US launches Tomahawks on Syrian airbases

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
who to believe? nobody. except yourself.

This would work out spectacularly if each of the roughly 7 billion "yourselves" were making and instituting individual policy by which to guide world events. We don't, so at some point we have to find an element we trust, stop riding the fence and hope that the element we've placed trust in actually affects positive results and/or change.

World peace simply is unrealistic because we truly don't want it for various reason. Much in the same way we don't truly want drug cartels to be wiped from the face of the earth. Think about that for a minute, if you completely eradicate drug cartels some third world farmers would have NO means of sustenance, DEA employees across the globe would be suddenly out of work, agencies whose job it is to 'schedule' illegal versus legal drugs would find themselves unemployed, medical therapists whose job it is to reform addicts would be out of work too....it's a snowball.

Regime change and the euphoric peace that people believe are attainable; well our arms don't reach that high until we ascend to a different plane of existence as a global population. So, for the foreseeable future, we are pigeon-holed into finding that element (Leader, President, Representatives) that we can trust, and hope for the overall best outcome.

There is only one question. Whether was T played, brainwashed, broken under pressure from all sides - (which is causing digestive problems to many of us)
or
he has finely found out that he has no problem to accept his dirty part on the world stage and Syria for what it is behind the tales for masses - a crude land-grab proxy war over oil-money. Which is even worse.
I'm keeping a hope there is a better, third option. He can always pretend that he believed the given intel and he will change his ways in the future while getting rid of the rotten IC individuals.
What is the value of a pipeline in lives and war costs anyway? How many millions/billions is too much? Do we need to cripple Russia so bad? Isn't it insane to think they will accept it? We are dancing to the edge of the precipice for what exactly? I'd like to know. Everyone needs to know the truth. Lies will lead us into mass graves.

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Without hard evidence,logic and reason still trump msm spin.
list the pros and cons and come to a conclusion,the guy is not an idiot.
The opposition is known for pulling stunts like this when there back is against the wall,and like magic the coalition comes to the rescue.
Al-q,al nusra,or ISIS are not "his people" who in any other country would be eradicated with very hight popular support.

I think this is what you may be missing, and it seems others on the board are as well.

PRIOR TO THE AIRSTRIKE THERE WERE NO CONS.

Assad had NEVER had consequences for any actions he's taken against the rebels in Syria. None. Zilch. He had just almost been given the green light from the US to do as he pleases (a little hyperbolic but that was the implied sentiment). Our current president campaigned on resolving the issue without force. Assad has used chemical weapons in the past, and never had more than a slap on the wrist.

So do you really think he was worried about it THIS time? Again, we've in a roundabout way had a "hands-off" policy towards Syria under President Obama, not by President Obama's doing mind you, but the House. President Trump put out the facade that he was even MORE hands off in relation to Syria, and his Secretary of State came out publicly and stated as much.

What were the cons prior to the airstrike???

Here's the major pro from Assad's point of view.

"Nothing has happened to my regime in the past when I've used chemical weapons. I've pretty much got the rebels against the wall in Idlib. I've got the US basically saying they'll back me. If I use these weapons I'm 1 step closer to regaining full control of my country."


By the way, I'm not even claiming to know who did it (although I believe Assad's side did). Just that trying to say Assad had everything to lose couldn't be further from the truth. He's used chemical weapons in the past without incident from the US, why word a more "Pro-Syria" regime be any different?

i'd welcome a name change for this Forum section. Its not really WW3 maybe not even a lead up.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Absolutely the possibility exists,nobody is denying that,but the track record of it not being true imo outweighs it being so.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Just that trying to say Assad had everything to lose couldn't be further from the truth.

So, what did he gain by killing a handful of civilians with chemical weapons?

originally posted by: all2human
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Absolutely the possibility exists,nobody is denying that,but the track record of it not being true imo outweighs it being so.

How many times has Assad used chemical weapons? How many people has Assad murdered? Tortured?

What track record are you talking about?

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Just that trying to say Assad had everything to lose couldn't be further from the truth.

So, what did he gain by killing a handful of civilians with chemical weapons?

The same thing he's gained when using them in the past (or any means of violence really. Further control of the region. Idlib is one of the last Governates in Syria to remain fighting Assad. He's doing what he's been doing the entire Civil War.

When the deep state via the neocons cheers, I always question if it could be false flag.

Have the members at ATS learned nothing about false flag operations, Gabbard and the Pauls know whats up, and the ATS membership should as well. Trump fell into a trap, let's see if he keeps going down this path?

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

Assad has used chemical weapons in the past, and never had more than a slap on the wrist.

He avoided military action last time by allowing international supervision to the destruction of their chemical weapons and joining the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, if I remember correctly.

What were the cons prior to the airstrike???

Here's the major pro from Assad's point of view.

"Nothing has happened to my regime in the past when I've used chemical weapons. I've pretty much got the rebels against the wall in Idlib. I've got the US basically saying they'll back me. If I use these weapons I'm 1 step closer to regaining full control of my country."

Considering the contrasting view he may not have been responsible for the 2013 chemical attack HERE it is at least plausible this one may not have been either. Not saying he didn't do it, but something seems a little fishy here.

So ... wait a minute.

For 3 months we've been hearing from Trump apologists that every bumbling, stumbling misstep he's made has been some part of an ingenious Master Plan (because of his brilliance and prophetic powers) and now some of the same individuals are claiming that this massive, ludicrous, illegal strike against Syria which reverses EVERY POLICY POSITION he's ever babbled about on Twitter ... is just another master-stroke?

