Trump says "big price to pay" for Syria chemical attack

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You are trying to create a false narrative. The rebels were beaten in Douma. Negotiations hadn't stalled, they were close to conclusion. The idea that Russia or Syria would be crazy enough to cross the international community's stated red line for military intervention, just to quicken the rebels' surrender, is so absurd it belongs in another universe.

 

I am not trying to create a "false narrative". The details in the link provided (and which included specific references to other sources) indicates otherwise than what you claimed. That you insist otherwise carries little weight.

 

I did not suggest that Russia carried out such an attack. I have given several possible alternative considerations that could have prompted Assad to such action. Not all of them had to do with "quickening the rebels' surrender" even.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The 'next seventy two hours' part of it seems a bit more pressing though.

 

Well, they'd have to put a time frame on such warning. Too short, and people will whine if they're off. Too long and (my guess) airlines/insurers would whine as well. Most chances are that if something does go down, it will happen within the next few days. If nothing materializes, they could either extend or withdraw the warning.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I am not trying to create a "false narrative". The details in the link provided (and which included specific references to other sources) indicates otherwise than what you claimed. That you insist otherwise carries little weight.

 

I did not suggest that Russia carried out such an attack. I have given several possible alternative considerations that could have prompted Assad to such action. Not all of them had to do with "quickening the rebels' surrender" even.

 

Your wiki link is supposed to be credible evidence? Gimme a break . Syria has almost won it's civil war, but it's determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something which guarantees a substantial military attack by the West. The really ridiculous aspect of this patently false narrative is that people keep falling for it over and over again.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, CharlesSwann said:

I've seen no speculation by the western media or politicians that the chemical attack was perpetrated by the rebels. That's bizarre consering the logic of the possibility is inescapable.

 

The only way the rebels can topple Assad is by bringing down the wrath of the world upon him, and a false-flag chemical weapon attack is a pretty easy way to do that. Is it impossible that the rebels had some of this stuff and detonated it on the ground? Killing a few of their own as a last ditch attempt to oust Assad would be an easy calculation for them - their refusal to surrender is already tantamount to suicide.

 

I don't know what happened any more than anyone else. But the fact that the possibility is not even being mentioned by the west has to be significant. In fact, it stinks to high heaven. Of course, if it transpired that the rebels did this, then they are finished, and the west's whole ignominious involvement in Syria is also finished. Naturally therefore the west is piling everything into the accusation that Assad has done this - simply to save face. What a sorry saga this whole war is.

False flag was an obvious possibility until Russia vetoed a UN investigation 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

Your wiki link is supposed to be credible evidence? Gimme a break . Syria has almost won it's civil war, but it's determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something which guarantees a substantial military attack by the West. The really ridiculous aspect of this patently false narrative is that people keep falling for it over and over again.

 

Ah, the "wiki" defense. Unless you're unaware, or did not bother to check - statements therein are based on actual sources, you're more than welcome do denounce them all. And, of course, no such objection when citing Wikipedia in support of your views.

 

As pointed out above, several possible explanation were given on previous posts. That you insist on oversimplifying and highlighting one of them to suit your narrative, does not change that.

 

Your "analysis" seems to rely on Assad having one set, and one set only of consideration, and that he goes through them in the same manner you presume. There is no particular support for Assad being some sort of master mind leader.

 

Assad's "almost there victory" is still a ways away. Other than the rebels that just surrendered, there are other such pockets of resistance, covering wider areas. That's without even getting into dealing with the Rojava situation or the Turkish invasion. Sending  a decisive and threatening message to other rebels out there is not without value.

 

As for "guarantees a substantial military attack by the West" - was there such a response? Not as yet, perhaps wait for it before making its existence and scope a fact. With the previous response for such a transgression being what it was, coupled with Trump's withdrawal statements, and banking on Putin's support, Assad could have miscalculated.

 

Another possible factor would be Assad asserting himself vs. the triumvirate (Russia, Iran, Turkey) deciding Syria's fate.

 

I'm not saying this is how things went down, but offering a possible take which doesn't necessitate complex conspiracies. You may disagree, but wholesale dismissal doesn't really make your arguments. 

[Grouse]

I bet there will be a significant attack aimed at damaging Assad at about Mosque O'Clock early Friday morning

 

Problem is, we have the monster's gang versus the mad Islamists. I know which side I'm on but I won't sanction chemical or biological weapons. So how to mete out punishment?

