Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (Read 426370 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1305 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
The use of chemical weapons is deplorable.

A swift strike to flex muscles is not great either as the USA is partly responsible for the situation in this country.

No more or less deplorable than the use of conventional weapons against civilians or starving them to death.

“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1306 –
... or deliberately targetting hospitals. 

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1307 –
Agreed.

Ask yourself this question.  Why would Assad choose now to attack his own people like this when he's been regaining control.   What's the strategic advantage of doing so? 

The answer is none.  This episode reeks of false flag to me.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1309 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Agreed.

Ask yourself this question.  Why would Assad choose now to attack his own people like this when he's been regaining control.   What's the strategic advantage of doing so? 

The answer is none.  This episode reeks of false flag to me.

"Regaining control"... isn't that the problem?

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1310 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Agreed.

Ask yourself this question.  Why would Assad choose now to attack his own people like this when he's been regaining control.   What's the strategic advantage of doing so? 

The answer is none.  This episode reeks of false flag to me.

I hate the term, but it's ethnic cleansing.

Bashar al-Assad remains in power through the support of his Alawite minority.  Anyone else is fair game.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1311 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
The only thing I find interesting is that everyone is happy to enforce their ideas of democracy on other nations and then state that our brand of war pain and suffering is better than the home grown version.

Meanwhile the occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkish insurgents continues from 1974 to today.

No one seems to worry overly about that one though.

We're the good guys though.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading

Reply #1312 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Agreed.

Ask yourself this question.  Why would Assad choose now to attack his own people like this when he's been regaining control.   What's the strategic advantage of doing so? 

The answer is none.  This episode reeks of false flag to me.
Why wouldn't he?  He did it in 2013, didn't he?  And he's a brutal dictator.  Have a look at the fable concerning the scorpion and the frog.  It's his nature. 

The problem is that Trump has never accepted that his words matter.  He feels he's free to say one thing one day and then another the next.  He sees this uncertainty as a positive in international relations, the "hothead" principle applied to global politics. 

In this case, might Assad have believed that Trump's recent and not so recent comments meant he had room to move?  Trump went ballistic on Twitter in 2013 warning Obama that reacting militarily to a bigger chemical weapons attack would be a horrible mistake.  He declared that it would have no benefit for the US.  All through the election campaign, he ran on an America First policy, saying the US shouldn't be involved unless its own interests are affected.  He said that he would go after ISIS as his priority and he was open to joining with Russia and Assad in Syria to defeat ISIS.  Only last week, Secretary of State Tillerson declared that Trump has reversed Obama's demand that there should be regime change and that he believed that the long-term status of Assad would be determined by the Syrian people. 

Assad has been using chemical weapons regularly as a tactical military weapon and a weapon of terror.  Why would he have discontinued their use when the wind from the US seemed to be blowing favourably?

He has been concentrating on suppressing opposition forces rather than ISIS.  Have a look at this article from the NY Times countering the argument that Assad wouldn't be this crazy: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html?_r=0.  

Fair enough, query the evidence.  But don't expect us to accept that there is no such thing as evidence anymore - that as long as you can think up a conspiracy theory, then that theory can be used as contrary evidence that either ensures a nil-all draw or as proof in and of itself. 

Ask yourself this - if Assad's forces really were going to go after a chemical weapons depot, wouldn't he want to ensure that the international community saw that the opposition was as evil as he is?  If bombing such a storage facility would likely lead to the escape of chemicals that would kill civilians, don't you think that Assad would want to forewarn the international community of this possibility to ensure that his regime wasn't unfairly blamed for any deaths?  Instead, the first anyone heard of this possibility was when Assad raised it after the event in his defence.

Then we have an intriguing allegation from the Americans.  After the chemical weapons event, a Russian drone overflew the site of the bombing and later a single bomber overflew the area and dropped conventional bombs.  Why would this occur?  The US military believes it was a cover-up.  As the hospital at which victims were to be treated or autopsied was bombed in this secondary attack, one possibility is that this was an attempt to destroy evidence of the use of chemical weapons.  Autopsies have subsequently confirmed they killed civilians.

