Russia warns of 'most serious consequences' if US strikes Syria

Why the hell are we even attacking a wasteland in the first place?

Whoever launched that attack wasted money lemme tell ya..

a reply to: notsure1



In politics, alliances can change quickly. And if you believe in concepts like the Hegelian Dialectic, then you'd also know that allies can pretend to oppose each other in order to guide a situation to a previously agreed upon conclusion.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok so to be clear now Russia doesnt like Trump? so Putin is a good guy again? LOLOLOL

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok so to be clear now Russia doesnt like Trump? so Putin is a good guy again? LOLOLOL

Syria is an incredibly important strategic location for Russia as well as being part of the US plan in the middle east.

There aren't any good guys in this situation I'm afraid, just powerful nations trying to protect their interests.

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ok so to be clear now Russia doesnt like Trump? so Putin is a good guy again? LOLOLOL

You didn't read what I struck out, did you? You know why things like that are put w/the line between them, right?

Ok it’s been two hours now since the attack on Syria, the tv is still on and I still have Internet, I don’t think this is the end of the world.

Signing off

Good night

There is not going to be a good end to this. I think there is a group of people who have well stocked bunkers who want to destroy most of the people in the world any way they can. They will instigate a nuclear war. I don't have a bunker, lots of very rich people do. I would bet they even have room for some slaves in those bunkers. The slaves may think they have been chosen to be survivors, boy have they been bsed.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And it's so predictable, too. How many times do we have to keep getting baited back into these BS fights? Why would Assad do chemical attacks when his administration & his allies have pretty much won?

This goes to you and everyone else that thinks this was a false flag of some sorts;

I'm still on the fence regarding this.
On one side, you're right, Assad and his allies almost won completely.. What's even the point of using chemical gas of all things?

On the other side, what do you suggest happened? Who shot that gas? There was footage of people being hit by some sort of a chemical attack, who is responsible? Stealth cruise missiles from the US or what?

Please note I'm not attacking you at all or dissing the false flag rhetoric! I really wanna know what other people think that happened here.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Willtell

What are the "most serious consequences?" Russia isn't going to launch a military attack on the US no matter how many oh-look-at-our-cool-toys videos they released last week.

Let me say this for the 1,000th time on ATS. Putin is not crazy — he's far more stable than Trump — he's almost certainly more clever and strategic and he actually knows a thing or two about geopolitics and international relations.

And I imagine given that he's a fantastically wealthy autocrat with a lifetime gig, he probably enjoys his life tremendously, so I doubt he's suicidal.

Is a strike on a Syrian airbase worth a hot war with the US?

So what does that leave? Sanctions would be a joke. While the long term Russia strategy seems to be energy dominance, we don't import much in the way of fossil fuels from them. Maybe 1% of our oil imports or less.

Cyber attack of some sort? I'm genuinely curious.

Then why make this statement?

By saying they will respond to any US attack in Syria, the Russians have backed themselves into a corner. If they do respond, it's on, if they don't, Putin looks impotent.

I think they will have no choice but to respond moving forward or else take a massive hit to their prestige, both in the world stage and at home. And if there is one thing Putin does not want to lose, it's the adoration of the Russian people.

IDK why Syria is even on the US's radar. Looks a lot like dick swinging to me. That's worked out so well in the past. @@

Also, earlier today

Trump says 'major decisions' on Syria coming in next 24 to 48 hours

originally posted by: vinifalou
Also, earlier today

Trump says 'major decisions' on Syria coming in next 24 to 48 hours

But "Shh". It's a secret.

Yup. Dick swinging.

a reply to: nightbringr


I agree, Russia and Putin have backed themselves into a corner if America decides on a military reaction to Syria's possible chemical attack on it's own people.

Yeah, I think that the west and NATO are on the wrong side here. People need to remember that not only is Assad the leader of this sovereign nation, but Russia is there legally by his invitation. Do you want to know who isn't there legally? The West has been using claims of humanitarian issues to fund and arm militants trying to overthrow Assad. As Assad is an ally of Russia and Iran, this proxy war seeks to reduce their influence by having another domino fall.

Also, these chemical attack attributions are highly convenient for the west.

We are playing with serious fire re Russia and Iran here. Is it really worth it for western regional hegemony?
a reply to: Willtell

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


I think people have learnt some what from the mess the Iraqi war was, but surly any country that uses chemical weapons on its own populous needs to given an ultimatum (if proven true) about such usage.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It seems that some would deny our "enemies" a right to exist.

Others would make enemies where we have none. We make allies where there are none as well.

If we leave Syria to Assad, everyone wins.

How many native Syrians make up the rebel groups?

Is this just Syria VS privately financed armies whose benefactors are the worlds elite that use conflicts like that in Syria to manipulate the Markets for gains?

Are the same backroom players giving lines of credit to finance the arms purchases for these rebels?

If they are also buying and selling the weapons for their paid armies to use, then they decide how the war evolves and even when its over.

Assad could win his war ever year and new privately funded foreign mercenaries will fill the ranks of whatever flag or group is feeding and paying their soldiers.

What we have are private armies that need an official fall guy like in Iraq. There we had 1 coalition soldier to every 4 private contractors. (Contractors not bound to answer to ANY court.)

Thats why there is a push to invade Syria beyond the existing plan to destabilize the ME

Our government then paid our soldiers in Iraq 1/3 - 1/4 of what private contractors earned.

They see a future hell in Syria that is too obvious without official intervention to take some heat and attention off the private and lawless roaming killers.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

We are playing with serious fire re Russia and Iran here. Is it really worth it for western regional hegemony?

Bolton says yes!! believe me!

For those who aren't following Q thread, our fella stosh64 just posted an article stating that there is proof the gas attack in Syria was a false flag

FALSE-FLAG CONFIRMED - CHLORINE GAS USED FOR CHEMICAL ATTACK IN SYRIA WAS "MADE IN GERMANY" BY MERCK CORPORATION

And our other member MindBodySpiritComplex found this article: Did German Companies Aid Syrian Chemical Weapons Program?

Government documents and information from the Assad regime indicate that German companies may have helped Syria produce chemical weapons over the course of decades. So far, the Merkel administration has shown no willingness to investigate.

Keep digging it!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


I think people have learnt some what from the mess the Iraqi war was, but surly any country that uses chemical weapons on its own populous needs to given an ultimatum (if proven true) about such usage.

The thing is they've been trying to peg chemical weapons on him for a while, to justify intervention.

I was studying the Syrian conflict formally in 2013/2014. I went to an event with the UN investigative team that was THE only team to get to the site of the 2013 chemical attack in time to test anything. In front of me, they stated it was impossible to prove who did it. They explicitly stated there wasn't proof Assad did it. Meanwhile, the media was saying it was Assad all the way, as if it was proven. This, among many reasons, is why I'm very wary.

First, it's a fact that a substantial portion of the militants aren't even Syrian. Secondly, it's also a fact that they are funded, armed, and trained by the west and regional allies.
a reply to: tadaman