Here's the flaw in bonobo's current debacle in Damascus.
There is no "saving" bonobo or kerry here. Let's say a judiciary has found someone guilty of murder with ANY weapon. Is justice and appropriate punishment served if you give the guilty murderer the option of either A. Spending 20 years in prison or B. Turning over the murder weapon?
I think we should reward not punish our enemies for killing our worse enemies, but if you're going to act on humanitarian principles, bonobo and Kerry in this whole incompetent handling of Syria once again show us what bumbling id iots they and the tards are. Putin is continuing to beyotch slap bonobo and now kerry at will.
Your perspective is too logical. Don't you understand? This is not a "flaw"; it's a lifeline. Bonobo is now relieved of responsibility for having to make a decision. And the "punishment" would have been "unbelievably small" , anyway. That's what Lurch said.
So bonobo says if Syria hands over a token barrel of chemicals, the people who were killed will have received justice. And then if we're trying to set a deterrent example for Iran, when Iran learns that if it just hands over a nuclear warhead, its nuking of Israel will have been avenged. I think I've got it now.