United States-Russia-Syria

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: JinMI

It makes sense for Trump to warn Russia. He's making a stand but at the same time trying to let Putin know it's nothing against him.

As well, everybody is saying that Assad's move makes no sense. That indicates to me a high probability that he actually made the move. The best tactic is the most unpredictable and unexplainable one - until the result is revealed.

AGAIN, I ask -- WTF is the benefit to turning nearly 200 governments and billions of people against you on the damned eve of peace talks?

Not even the tinfoiliest of guesses can answer that one.

there have been previous examples of Rogue Military units , loyal to ISIS or AQ... who have operated as dedicated Syrian Soldiers loyal to Assad

Who, at some juncture known only to themselves, turned out to be a secret or covert ISIS sympathizer cell intent on doing great harm & damage to civilians or Assad Loyalists...


only an investigation can reveal if barrel bombs and chemical bombs/shells/rockets/munitions/barrels were used in a completely civilian 'market place' or public gathering site --- and ordered by Assad or his Generals

a reply to: FauxMulder

Certainly plausible. Small damage but massive implications.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
Trump did the right thing.
By any standards, he did the right thing.

There is no issue here really. There is only a fear of repercussion. But what repercussion can there be when one has the truth on one's side?

Back to honest words: Would you prefer that chemical weapons were an everyday thing? Permitted through ignorance?

Maybe. I think it's a lot about fear of getting involved in another Iraq situation.

Also in the last 63 hours the lefts have slowed down on their bashing of trump. What lefts wanted was war. War brings profit. It's getting closer. One wrong move be either side and it's us that will pay the price not them.

It's easy to bet when you don't own the chips.

a reply to: JinMI

Good thread. Coupled with all the bombings in major western cities lately one can't help but notice something fishy in the series of events. It's like watching a play on stage, all seemingly planned and choreographed.

originally posted by: ConscienceZombie
Also in the last 63 hours the lefts have slowed down on their bashing of trump. What lefts wanted was war. War brings profit. It's getting closer. One wrong move be either side and it's us that will pay the price not them.

It's easy to bet when you don't own the chips.

Nope. Everyone still thinks Trump is a dangerous idiot. The mainstream media are going easier on him now because he is providing new footage of carnage. "If it bleeds, it leads."

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Yeah, no. It's not brilliant, especially when accusing Russia of being complicit alongside Assad's government. Why in sam hell would another country risk EVERYTHING to help "fool" people into doubting the accusations? Ain't enough money and goods on the planet to make risking permanently ruining your country to help a buddy worthwhile.

Friend. You're not seeing it.

Nothing of what you say is happening, neither will it happen.

You're deciding, like everyone else, upon a hypothetical.

Look at the majority view. Now consider that through the lens that Assad is responsible.

Do you see it yet?

I tried really hard to see things from this perspective, and I respectfully have to disagree.

it appears to be completely true that there is no motive whatsoever for assad to attack his own civilians with chemical weapons. this point of view, as far as I see it, requires less source-less assumptions than the position you're asserting.

- using chemical weapons on his own people would alienate him from the Russian support he's receiving. Putin's continued assistance is really the only reason assad is still in power. he's technically on military life support.

- the "rebels" used sarin in 2013 against syrian civilians. the united states did everything we could to pin this on assad.

- his regime, with Russian support, is winning. chemical weapons being used in areas populated by civilians would provide absolutely no strategic advantage to his military cause. by contrast, it's plausible to see how chemical weapons would be used or stockpiled by "the rebels" to try and pin it on him *again* when they're losing.

- using CW on his own people would not have him gain any military leverage, would not improve his power of international diplomacy, would not benefit nor strengthen the relationship between assad and his allies, nor would it be a useful tactic to combat the subversion of his regime by foreign governments.

assuming you're totally correct in that he just gassed his own people, can you please explicitly state what the strategic advantage would be? what exactly does he gain, and with who?

because by all reasonable means, if someone can prove that assad gassed his own people without a shadow of a doubt, he's f(#$&d. in my mind he's politically toxic at that point, and whether the current players there now are supporters/foes, all would agree that he needs to be removed from power immediately. he would lose this card game 100% of the time if he really played that hand.

a reply to: facedye

- using chemical weapons on his own people would alienate him from the Russian support he's receiving. Putin's continued assistance is really the only reason assad is still in power. he's technically on military life support.

The people who were gassed were not his own civilians, they were "terrorists," "future terrorists," or "terrorist breeders." Russia may very well be the source of his chemical weapons. Russia has been known to use gas against terrorists.

a reply to: DJW001

The people who were gassed were not his own civilians, they were "terrorists," "future terrorists," or "terrorist breeders."

what are you basing this on?

Russia may very well be the source of his chemical weapons. Russia has been known to use gas against terrorists.

do you have any reliable source of information that can substantiate this claim? to be honest that makes no sense to me.

again, he's winning with Russia's support. there's no military need to gas terrorists that are already losing.

a reply to: facedye

what are you basing this on?

Assad continues to claim that there is no "moderate opposition," only terrorists. If they are living in a terrorist area, they must be terrorists. Or do you think Assad is lying?

Russia may very well be the source of his chemical weapons. Russia has been known to use gas against terrorists.

do you have any reliable source of information that can substantiate this claim? to be honest that makes no sense to me.

Remember the Nord-Ost Siege? Russia will kill Russian civilians if it deems necessay. Why would they stop Assad from doing the same?

again, he's winning with Russia's support. there's no military need to gas terrorists that are already losing.

Assad is winning? Then why does he need Russian support? He 's been at it for five years, and the Russians have been helping him openly for over a year. Assad wants his populace to be 100% loyal. He hasn't been able to win them all over with his tender kindness, so what does that leave?

a reply to: DJW001

Assad is winning? Then why does he need Russian support?

