|
U.S. Launches Missiles at Syrian Base After Chemical Weapons Attack
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 6 2017, 09:20 PM (2,640 Views)
|
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons. You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:13 AM
Post #42
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,359
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Siberian
- Apr 7 2017, 05:28 AM
I would also propose a poll. What do you think, after US made quite a powerful strike, destroying a government airfield for alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad - will it stop or intensify use of chemical weapons "by Assad"? if yes - why? I personally expect new such incidents to happen much more frequently, since if jihadists successfully managed to put the US on their side having used chems and putting the blane on Assad - they will want to repeat this excercise  anyway it's definitely not the last one. Anyone wishing to bet?  Assad did not use Chemical Weapons here. Just like in 2013, when Assad was initially blamed, the "moderate rebels" did it.
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:14 AM
Post #43
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,359
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons.
You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it. "Congressman: 'I don't think' Assad is behind Syria attack"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/thomas-massie-syria-attack-not-assad/
https://youtu.be/RWruNY7OaLA
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Drudge X
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:21 AM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,706
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
He probably used it but the WMD was given to him. Take your pick.
1. US 2. Russia 3. from Iraq
|
|
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:23 AM
Post #45
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Personally I thought it was kind of silly to attack the air base if you do not attack the chemical weapons storage areas. Sure, we destroyed a few aircraft and messed up a few parts of the base but the missiles they used are really not the correct thing to use to put an airbase out of commission. We have bombs made just for that but they have to be dropped from aircraft.
If what we are offended by is the chemical weapons then it seems that maybe we should try to find and destroy those.
If we do not follow up this attack with something else then frankly, I think this is nothing but saving face. Essentially Trump called Putin, told him that he had to do SOMETHING to respond to the use of chemical weapons. They talked about it and agreed to destroy the airbase that launched the attack. It is a symbolic response that does not actually do anything but allows Trump to say that he did do something. Then the Russians and Syrians can complain about it but since the loss of life was so low and the Russians were warned ahead of time they won't bitch about it too much.
Then we wait a week and the news cycle with change.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:25 AM
Post #46
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? It was not supposed in the international relations, the cause and results are entirely domestic. Now after Trump has silences bs about being a Putin's buddy he can push for domestic agenda he is viewing a priority over international one. He will lose again since his domestic agenda is a utopia, while international agenda will backfire, since Putin will not swallow it and will answer in the place and time most inappropriate to the US and Trump (at least I hope), but anyway he takes great pains to keep being unpredictable, which is an essential component of his successes. I don't share Putin's illusions that the US can be negotiable, it's too early, there must be a chain of much greater defeats to make the US understand that 90s are gone. So, the logic of events dictates nessesity of more lessons to the US, and Russia has absolutely the same arsenal as the US, since it not less can destroy the US both militarilly and economically as the US can do to Russia. Just American elite still can't get it, that it cannot do whatever it wishes.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Drudge X
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:28 AM
Post #47
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,706
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
HAHAHAHA... The Russians call the bombing an aggression.
Someone please hand Putin a mirror.
|
|
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:30 AM
Post #48
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,359
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag
"...the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack."
"...the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:30 AM
Post #49
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons.
You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it. You believe what you want to believe  I wonder did you believe in Iraqi weapons of mass distruction? The US military, CIA and the president insisted so much it exists... The West fails to understand that the West has lost monopoly on everything - on information, mikitary power, economic power, everything. What it believes does not matter, it has to convince others too.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:35 AM
Post #50
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- Apr 7 2017, 10:28 AM
HAHAHAHA... The Russians call the bombing an aggression.
Someone please hand Putin a mirror. So I suppose now we can bomb Ukraine if we believe in something we would choose to invent? After all, they burn people alive and promise death to Russia, I believe it was Ukraine behind that blast in St.Petersburg metro... As well they reject to pay back $3 bln of debt to Russia, I think it's quite a legitimate reason to bomb them into paying...  As well talking of bombing - start with Mosul.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:42 AM
Post #51
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 7 2017, 10:23 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything?
