their way. that's fucked up. a lot.

re: blow back, how much of the animosity towards america from the middle east is due to their watching american television being broadcast over there?

how much blow back is due to our buying oil creating millionaires of a few in an area dominated by a massive split between the haves and have nots already?

it seems to me quite a bit. i would not be surprised if so.

But that's an unfair statement.

Everything changes in ten years, twenty years, thirty years... The people and organizations we supported then are obviously not the same now, nor are we - including our politics, our goals, our government, as well as the people. Everything has changed.

Pigshit. I left message on TheKing's help line and he is going to track these guys down asap.

well, he does have that fancy new .50 cal ! pew pew

Anyone know where I can hire a Syrian hacker?

Why don't they just bomb the weapons depots to the north, south, east and west.

It is almost like everyone has totally forgotten the fact that you were lied to to get into Iraq. Ever play a game of Risk? Here is a clue to what the real agenda there is.

We have them surrounded!

Sometimes I wonder if this was our intention. However, the logic behind this is pretty fucked up - You don't attack, invade, and overthrow one country just to get another country. We don't need to go through Iraq to get through Iran; We can go through Turkey or the Gulf, or Kuwait - Or through the Saudis.

Sorry, the goal is to own everything over there. you cant go directly into Iran because it will then force the sleeping giants to do something. In another twenty years you will have it done.

This is obvious to me. It is economics. Oil is too important to the economy for it to be left to chance.

US aims to overthrow all independent govts in the Middle East

http://rt.com/op-edge/us-overthrow-middle-east-328/

"The US is not ?the cop of the world? and cannot ?attack any country,? but it follows its key agenda of removing all independent governments in the Middle East, Richard Becker from ANSWER Coalition told RT.

The real aim of the US "is to remove all the independent governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil rich region,? Becker said.

US President Barack Obama on Saturday formally requested Congressional authorization for military strikes on Syria in a bid to prevent more chemical attacks.

?Syria has not threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such a war would be a crime against peace,? Becker acknowledged.

RT: We are waiting to find out what Congress decides - but do you think Obama really would go it alone?

Richard Becker: Well he could go it alone. What we?ve seen is that there is an opposition around the world and in the US, and yesterday in the US there were demonstrations in dozens of cities opposing a new war against Syria. And that opposition is what forced Obama to pull back and say that he was going to Congress. It wasn?t a matter of change of sentiment or that he started to rethink things, except on the basis that there was such a great opposition and it presents great dangers. If they launch a war, it would not only be reckless, it would also be lawless and would have unforeseeable consequences as all wars do before they begin.

RT: No matter what Congress says shouldn't the President be more concerned about what the American people think?

RB: I think that they are going to try in the next week is to wage a campaign using the corporate media in the US which really functions as the fourth branch of government in times of crisis, particularly war crisis. They will try to convince the people in the US that there is justification, but there is no justification. First of all it defies logic that the Assad government would have used chemical weapons at exactly the moment they were winning and the UN inspectors were there. But secondly if that had happened the US do not have the authority, it is not the ?cop of the world?, to attack any country. And Syria has not threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such a war would be a crime against peace.

RT: With Secretary of State Kerry saying the US has proof - is Washington guilty of riding roughshod over the UN inspectors who are working to determine IF there was indeed a chemical attack?

RB: What the US is really convinced of is not the so much the accuracy of their information as of their objective. Their objective has been for a long time to remove, to overthrow the government in Syria. The day after the fall of Baghdad on April 10 2003, a State Department official John Bolton said that Syria, Iran and North Korea should learn the lesson of Iraq. What is it, if not a terrorist threat? But it also indicates to us what the real aim is, and that is to remove all the independent governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil rich region.

RT: Iraq's just voted against intervention at the Arab League - is this not ironic given the fact the country has supposedly been liberated by US forces?

RB: We can see the tragedy of Iraq. The horrible tragedy that everyday people are dying there: over a million people were killed, five million were made refugees, and over a quarter of the population was killed, wounded or made refugees by the US intervention and occupation. I can certainly understand why any government in Iraq that was loyal to the interest of the Iraqi people would want to vote ?no? in another such intervention."

sorry, iran is not the be all end game for usa in the middle east.

The middle east is the game. Iran is just a player in it.

It's going to approach a 9/11 conspiracy theory before long. The Syrian Red Crescent says that the Syrian government banned them from going in to help the victims. Government official said "they're big liars" in an interview when asked about it. How many people in positions to know things are we going to have to say are in on a lie? We're getting there, yes we are.

well sure, i do have a general understanding of the middle east and usa relations.

but i'm still not seeing this iran is surrounded to get iran plan. maybe i am not sure what you are saying.