And remember that the Russians are on Assad's side.  They provide support for Assad's Air Force.  That means that they no doubt performed pre-bombing aerial reconnaissance by satellite, drones, or their own aircraft.  Remember, this was a very sensitive operation - bombing an alleged chemical weapons storage facility in a residential area.  To do it right, close surveillance had to precede the raid to ensure that weapons were not moved out of the storage facility.  Any that were would need to be tracked and targeted separately.  The Syrians would of course lean on the Russians who were on the airbase.  You'd think the Russians would have been ecstatic to show the world the reconnaissance material that proved the Americans made an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country.  But no!  Just bald assertions.  They never bothered to present such evidence before the UN and haven't published any since.  Why are they so shy?  I'm sure there's a conspiracy theory to explain this ...

Experts also think that chemical weapons would be destroyed by conventional bombs that were supposed to annihilate a storage facility/factory.  In addition, they doubt that sarin gas would be stored in its active form and it would need to be mixed before use, something that wouldn't happen randomly during an explosion.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1313 –
Quote from: Thryleon on
Agreed.

Ask yourself this question.  Why would Assad choose now to attack his own people like this when he's been regaining control.   What's the strategic advantage of doing so? 

The answer is none.  This episode reeks of false flag to me.

I was going to respond to this, but it has already been covered extremely well and there isn't a lot to add.

Needless to say though, he hasn't chosen 'now' to attack his own people, he has been doing it for years, with Sarin, with Chlorine...
The guy is a monster who truly believes killing innocents in the pursuit of enemies is a valid way to keep control.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1314 –
Quote from: mateinone on
The guy is a monster who truly believes killing innocents in the pursuit of enemies is a valid way to keep control.

How many innocents have "we" killed trying to get the baddies in the middle east?
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1315 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
How many innocents have "we" killed trying to get the baddies in the middle east?

A lot and it isn't great, I don't think anyone thinks it is. But it is undeniable that the West make more effort to direct their strikes in a way to try and minimize the impact on civilians, but it doesn't always work and sometimes there have been terrible consequences. Nobody is saying that the west is without fault, but it can't be denied by anyone that there has been an attempt by the world to define acceptable use of force, as opposed to War Crimes.

Assad makes no distinction at all. I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe for a moment that if all evidence was on the table and he was before the International Courts in the Hague that he would be found guilty of War Crimes.

I don't see though why the discussion is "We do bad crap too"...

Shouldn't the discussion be

Who was responsible for the chemical attack in Syria?
What actions are to be taken against those responsible?

If the answer to A is Syria (or it's allies), then it is hard to argue against the US response isn't it?

It is a terrible world where armed conflict is the answer to any situation, but I think it would be niave of anyone to think that it is never required.
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1316 –
MIO, what you say goes completely against the writings and speeches etc. of people like Chomsky.

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1317 –
Quote from: madbluboy on
How many innocents have "we" killed trying to get the baddies in the middle east?
Who really kills children who are on the military base, the people dropping the bombs or the people who moved them in to live there?

Do you think it's an accident they are there?

You want to watch the movie "Eye in the Sky" for quite a reasonable perspective of how this sort of conflict works.

The choice is really some casualties there, of a Shopping Mall full of innocent people anywhere else! That is the reality of the situation, something we should all think about next time we wander down the shops with our kids or grand kids for an ice-cream or a coffee!
The Force Awakens!

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1318 –
Quote from: PaulP on
MIO, what you say goes completely against the writings and speeches etc. of people like Chomsky.

I am okay with that
Goals for 2017
=============
Play the most anti-social football in the AFL

Re: Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

Reply #1319 –
Quote from: LP on
Who really kills children who are on the military base, the people dropping the bombs or the people who moved them in to live there?

The one who pulls the trigger.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!