Personally I thought it was kind of silly to attack the air base if you do not attack the chemical weapons storage areas. Sure, we destroyed a few aircraft and messed up a few parts of the base but the missiles they used are really not the correct thing to use to put an airbase out of commission. We have bombs made just for that but they have to be dropped from aircraft. If what we are offended by is the chemical weapons then it seems that maybe we should try to find and destroy those. If we do not follow up this attack with something else then frankly, I think this is nothing but saving face. Essentially Trump called Putin, told him that he had to do SOMETHING to respond to the use of chemical weapons. They talked about it and agreed to destroy the airbase that launched the attack. It is a symbolic response that does not actually do anything but allows Trump to say that he did do something. Then the Russians and Syrians can complain about it but since the loss of life was so low and the Russians were warned ahead of time they won't bitch about it too much. Then we wait a week and the news cycle with change. you are full of wisdom...  I would agree, I thought the same, but after some consideration I thought that consessions must be so great to make Putin agree that they are hardly achievable in context of recent Russiagate  Trump would owe Putin too much, since recent development is also a great challenge and serious damage of reputation of Putin. So, no, I don't think so. p.s. and yes, thank you for pointing out that if the US mikitary really believed there was some chemical weapons in that base - would it be a crime against humanity to unleash it against local area if chemical bombs explode? so, Trump knows it's a lie, everybody knows...
Edited by Siberian, Apr 7 2017, 10:46 AM.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:44 AM
Post #52
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:14 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons.
You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it. "Congressman: 'I don't think' Assad is behind Syria attack"http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/thomas-massie-syria-attack-not-assad/https://youtu.be/RWruNY7OaLA So that makes you and one other.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 7 2017, 10:51 AM
Post #53
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Siberian
- Apr 7 2017, 10:42 AM
- Demagogue
- Apr 7 2017, 10:23 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything?
Personally I thought it was kind of silly to attack the air base if you do not attack the chemical weapons storage areas. Sure, we destroyed a few aircraft and messed up a few parts of the base but the missiles they used are really not the correct thing to use to put an airbase out of commission. We have bombs made just for that but they have to be dropped from aircraft. If what we are offended by is the chemical weapons then it seems that maybe we should try to find and destroy those. If we do not follow up this attack with something else then frankly, I think this is nothing but saving face. Essentially Trump called Putin, told him that he had to do SOMETHING to respond to the use of chemical weapons. They talked about it and agreed to destroy the airbase that launched the attack. It is a symbolic response that does not actually do anything but allows Trump to say that he did do something. Then the Russians and Syrians can complain about it but since the loss of life was so low and the Russians were warned ahead of time they won't bitch about it too much. Then we wait a week and the news cycle with change.
you are full of wisdom...  I would agree, I thought the same, but after some consideration I thought that consessions must be so great to make Putin agree that they are hardly achievable in context of recent Russiagate  Trump would owe Putin too much, since recent development us also a great challenge and serious damage of reputation of Putin. So, no, I don't think so. First let me say that this is based on the assumption that it really was a Syrian chemical munition that was dropped from an aircraft. In that scenario then:
You could be correct but only if Putin knew ahead of time about the planned use of the chemical munition. If the Russian forces in the region were not aware of the planned use of a chemical weapon then I think that Putin could just say a bunch of negative things and wait for it to blow over. Possibly respond to the attack by providing resources to rebuild the airbase for the Syrians. Something like that. My argument assumes that the Russian forces in the region were as surprised as everyone else when the Syrians used chemical weapons.
Now, if the Russian line that the chemical weapons release was accidental and due to hitting a rebel chemical weapons stockpile that Syria was unaware of then that changes the whole thing. If the Russians are 100% certain what type of bomb was dropped and they are 100% certain that it was NOT a chemical weapon then I expect them to be pissed over this and we will see where it goes.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Opinionated
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:05 AM
Post #54
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,395
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #10
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:44 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:14 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons.
You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it. "Congressman: 'I don't think' Assad is behind Syria attack"http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/thomas-massie-syria-attack-not-assad/https://youtu.be/RWruNY7OaLA
So that makes you and one other. Let's assume for a second that Robertr2000 is correct and that the chemical weapons were from a rebel storage depot Assad's Syrian unintentionally breached.
This means that Trump has attacked Assad's Syrians before knowing, for certain, what the hell happened. Is that really what you'd prefer we believe?
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:09 AM
Post #55
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
The part of this whole thing that I have a problem with is the why. Syria has the ability to use conventional bombs to kill as many of the rebels as they want. So, if killing these people is not difficult why go with sarin. The only logical reason is because the people were hiding near some infrastructure that you wanted to save. If the were not hiding near something valuable like a power plant or bridge then there was no point in using a chemical weapon.
So, why use a chemical weapon otherwise. Let me put on my tin foil cap and spin out a scenario.