 

I would demolish Assad's palace and the whole political district

 

Watch for May piling in; anything to curry favour for a trade deal.

 

I'll be interested in Macron's response. It's partly their backyard....

[evadgib]

US President Donald Trump has tweeted that Russia should "get ready" for missiles to be fired into Syria, in response to an alleged chemical attack at the weekend.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43727829

[serialK]

18 minutes ago, evadgib said:

US President Donald Trump has tweeted that Russia should "get ready" for missiles to be fired into Syria, in response to an alleged chemical attack at the weekend.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43727829

 

"But several senior Russian figures warned of a Russian response to a US attack, with Alexander Zasypkin, Moscow's ambassador to Lebanon, repeating on Wednesday a warning by the head of the military that missiles would be shot down and their launch sites targeted."

[myfriendu]

On 4/9/2018 at 11:09 AM, geriatrickid said:

 

In case you missed it, the rebels do not have an air force. The chemicals were apparently dropped by helicopter by way of exploding barrels.  The use of the  barrels is a common practice of the Syrian military.

 

The Syrian military is in a final push on the area and doesn't care what the USA says or does because it knows that the USA will not  respond. It is no secret that Trump wants US troops out of Syria asap.  Why even blame the USA? The USA has no history of using poison gas. In case you forgot, the arabs use biological and chemical weapons. Iraq deployed them against Iran. It also used biological  agents in its fight against the  swamp arabs in the period leading up to the Kuwait war.

 

Save your blame for your friends as I am not part of the "cruelty". The arabs have been killing each other long before I was born. The world economic power has no interest in Syria. It is Russia which has its large  naval  base in Syria and has a large  spy facility  monitoring communications. Iran has a vested interest as it supports the state within the state of Lebanon, called Hizbollah.

 

Who is this "alt news source" Is this like the bogus news stories planted in Facebook by the Russian agents? I think most people have caught on to the  fake stories planted by Russian agents.

 

I don't know if some are amateurs. I believe some are  either mentally ill because they get a thrill from  arguing false arguments, while others are Russian proxies.

 

I don't think Trump cares one way or the other about Assad. trump wants to bring the troops  back to the USA.  Israel, would prefer the  order of an Assad government vs. an ISIL state next to it. Turkey doesn't care, just so long as it can kill off Kurds. Even Jordan stopped caring long ago as it  wants to send the million or so refugees it houses in detention camps back to Syria.

 

And yet the antisemites of Thai Visa  demand that Israel accept the claims and statements of the people who have no hesitation in using poison gas. Not one word from the resident jew haters on this horrific event.

Assad has no reservation in using poison gas. He has used it  multiple times in the past. Russia doesn't care. I don't think the Iranians were in favour though as they suffered terrible casualties when Iraq used poison gas against them and must understand the horror of the chemicals.

 

The Syrians used barrel bombs and deployed a  smaller  amount of chlorine gas. The  smaller amount makes it harder to prove that chlorine gas was used. 45_ vicitims was significant enough I believe. The only one pushing an agenda are the  unknown  TVF  names claiming this is a US plot.

 

So you believe that it is ok for Iran and Russia to meddle? How about the Turkish attempt to kill off the Kurds?  It is Europe that is at risk if more refugees stream across the borders this summer. They won't be  getting across the Israeli border anytime soon and the Iraqis kill the Syrians as soon as they get too far into Iraq.

The USA can indeed say buh-bye. Let the EU deal with the mess it helped create. There is a strong likelihood that Jordan may at some point say enough is enough and tell the refugees it holds to  go to Europe via Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus and Malta.  I look forward to the EU's summer crisis and recommend a special tax on all EU airline tickets of  10 Euros to  cover the refugee costs.

 

 

 

utter fake news you are mind controlled and bias to the truth ,msm is all you watch feel sorry for you

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, serialK said:

 

"But several senior Russian figures warned of a Russian response to a US attack, with Alexander Zasypkin, Moscow's ambassador to Lebanon, repeating on Wednesday a warning by the head of the military that missiles would be shot down and their launch sites targeted."

This doesn't look good whichever way you look at it.

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, evadgib said:

This doesn't look good whichever way you look at it.

World war 3 being announced by Russia's ambassador to Lebanon or a tweet by a POTOS! Is it just me?

 

Meanwhile the Syrian airforce has already been dispersed to Russian airbases with Russian A400s?