There are no words ....

originally posted by: alphabetaone

Because Assad has adopted a policy of putting a stranglehold on the civilian population. They're calculated strategies of escalating attacks on civilians. For countless years Assad has been shelling various neighborhoods, bombing them from choppers, jets...he has very little motivation to stop all that now until he is forced to stop. His government forces herd anyone he considers an opponent into Idlib province, isolating them as combatants then justifying any attacks on civilians in the province as enemy combatants. Zero regard for safety; zero regard for age or gender; just outright decimation. Anyone who would challenge it by way of warcrimes quickly gets pointed to the "See? No one is coming to save you" mindset, and in that, he would have been correct....until, someone stops him.

And he was doing fine using conventional weapons. Long as he used only conventional bombs he was being ignored.

So why risk it all with Chemical weapons?

originally posted by: alphabetaoneYou decry how you would NEVER trust government yet are so willing to accept that Assad's government are the victim in this?

As noted below:

No i dont trust him either. All i want is evidence? Why is that so much to ask?

Asking for evidence does not make me pro Assad.

If evidence is presented then i will condem him.

Its not conspiracy theory lunacy.

originally posted by: alphabetaoneIt is if you believe that Assad's government have the moral highground in all of this.

Typical binary brained logic.......

Because I want evidence I must be pro Assad.....

Try not to overload your brain but there are more than two options in life.
I can not like Assad and not like knee jerk acts of aggression from my own goverment without evidence to back it up!

originally posted by: alphabetaone

What you're perpetuating is that because elements of the Government have lied to us that they ALWAYS lie about everything. If that's your stance, you should perhaps try life in Idlib.

Again another fallacy which shows you are losing in a battle for logic. Its not about supporting Assad its about accountability of our own governments.

Whats wrong with wanting evidence from my goverment?

I am not a sheep i do not meekly and blindy dance to my governments tune.
I want accountability for all its actions.

originally posted by: alphabetaone There is plenty of evidence....it's called history. Do some REAL research on Assad and I think you will have all the evidence you would need.

I do know the history and the terrorists fignting him have also had access to chemical weapons too and have a even stronger motive to use them.

Why is it such a bad thing to ask for evidence of who used them?

a reply to: crazyewok
The rebels are and were in possession of Sarin
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.reuters.com...

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
There is only one question. Whether was T played, brainwashed, broken under pressure from all sides - (which is causing digestive problems to many of us)
or
he has finely found out that he has no problem to accept his dirty part on the world stage and Syria for what it is behind the tales for masses - a crude land-grab proxy war over oil-money. Which is even worse.
I'm keeping a hope there is a better, third option. He can always pretend that he believed the given intel and he will change his ways in the future while getting rid of the rotten IC individuals.
What is the value of a pipeline in lives and war costs anyway? How many millions/billions is too much? Do we need to cripple Russia so bad? Isn't it insane to think they will accept it? We are dancing to the edge of the precipice for what exactly? I'd like to know. Everyone needs to know the truth. Lies will lead us into mass graves.

Was Trump played?
No, he played all of you.
Optimism and good faith are nice concepts, but are useless when facing people who lack empathy.
What's wrong is people keep misjudging who the enemy is, and allowing the enemy himself to define who the enemy is... Rex Tillerson is on the cabinet. Yay for capitalist empiricism.

Syrian aircraft may have bombed a location but the bombs may not have been chemical. The chemicals may have been on the ground.

Link

You know how you make your job easier as president? Resolve all your conflicts.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we would stick our fat noses in where they weren't requested.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Syrian aircraft may have bombed a location but the bombs may not have been chemical. The chemicals may have been on the ground.

Link

Oops.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
You know how you make your job easier as president? Resolve all your conflicts.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we would stick our fat noses in where they weren't requested.

NOT ONLY THAT.

But a completely irrational in-our-face REVERSAL of what Trump has said FOR YEARS and a promise of the platform on which he ran and was elected.

Again, I'll stand by my thought that this was the DUMBEST thing an American President has ever done, and I've lived through Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton's and BUSH II!!!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
You know how you make your job easier as president? Resolve all your conflicts.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we would stick our fat noses in where they weren't requested.

I can think of a few reasons but none of them are good.

originally posted by: LAkadian

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
There is only one question. Whether was T played, brainwashed, broken under pressure from all sides - (which is causing digestive problems to many of us)
or
he has finely found out that he has no problem to accept his dirty part on the world stage and Syria for what it is behind the tales for masses - a crude land-grab proxy war over oil-money. Which is even worse.
I'm keeping a hope there is a better, third option. He can always pretend that he believed the given intel and he will change his ways in the future while getting rid of the rotten IC individuals.
What is the value of a pipeline in lives and war costs anyway? How many millions/billions is too much? Do we need to cripple Russia so bad? Isn't it insane to think they will accept it? We are dancing to the edge of the precipice for what exactly? I'd like to know. Everyone needs to know the truth. Lies will lead us into mass graves.

Was Trump played?
No, he played all of you.
Optimism and good faith are nice concepts, but are useless when facing people who lack empathy.
What's wrong is people keep misjudging who the enemy is, and allowing the enemy himself to define who the enemy is... Rex Tillerson is on the cabinet. Yay for capitalist empiricism.

Were you making a very witty joke about capitalist empiricism, or did you mean to say "imperialism"?