President Trump will deliver a statement on Syria at 9 p.m. ET

a reply to: Konduit

Never seen him go off like this

You're joking.

Right?

a reply to: Phage

I'm not a mind-reader. You tell me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I asked because you claimed a logical fallacy and I do not know what you were referring to.

a reply to: Phage

And I asked you earlier to make a complete post instead of rapid-fire one-liners. I'm an engineer, not a typist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then short posts short be your forte. Or you could show your work.


Please, what was the logical fallacy of which you spoke?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Pyle

Might be. He's staying over the Paris area, where two of the -135s are at. 58-0001 is up in that area, and down at the upper end of the refueling block. 63-7999 is in that area too, and up at the extreme upper end of the block.

58-0100 just popped up over the Med on the way out too.

So whats your eval?

End of op? or maintain observation for the next 48

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

They'll keep platforms in the area for a day or so, maybe make a couple runs to get a comparison between visible and SAR, but it's largely over. The French birds are back and on the deck, the RAF birds probably recovered to Greece, and will head back to the UK after crew rest. The only things left in the air should be the bombers heading back to the US, and the assessment birds.

Another real liberal calling out his war, using a real right winger also criticizing it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Looks like 61-2670 is heading to Germany and not continuing on.

a reply to: Phage

Since you said please...

Your logical fallacy is the assumption that international relations are independent of previous relationships. Russia has a vested interest in keeping Assad in power. Therefore they will do whatever they can to keep him in power. For 8 years, they dealt with the Obama administration. Obama "drew a red line in the sand" and Russia stepped over it to test him. Obama retreated. Thus, Russia will not pay particular heed to statements made by the United States. They will expect a retreat.

Trump drew his own "red line in the sand" over chemical weapons. Syria stepped across it with Russia threatening the United States to retreat or else. Trump fired missiles. If Russia does not start a full scale war, which they do not want either, Russia will have retreated. Russia will thus have greater respect for statements made by the United States in future communications.

The comparison is valid, because the present interactions between the United States and Russia are dependent on the previous relationship between the United States and Russia.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Zaphod58

I have not previously replied to you because I am seriously outclassed in that area of expertise. But I'd like to say thank you for keeping us informed on aircraft movements. I have been trying to keep up.



TheRedneck

Now there's a move I didn't see coming. French C-130 just came out of Lebanon.

He's staying fairly low, 19,000 feet, and looks like he might be heading to Egypt.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Though a logical fallacy can result from a bad assumption, an assumption is not a logical fallacy.

In any case, I made no assumption that international relations are independant of anything. I asked you what "stablization" (your word) means. I asked you if the current government of Syria is "unstable". I asked you if you think that Trump's latest action will make the Syrian government more stable. I asked you if ISIS made the Syrian government unstable.

Your response (sort of) was that Trump didn't know what was going on in Syria before he was elected and when I asked what he did think was going on you said you aren't a mind reader and I conceded the point, saying that he lies about so much that it's impossible to believe much of anything he says.

You then brought up something about a "red line", by which I assumed you were talking about the previous president's statements. Was that a bad assumption? Again, where was the logical fallacy? You said something about logical fallacies.




This was not the first time that Trump's "red line" was crossed. What was so different about this time (it made the news?) and what, exactly, do you think was accomplished? Besides waving his big hands around?

a reply to: Grambler

I dont know if Obama was a warmonger, duped, or just playing the game; exact same thing with trump.

It deosnt matter; obama is responsible for his regime change wars, just like trump is.

I'm not disagreeing that Obama is responsible. What gets me is people who act as though Assad is a good guy (he's certainly not but he's not the absolute worst) or like AJ, that Russia is a "white knight" coming to the rescue. Russia's actions are just as self-serving as the US's.

What I do know is that had Obama said, oh I dont know, lets take libya; that we should have worked with ghaddaffi to fight isis, and all the media on both sides called him out for this, and investigations were launched saying he was in cahoots with libya or their chinese or russian allies, and that the media coverage was non stop over and over and over and over about this; and obama had had people connected to him spied on over possible connections to libya, and Bush jr was going around the world telling allies Obama made be a puppet of ghadaffi or putin over this

I would have defended Obama and condemned the war moingering establishment./

I don't know what to tell you my friend. The fact is Russia meddled in the election. It's not even deniable at this point. Did the media make the Russians meddle in the election? Did they make Trump hire Paul Manafort as his campaign manager? Did somebody make Donald Trump run around talking up Putin as this was happening, with absolutely no though to the fact that Russian-US relations had just gone from "we're trying to work it out" to in the toilet because Russia invaded Crimea in violation of agreements they had signed?

Who is it that keeps making Donald Trump and those around him lie about things related to Russia? Whose fault is that at every turn, he and his associates make themselves look more guilty?

Is the deep state making them lie over and over again?

I just wonder if it were anyone but Trump, who you really want to give the benefit of the doubt, how you would perceive his actions and behavior. If you would have thought that he looked guilty af.

To me, one of two things is probably true:

1. He got trapped by his ego and public persona early on, denying Russian meddling was even a reality. He could have acknowledged it early on and shifted the narrative though the endless stream of developments probably would have forced him to fall back to the only way he knows how to act. Now he's just stuck.