 

I hear that Teresa May is having her knickers launched from an Astute class submarine on the off chance of a trade deal.

 

Jesus

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by metisdead
Off topic music video removed.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

This doesn't look good whichever way you look at it.

 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I state that It has the potential to lead to WW III.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Khun Han

[juice777]

US President Donald Trump has tweeted that Russia should "get ready" for missiles to be fired into Syria, in response to an alleged chemical attack at the weekend.
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43727829

So he has basically just announced WW3 via twitter.

Because I don't see how we can bomb them without killing civilians so surely that's of the cards.So boots on the ground I reckon.

Anyone know what the call-up age is?

Should be interesting down walking St with all those Russians, will I have to fight them on sight?





Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I state that It has the potential to lead to WW III.

I don't to I wonder if Thailand will be on the right side this time?

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I state that It has the potential to lead to WW III.

 

I'd take bets it won't. Then again, if I'm wrong all bets are off.

But seriously, not the first time in history tough words were exchanged, and even a scuffle won't necessarily develop further. Either way, it's nothing to be feel great about.

[juice777]

 

I'd take bets it won't. Then again, if I'm wrong all bets are off.

But seriously, not the first time in history tough words were exchanged, and even a scuffle won't necessarily develop further. Either way, it's nothing to be feel great about.

Yeah, but before we Had M.A.D that's not applicable anymore now that we have 2 Mad Men on the buttons.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, juice777 said:

So he has basically just announced WW3 via twitter.

Because I don't see how we can bomb them without killing civilians so surely that's of the cards.So boots on the ground I reckon.

Anyone know what the call-up age is?

Should be interesting down walking St with all those Russians, will I have to fight them on sight?





Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

Depends how you envisage "bomb". I don't think there's going to be any sustained effort against Syria (and surely not, the Syrian people). Most targets, if it comes to it, will be of a military nature, or those identified with Assad's rule. Can't rule out civilian casualties but doubtful targets putting a whole lot of civilians at risk will be chosen. Boots on the ground? Methinks not. That would require weeks, if not months of preparations.

 

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Yeah, but before we Had M.A.D that's not applicable anymore now that we have 2 Mad Men on the buttons.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Doubt Putin is mad. And doubt it would come to this.

[juice777]

I hope you are right but I don't see how we can bomb military targets without risking civilians.The fact that we are going in because of them means that's a NO No.I suspect they will use human shields.


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[juice777]

 
Doubt Putin is mad. And doubt it would come to this.

Ok just evil then.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, juice777 said:

I hope you are right but I don't see how we can bomb military targets without risking civilians.The fact that we are going in because of them means that's a NO No.I suspect they will use human shields.


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

There is no way to carry out an attack and ensure no civilian will be hurt. That said, how such casualties are perceived is a matter of figures and spins. I doubt that scenarios considered involve a whole lot of that. This ain't about carpet bombing Syria or anything of the sort. As for "human shields", I don't think that's quite the case. Some of Assad's military installations, and obviously, facilities associated with the regime, are located near or within civilian population concentrations, but many are not. I'm sure planners are aware of possible consequences and that these are factored in the decision making process.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, juice777 said:

Ok just evil then.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

Evil ain't suicidal.

[CharlesSwann]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

False flag was an obvious possibility until Russia vetoed a UN investigation 

What I heard was that Russia vetoed the resolution for the method of verification favoured by the allies (and therefore biased), and that the allies vetoed Russia's resolution for verification to be done by an independent body (presumably because the allies don't want a unbiased assessment to take place). The bias in the news reporting itself in concentrating on Russia's veto alone was colossal.

Correct me if I have this wrong (lots of misinformation swirling about) as it's pretty significant.

 

As I said, I don't know what happened, but if Assad did do it, he's stupid beyond credibility, and if the rebels didn't do it, they're just as stupid because we can see the support they've gained from this. And as the WMD story proved the allies are perfectly capable of massive strategic lies, I'm going to rely on my own reasoning.

[ChouDoufu]

18 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

....As I said, I don't know what happened, ....

you are not alone.

 

bbc is reporting that "russia says" there's is as yet no evidence that a gas attack even occurred, and are referencing the "syrian-american medical society" as claiming up to 500 people brought to medical centers. 

 

i don't know if that's a real medical aid organization or something created to spread propaganda.  the bbc article has an embedded link to their site if you wish to investigate.