He said he is winning WITH Russian support. He needs Russian support because Western governments are interfering.

Remember the Nord-Ost Siege? Russia will kill Russian civilians if it deems necessay. Why would they stop Assad from doing the same?

Yes I remember. Quite a stretch.

The use of the gas was widely condemned as heavy-handed, but the American and British governments deemed Russia's actions justifiable.[5] Physicians in Moscow condemned the refusal to disclose the identity of the gas. Some reports said the drug naloxone was successfully used as an antidote to save some hostages, suggesting the gas was an opiate-based compound.[6]

Not quite the same as dropping bombs with Sarin on civilians with the intent to kill them.

Most folks demanding evidence it was Assad would not believe it even if they produced it. They would just say it was doctored. What's the point? Sources some people believe say it was the terrorists, sources other people believe say it was Assad. Very few people are open-minded enough to change their opinion either way no matter what evidence is presented.

They did release the radar tracks showing Syrian planes flying over the point where the chem attack happened at precisely the time it happened. If you think Assad is innocent you'll just say that's fake. I doubt many here have the expertise to analyze radar data to determine for themselves, so you have no foolproof way of knowing whether it's real or not. I will point out that even if that radar track is accurate, it doesn't by itself prove that Assad's planes dropped chemical weapons. That radar track could be 100% accurate and it wouldn't disprove the theory that they accidentally hit a place where chem weapons were being stored.

HOWEVER, I will say that expert analysts can tell whether the chemicals dispersed in a pattern consistent with a dropped chemical bomb or a stored chemical bomb being impacted by a conventional munition. But I doubt anyone here has the expertise to dispute that either. The point is that no matter what they release, the vast majority of us will never know with 100% certainty what happened because we simply don't have the expertise to conclusively analyze the evidence. We are mostly dependent on 3rd parties to tell us. You can believe what you want, but you'll never be able to prove it.

a reply to: DJW001

wow, you're literally grasping at straws with every single point raised, with false equivalencies to boot.

Assad continues to claim that there is no "moderate opposition," only terrorists. If they are living in a terrorist area, they must be terrorists. Or do you think Assad is lying?

that's right, there is no moderate opposition. he's stating this because for as long as this fight has been going on, all of the "opposition" has been shooting at his military personnel.

why are you making the argument that Assad equates a civilian living in Idlib to being a terrorist in Idlib? there's no validity in this point of view as far as I'm aware.

Remember the Nord-Ost Siege? Russia will kill Russian civilians if it deems necessay. Why would they stop Assad from doing the same?

Seriously dude? I'm Ukrainian, I remember this siege quite well. even your own Wikipedia link states these were Islamic fundamentalists. this was a case of domestic terrorism. the united states even found Russia's actions justifiable!

Assad is winning? Then why does he need Russian support? He 's been at it for five years, and the Russians have been helping him openly for over a year. Assad wants his populace to be 100% loyal. He hasn't been able to win them all over with his tender kindness, so what does that leave?

he's winning because of Russia's support. up until then, the western backed terrorists were gaining a lot of ground. he also never tried winning anyone over with his "tender kindness," I have no idea where you're getting any of that from.

a reply to: DJW001

also, there's a precedence for this happening in Syria already, and it's not attributed to Assad.

UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad's troops

western backed "rebels" used CW in 2013 in Syria.

Syrian government forces and the rebels have already accused each other of carrying out three attacks with chemical weapons.

so, what? do you think Russia gave the "rebels" CW as well?

The slow Nazis, the US is on the march.

a reply to: intrptr

i say we start a crowd fund to by mcCain a one way ticket to saudi arabia. we don't need his old warmongering butt in our government anymore.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: intrptr

i say we start a crowd fund to by mcCain a one way ticket to saudi arabia. we don't need his old warmongering butt in our government anymore.

He visited Syria in late February. Who was he meeting there, not Russians and surely not the Syrian Gubment or Military.

Probably hand delivering cash and instructions to the Insurgents (in Raqqa no less) prior to the recent chemical attack and missile strike. Hmmm... makes one wonder.

Fox News, McCains secret trip...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: intrptr

i say we start a crowd fund to by mcCain a one way ticket to saudi arabia. we don't need his old warmongering butt in our government anymore.

He visited Syria in late February. Who was he meeting there, not Russians and surely not the Syrian Gubment or Military.

Probably hand delivering cash and instructions to the Insurgents (in Raqqa no less) prior to the recent chemical attack and missile strike. Hmmm... makes one wonder.

Fox News, McCains secret trip...

Big shots often visit war zones to "visit the troops" to take advantage of the tax breaks. If you spend a few days in an area designated a combat zone you don't have to pay taxes on income earned for that entire month.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: intrptr

i say we start a crowd fund to by mcCain a one way ticket to saudi arabia. we don't need his old warmongering butt in our government anymore.

He visited Syria in late February. Who was he meeting there, not Russians and surely not the Syrian Gubment or Military.

Probably hand delivering cash and instructions to the Insurgents (in Raqqa no less) prior to the recent chemical attack and missile strike. Hmmm... makes one wonder.

Fox News, McCains secret trip...

Big shots often visit war zones to "visit the troops" to take advantage of the tax breaks. If you spend a few days in an area designated a combat zone you don't have to pay taxes on income earned for that entire month.

Nice attempt making it sound 'au natural'. "Big shots" visit in person to hand over instructions and plans by hand (in secret) so they aren't intercepted over "the air".

Big shots 101...

a reply to: intrptr

I wasn't trying to make it sound like anything, just explaining why these people sometimes go over there. He could well have been doing some nefarious #, but that's all speculation. The tax breaks are documented fact.