2. He's concerned/suspects/or knows that there was/is things to be found.

You chose not to do that.

You chose to believe and support the anti syria/russia propaganda put forth by the intel agencies.

You chose to believe them about russian hacks without showing proof when they couldnt be bothered to look at the server.

You do not know what you're talking about.

What anti-Syria propaganda do I believe? The gas attack? I'm on the fence, leaning toward it was a last ditch effort by rebels. But it's not in dispute that Assad is an autocrat, that he was put into power when his autocrat father kicked, that he finally was forced into elections and they were sham elections. The intel agencies didn't have to tell us about the human rights abuses at a point before it became too unsafe for observers. Have you done much reading on Assad and the beginnings of what became the civil war in Syria?

As for the "anti-Russian propaganda" — are you denying Russian meddling still?

I don't "You chose to believe them about russian hacks without showing proof when they couldnt be bothered to look at the server" that's just bull#. I have done probably more reading on the topic than anyone posting on ATS and there's really no doubt that hacking occurred unless there's the conspiracy to end conspiracies taking place in which case we're all screwed because these people are playing 25D hyperchess and there are hundreds of conspirators in the government and private sector.

You want to talk propaganda? You're hung up on the "didn't give the FBI the server" thing because it's the go to in the right-wing echo chamber. That and the stupid transfer speed thing which I have debunked numerous times on ATS.

There's plenty of evidence of hacking and there was more than just the DNC hack. The DCCC got hacked, an RNC server was hacked, Podesta was phished, Colin Powell was phished and there's evidence from those that links up to the phishing campaign against the DNC which is attested to by independent sources who have made their data public while Trump supporters stick their fingers in their ears and say, "nah nah nah server server server nah nah transfer speed!"

If you want to argue attribution, that's something else but I have a strong feeling that Mueller will bring charges and it'll hopefully put the issue to rest for you.

a reply to: Grambler

Effing.........thank you!

Exactly!!!!!!!!

People wake up...........

a reply to: theantediluvian

Lets go section by section.

On russia being bad too.

Agreed, never said otherwise.

you fall into the trap of thinking if I am against escalating with russia I think they are goo guys. I dont.

On russia meddling.

Yes we know, the pokemon, the 17 trolls the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS SPENT ON ADS (OMG that was so much more powerful than the hundreds of millions hiullary spent and the MSM being in her pocket).

As for the hack, you have no proof at all. You have the word of crowdstrike, you the FBI parroted. What the Fbi released as proof is not proof. crowdstrike blamed russia for a ukranian hack as well, that was wrong.

You have just taken the intel agencies word. Funny that you say you lean to not believing assad gassed his people, when the same intel people you are taking the word for on the hack are positive assad gassed his own people. SO you dont trust them on the gas attack, but do on the hack.

Lets see the proof.

Oh thats right, they didnt look at the server.

You are smart, and make good points.

But there is no more clear case of partisanship blinding you than your excuse making for the FBI not looking at the server themselves.

There is no reasonable excuse whatsoever as to why they wouldnt look at it. And for you to say that anyone who questions that is just parroting right wing talking points is absurd.

The intel agencies, the establishment, and the media all wanted a conflict in syria, see the video I posted above.

You sided with them.

Good job!

originally posted by: Grambler
Another real liberal calling out his war, using a real right winger also criticizing it.

Best material I've watched all week.

a reply to: Phage

Fair questions.

I believe Trump's actions have a chance (far from a certainty) of lessening Russian interference, which is one prerequisite for the stability definition I used. If Russia is encountering resistance to their goal of keeping Assad in power based on violation of UN resolutions, it would be in their best interests to try and convince Assad that he can't violate those resolutions. That would allow us to lessen our presence in Syria and back away from supporting the rebels. In turn, Russia might back off too, leading to a lessening of tensions that could stabilize the region.

I do not believe Trump understood the real reason we are in Syria. We are there because Assad depegged his oil from the dollar and is willing to allow Russia/Iran to construct pipelines to transport their oil (also depegged) to the Mediterranean. Russia has plenty of oil, but no good ports... their alliance with Iran has given them access to a port, but only to the Persian Gulf. That's why Iran and Russia are there; Assad has always been one of the only allies to Iran in the region, and with the Iraqi government in turmoil, they can negotiate passage.

The rebels are aligned with the US, and would oppose any such passage. ISIS is too unstable themselves to deal with.

After he was elected, Trump received a lot of information on many different aspects of the Federal government, as all Presidents do. With that new knowledge, he would reasonably change his outlook on the best way to proceed. His overall goal might be the same as before, but the methodology used to achieve it would change.

Good post, btw.

TheRedneck

Enough is enough. Surely their has to come a point where we, us, the 99% start holding these bastards to account. They are not even trying to hide the agenda anymore. War mongers and those who willingly push their propaganda should be executed without the need for a long drawn out trial. We have all the evidence we need and the irony is, the stupid bastards provided it for us to convict.
Sky News Cuts Off Former British General While He Questiones Douma ‘Chemical Attack’

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Excellent video.
I didn't realise that Jimmy Dore was being censored on YouTube also. Just shows that these neo-liberal tech companies are in bed with the war machine and will try to silence anyone who takes on the REAL power in the US.