 

rt is reporting that the "syrian red crescent" reported six people brought in to their hospital in the affected area complaining of breathing problems, but no trace of chemical agents.

 

don't know if the syrian red crescent is state supported, or if their reporting is reliable, but they claim to have a hospital inside the rebel-held zone.  the rt article has a link to their source as well.

[Morch]

37 minutes ago, CharlesSwann said:

What I heard was that Russia vetoed the resolution for the method of verification favoured by the allies (and therefore biased), and that the allies vetoed Russia's resolution for verification to be done by an independent body (presumably because the allies don't want a unbiased assessment to take place). The bias in the news reporting itself in concentrating on Russia's veto alone was colossal.

Correct me if I have this wrong (lots of misinformation swirling about) as it's pretty significant.

 

As I said, I don't know what happened, but if Assad did do it, he's stupid beyond credibility, and if the rebels didn't do it, they're just as stupid because we can see the support they've gained from this. And as the WMD story proved the allies are perfectly capable of massive strategic lies, I'm going to rely on my own reasoning.

 

Right. Because if something is favored by the "allies", it is "therefore biased", whereas something favored by Russia would be no such thing. Presumably, of course. And that awful reporting, nothing like the accurate, objective versions one can find on the other side's media outlets.

 

Assad had valid reasons to carry this off, and the rebels did not actually "gain" anything from it - they've already surrendered.

 

Not that I suspect you of being even slightly sincere, but considering all them "I don't know"s and ending with "rely on my own reasoning" is a bit lame.

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

you are not alone.

 

bbc is reporting that "russia says" there's is as yet no evidence that a gas attack even occurred, and are referencing the "syrian-american medical society" as claiming up to 500 people brought to medical centers. 

 

i don't know if that's a real medical aid organization or something created to spread propaganda.  the bbc article has an embedded link to their site if you wish to investigate.

 

rt is reporting that the "syrian red crescent" reported six people brought in to their hospital in the affected area complaining of breathing problems, but no trace of chemical agents.

 

don't know if the syrian red crescent is state supported, or if their reporting is reliable, but they claim to have a hospital inside the rebel-held zone.  the rt article has a link to their source as well.

 

Another one of them "I don't know" posts, which somehow manages to cast doubt on one set of claims. So much concern...trolling.

 

 

Syrian American Medical Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_American_Medical_Society

 

Syrian Arab Red Crescent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Arab_Red_Crescent

 

Aid groups suspend cooperation with UN in Syria because of Assad 'influence'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/08/aid-groups-un-syria-concern-assad-united-nations

 

Syria conflict: Aid agencies call for investigation into UN operations, say Assad influence is harmful

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-09/aid-agencies-call-for-investigation-into-un-syria-response/7828332

 

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I state that It has the potential to lead to WW III.

 

TBH I don't think that Trump has either the balls or the brains to do much about Syria While he may be POTUS.

 

He is what we describe in the UK as all mouth and no trousers.

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=All mouth and no trousers

 

Someone who can talk a good game but cannot back himself up. Relies heavily on others who are his opposite (able, but a poor orator) to sort out any problems. One who makes idle threats.

 

He will tweet something today and tomorrow he will tweet something completely different.

 

He doesn't really have the backing of the US military who DO understand the logistics involved.

 

[Ron19]

Troll post removed

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Right. Because if something is favored by the "allies", it is "therefore biased", whereas something favored by Russia would be no such thing. Presumably, of course. And that awful reporting, nothing like the accurate, objective versions one can find on the other side's media outlets.

 

Assad had valid reasons to carry this off, and the rebels did not actually "gain" anything from it - they've already surrendered.

 

Not that I suspect you of being even slightly sincere, but considering all them "I don't know"s and ending with "rely on my own reasoning" is a bit lame.

 

"the rebels did not actually "gain" anything from it - they've already surrendered."

 

 

The rebels have so much to gain from it, it's difficult to know where to start. But let's start with the fact that they can quickly un-surrender and be quickly be re-armed and moved back into conflict positions once the Syrian army and it's Russian backers are put on the back foot because of the false flag incident created by said rebels.

 

And it's become beyond suspicion about your sincerity in these discussions, considering the huge variety of highly implausible explanations/excuses you provide for your pov.

 

By the way, is there any independent confirmation of the rebels' supporters claims about this alleged incident? History won't look kindly on this debacle. But history might not get the opportunity to do so.