Trump is tired of dealing with all this nonsense about his or his people's connection to Russia. It is getting in the way of his agenda. So he needs something to distract the people from it. The Donald picks up the phone and calls his buddy Putin and they toss ideas back and forth. Putin suggests using Syria and having them hit the rebels with nerve gas. It is something that will immediately become the top headline for every newspaper in the world.. The US will need to respond and when they do, then that response becomes the top news story. Lastly, Russia and Syria can argue that the chemical weapons belonged to the rebels and that the release was accidental. This appears to put Russia and Trump in opposition to each other which effectively negates the whole "Russia Helped elect Trump" nonsense.
Everybody wins. Trump get's his the heat on him reduced, Syria gets a bunch of dead rebels, Russia get's to act like they are the adult in the room and admonish everyone for their actions. All of this happens and all it takes is the lives of a couple dozen rebels. Seems like something that these folks would come up with.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:17 AM
Post #56
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
Saying I thought the same I was referring to possible Trum-Putin deal, that we hit airbase, you cry - and later, I Trump, will compensate the damage to you, buddy, after I smash my opponents. No it is not realistic, as I said. And no way I was referring to alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, if you remember the first time it was used - it was 1 day prior of visit some Chemical weapons commission or something, anyway Western chemical weapons experts to Syria. And sudenly Assad uses it against civilians, what a bastard, now we can fully blame him  Then chemical weapons was used by ISIS against Kurds - I gave the link, the US acknowledged. Then US-sponsored jihadists + Al-Qaida alliance used chemical weapons in Alleppo against Assad forces. generally - not all chemical weapons deposits were under control of Assad when he gave it up, jihadists have it too, it's a confirmed fact recognized by the US. Now - NO investigation was made, no examples were taken, absolutely nothing except a claim of so called White helmets, created by British mersenary on American money and employing swarms of Al-Qaida members. Recently Trump destroyed remains of international law, now we live in jungle and don't expect that appeals to it will work in Ukraine etc. Just like in Russian hackers case, as you read, all Western allegations are nothing but a tool to achieve certain goals and has nothing to do with reality, when nesessary - someone is hired or created to provide all nesesary "eyewitness evidence" or quotes or beliefs as in hackers case - to justify whatever the US establishment wishes. It may convince US public and US euro-slaves ( plus other slaves like Japan, Australua, Canada etc) but nobody else.
Edited by Siberian, Apr 7 2017, 11:21 AM.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
Siberian
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:38 AM
Post #57
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #136
- Joined:
- Mar 26, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 7 2017, 11:09 AM
The part of this whole thing that I have a problem with is the why. Syria has the ability to use conventional bombs to kill as many of the rebels as they want. So, if killing these people is not difficult why go with sarin. The only logical reason is because the people were hiding near some infrastructure that you wanted to save. If the were not hiding near something valuable like a power plant or bridge then there was no point in using a chemical weapon.
So, why use a chemical weapon otherwise. Let me put on my tin foil cap and spin out a scenario.
Trump is tired of dealing with all this nonsense about his or his people's connection to Russia. It is getting in the way of his agenda. So he needs something to distract the people from it. The Donald picks up the phone and calls his buddy Putin and they toss ideas back and forth. Putin suggests using Syria and having them hit the rebels with nerve gas. It is something that will immediately become the top headline for every newspaper in the world.. The US will need to respond and when they do, then that response becomes the top news story. Lastly, Russia and Syria can argue that the chemical weapons belonged to the rebels and that the release was accidental. This appears to put Russia and Trump in opposition to each other which effectively negates the whole "Russia Helped elect Trump" nonsense.
Everybody wins. Trump get's his the heat on him reduced, Syria gets a bunch of dead rebels, Russia get's to act like they are the adult in the room and admonish everyone for their actions. All of this happens and all it takes is the lives of a couple dozen rebels. Seems like something that these folks would come up with. lol, even in my most brave conspiracy theory I would not go as far as staging a chemical attack  What I thought about was a deal that Trump must respond and it's also a good opportunity to stop that Russiagate bs, and if Trump cared for Putin's response he might somehow try to soften it promising some consessions in future. As I said, I don't believe it since -and you seem not to understand its value - it destroyes the great part of Putin's power - a UN security councel veto. There is no consession Trump can propose to Putin in exchange of it, simply nothing, except mayby the whole Ukraine becoming a part of Russia. But even smaller consessions are unachievable sinse they will put Trump again into pre-strike Russiagate, but with grave consequences which are to inevitably follow after the strike. Your conspiracy theory looks nice but I am afraid is not true
Edited by Siberian, Apr 7 2017, 11:40 AM.
|
|
Goood morning GULAG!!!
