US readies possible Missile Strike against Syria

reply to post by jmdewey60


The reason would be Lebanon's recent strike on Israel.
You bomb another country and you get bombed.....
If you all want to worry about the beginnings of World War 3 wouldn't it make more sense to be worried about China's recent incursion into India?

reply to post by princeofpeace

. . . Moscow has placed on war alert Russia’s Mediterranean and Black Sea fleets as well as rapid deployment forces in southern and central Russia"

As they should, considering the situation, where the covert US operations for false flag events are going ahead in an unsustainable way, meaning that the military will have to go in if for no other reason than to destroy the evidence of their part in it, by basically destroying the whole country.
Keep in mind that the people behind the wars care nothing about the people but just want the real estate, with plenty of people they can bring in from other countries to extract the country's wealth that they are after.

reply to post by Thorneblood

The reason would be Lebanon's recent strike on Israel.
You bomb another country and you get bombed.....

People firing oversized home-made bottle rockets, which could have been done by Israelis planted there in an earlier cross-border incursion done days earlier and which had been reported on.

If you all want to worry about the beginnings of World War 3 wouldn't it make more sense to be worried about China's recent incursion into India?

I think we are in a "world war" right now, being done through proxies, sometimes "jihadist" dupes killing "heretics", which is the case now in Syria.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Can you show please show me where it was reported that Israel fired rockets at its own country?

Everything i have read so far indicates that it was an Al-Qaeda linked group called the Brigades of Abdullah looking to start a conflict with Israel, but maybe i am just not reading the right article.

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by pheonix358

 

*Shrugs*
To some people everything is a lie regardless of what proof can be provided.
Of the two, i will happily trust Reuters over RT.

I guess this is a lie as well?
Reuters

The U.S. Navy will expand its presence in the Mediterranean with a fourth cruise-missile armed warship because of the escalating civil war in Syria, a defense official said on Friday.

The USS Mahan had finished its deployment and was due to head back to its home base in Norfolk, Virginia, but the commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet has decided to keep the ship in the region, the defense official said.






The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, stressed that the Navy had received no orders to prepare for any military operations regarding Syria

edit on 23-8-2013 by Thorneblood because: (no reason given)

Mahan, to whom this vessel was named after was the preeminent naval stratagist of WWI. We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the Great War next summer.

reply to post by HUMBLEONE


Ok, cool.
So have three other ships, but whats the point?
We name things after people we admire or who have in one way or another garnered respect for their service to their country.
Mahan would be one of those people.
Just be glad it isn't the USS Diet Pepsi.

reply to post by sueloujo


Just checked it out I'm receiving no data nothing no boats ?

reply to post by Thorneblood

Can you show please show me where it was reported that Israel fired rockets at its own country?

There was reported an Israeli incursion into Lebanon shortly before the so-called missile attack.
Supposedly, someone in Lebanon fired some rockets, only one of which even made it across the border.
I'm suggesting that it very well could have been done by the israelis themselves, by undercover agents planted during that incursion.

Everything i have read so far indicates that it was an Al-Qaeda linked group called the Brigades of Abdullah looking to start a conflict with Israel, but maybe i am just not reading the right article.

Kind of stupid to start a war that you are not prepared to fight, so I think that is just a made-up explanation as a cover, for the Israelis who do want to justify their rocket attacks that actually do cause damage and casualties.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Israel and Lebanon have been going at it for years, but thats not what i asked.
I just wanted to see some evidence that Israel fired rockets into it's own country.
Edit:
Ah i see, well then nevermind.

today is Sunday...

Assad is allowing UN investigators to the battle areas where mostly the Free-Syrian-Army had control and were the sites of the chemical agents...
Assad's Syrian forces will be standing down beginning on Monday (tomorrow) for the UN Inspectors..

so Øbama is stymied until the UN inspection teams are removed... Is It reasonable to presume even he would not attack the Syrian airspace with the neutral UN inspection in the country ??

reply to post by deviant300


The blue dot just off Syria is US ship.

reply to post by St Udio


Yes, it is pretty reasonable to assume that but the UN inspectors know the dangers of what they are getting involved in so anything is possible.

I imagine that since Syria is now allowing the inspectors in then it means his forces have cleaned up any evidence of their own involvement to allow Assad to remain in power a bit longer.

reply to post by St Udio

so Øbama is stymied until the UN inspection teams are removed... Is It reasonable to presume even he would not attack the Syrian airspace with the neutral UN inspection in the country ??

You just said it.
The UN personnel are safely in "rebel" held territory, so will not be in danger while the Syrian government forces are attacked by a "surgical" strike.

CNN

Two key members of congressional foreign affairs panels say they expect the United States to strike Syria following reports of chemical weapons attacks in that country last week, though other lawmakers interviewed Sunday cautioned that unilateral action would be misguided.

"I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president, as soon as we get back to Washington, will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way. Something that gets their attention, that causes them to understand that we are not going to put up with that kind of activity," Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN – five days ago. At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the UN team is too late to be credible," a senior Obama administration official said Sunday.

Five days later, plenty of time to clean up the evidence and keep the suspicion but destroy the proof.

In come the drones?

reply to post by Senduko


LOL love me some drones....wish i had seen that one coming for the US, i would have skipped the years of partying on the vegas strip and got into the army to pilot a remote controlled airplane with missiles in it.

I love the future.

So it would seem most american's don't want to get involved. If anything that just tells me that we will be going to Syria, boots and all.

Get ready for a surprise.

Reuters

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
reply to post by kykweer

 

You mean animals are smart enough not to get involved in fights and disputes that have nothing to do with them, and will more than likely get them injured or killed for no reason, and end up not doing anything to help anyone in the end?

Yeah, I agree. Animals are better that way.

Well if you truelly believe in survival of the fittest, then I am sure you are also pro murdering, sorry i mean "culling" the homeless and the stupid then thats fine too?

or we help the helpless?

reply to post by Swills


You didn't do anything but solidify what I said. Elaborate on the point you're trying to get across.

No attack is goiong to happen. Anyone want to bet?