More Believable: The Scott Ostrosky Thread Or The Evidence For Attacking Syria

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by TelegramSam, Aug 31, 2013.

?

Which is more believable?

Poll closed Oct 3, 2013.
  1. Syria Used Chemical Weapons

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  2. Winst Has The Scoop, We're Too Dumb To See it

    2 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. Scott Ostrosky Was Behind The Attacks

    4 vote(s)
    57.1%
  1. TelegramSam

    TelegramSam I love Sam's cock Banned User

    Reputations:
    619
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,653
    Likes Received:
    54
    This is a SERIOUS poll. :salute:
     
  2. BeerCanThick

    BeerCanThick Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    5,777
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    The Scott thing. The Syrian government had the rebel issue firmly in hand and was winning so there was no reason for them to use sarin.
    Furthermore, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel stood to gain from the U.S. entering the war so they'd have all the incentive in the world to sell
    some chemical weapons to rebels, probably the crazier Al Nusra front ones.

    The investigation into whether gas was even used or not is still ongoing and the "best evidence" seems to be a fistful of government-supplied
    Youtube videos. NATO and the U.N. ain't buying it and the UK explicitly voted against going to war.

    The Scott thing COULD be possible.
     
  3. SillyOldMan

    SillyOldMan Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    19,160
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    4,198
    I like that you are allowed to kill people in war, but only if you agree to kill them in an agreeable away.
     
  4. BeerCanThick

    BeerCanThick Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    5,777
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,198
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    War is hell but that is no reason to be a cad about it.