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:39 AM
Post #58
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:11 AM
- Robertr2000
- Apr 7 2017, 10:10 AM
- Opinionated
- Apr 7 2017, 10:01 AM
I'm not sure what to think about this, to be honest. If it convinces Assad to not use chemical weapons, then okay. It was probably worth the $14 million the Tomahawks cost the U.S. tax payer. But I'm doubtful that Assad has learned a lesson here, I think he'll pull out the chemical weapons card again, when it suits him.
And now our policy in Syria is shot to hell. We were working with the Russians/Assad's Syrians against ISIL. I doubt that things will continue to be so buddy-buddy. Even though we warned the Russians it was coming so they could get to safety, Putin is not likely to take kindly to our having rapped the knuckles of his client state, which is effectively what Syria is to Russia right now. So, this will have lost us any political/diplomatic gains we had made with Russia by trying to cooperate.
So where do we go from here? Trying to support "moderate" rebels who don't appear to have the slightest chance of winning and who, if they did manage to win, would probably turn out to have been secret religious extremists or would rapidly be replaced by either a military strongman or a religious extremist strongman, because seems to be pretty much what happens in the Middle East.
What have we gained from all this? Anything? Assad didn't use Chemical Weapons.
You keep saying that but no one other than you appears to believe it. Many people are saying it doofus.
I posted a thread by Scott Adams yesterday about this very subject which you replied to.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:40 AM
Post #59
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,738
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Demagogue
- Apr 7 2017, 11:09 AM
The part of this whole thing that I have a problem with is the why. Syria has the ability to use conventional bombs to kill as many of the rebels as they want. So, if killing these people is not difficult why go with sarin. The only logical reason is because the people were hiding near some infrastructure that you wanted to save. If the were not hiding near something valuable like a power plant or bridge then there was no point in using a chemical weapon.
So, why use a chemical weapon otherwise. Let me put on my tin foil cap and spin out a scenario.
Trump is tired of dealing with all this nonsense about his or his people's connection to Russia. It is getting in the way of his agenda. So he needs something to distract the people from it. The Donald picks up the phone and calls his buddy Putin and they toss ideas back and forth. Putin suggests using Syria and having them hit the rebels with nerve gas. It is something that will immediately become the top headline for every newspaper in the world.. The US will need to respond and when they do, then that response becomes the top news story. Lastly, Russia and Syria can argue that the chemical weapons belonged to the rebels and that the release was accidental. This appears to put Russia and Trump in opposition to each other which effectively negates the whole "Russia Helped elect Trump" nonsense.
Everybody wins. Trump get's his the heat on him reduced, Syria gets a bunch of dead rebels, Russia get's to act like they are the adult in the room and admonish everyone for their actions. All of this happens and all it takes is the lives of a couple dozen rebels. Seems like something that these folks would come up with. The FSA probably launched the missiles because they depend on US support.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Apr 7 2017, 11:41 AM
Post #60
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,678
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Apr 7 2017, 11:40 AM
- Demagogue
- Apr 7 2017, 11:09 AM
The part of this whole thing that I have a problem with is the why. Syria has the ability to use conventional bombs to kill as many of the rebels as they want. So, if killing these people is not difficult why go with sarin. The only logical reason is because the people were hiding near some infrastructure that you wanted to save. If the were not hiding near something valuable like a power plant or bridge then there was no point in using a chemical weapon.
So, why use a chemical weapon otherwise. Let me put on my tin foil cap and spin out a scenario.
Trump is tired of dealing with all this nonsense about his or his people's connection to Russia. It is getting in the way of his agenda. So he needs something to distract the people from it. The Donald picks up the phone and calls his buddy Putin and they toss ideas back and forth. Putin suggests using Syria and having them hit the rebels with nerve gas. It is something that will immediately become the top headline for every newspaper in the world.. The US will need to respond and when they do, then that response becomes the top news story. Lastly, Russia and Syria can argue that the chemical weapons belonged to the rebels and that the release was accidental. This appears to put Russia and Trump in opposition to each other which effectively negates the whole "Russia Helped elect Trump" nonsense.
Everybody wins. Trump get's his the heat on him reduced, Syria gets a bunch of dead rebels, Russia get's to act like they are the adult in the room and admonish everyone for their actions. All of this happens and all it takes is the lives of a couple dozen rebels. Seems like something that these folks would come up with.
The FSA probably launched the missiles because they depend on US support. Never took you for the conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|