Jump to content

Trump orders strikes against Syria over chemical weapons attack


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Alex Jones and David Icke for starters.

 

Last poll on UK showed just 22% agree with the UK Gov's narrative.

 

Considering the first line, I wouldn't take any non-sourced statements out of you at face value, or without a truckload of salt.

  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, there were such claims about rebels (not necessarily the group in question) using chemical weapons. Fair enough, and quite probable that there were such instances. When it comes to scope, though, asserting that their capabilities of production and delivery are anywhere on par with Assad's, is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

 

Assad did not have the Douma rebels on the run. Negotiations for their surrender stalled a few days before the chemical attack. Then came the chemical attack, followed by the rebels' surrender the day after. So, in effect - the rebels staging this would seem dubious, whereas Assad's concrete gains are obvious.

 

It is not clear which "local journalist" you are citing, and I'd doubt it is not an extremely partisan source (again, putting it mildly). I'm also yet to see anything to substantiate repeated claims about these rebels being the US's "proxy fighters". That the US supported some rebel groups in the past is fact, but other than this not applying to all rebel groups, support was canceled a  while back.

 

Assad has his faults, and there's not indication that he's much of a strategist, other than you claiming so. Going from firmly in-place dictator, to the country being shredded by a civil war, does not give the sense your comment is on the money.

 

We have no argument over the value of the current attack. At best, it would serve as a temporary set-back and deterrent.

 

One hopes that people will keep a grip on reality. The so-called "buildup" is no match for the amount of troops at Assad's disposal. There's no real indication of this developing further.

Your logic is flawed. The Douma rebels were on their last legs, anyway. Assad arguably had more to lose than gain - not least in terms of his Western depiction as a less than human  "monster" - by risking a chemical attack.

 

As to his strategic skills, they are self evident by his success in resisting the best efforts of the US, her allies and sundry proxy militia groups to unseat him. Perhaps you overlooked the telling quote from today's issue of The Times of Israel which illustrates how successful he has proved.at playing war games?

 

His nation hasn't been shredded by a civil war, but by seven years of US-fomented strife, using whatever forces (including the egregious IS and Al Nusra) they could recruit, in pursuit of the ultimate objective of turning their PNAC blueprint into a reality. Hence the reincarnation of John Bolton - one of the plan's architects - as Trump's guru.

 

The conflict in Syria is self-evidently a(nother) US proxy war, along the lines of that in Afghanistan where CIA asset Osma Bin Laden and the mujahideen (file name Al Qaeda) took on the Russians, using American weapons, supplies and money.

 

Believe it or not, this particular US proxy war (and they have a formidable record of many, going back well over half a century) is one of eight being waged in Syria right now.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asad-abukhalil/syria-proxy-wars_b_5874488.html

 

Oh, and I'd better not tell the boys and girls at Langley, Virginia, that somebody out there actually believes they have turned over a new leaf. They'll split their sides laughing.

Edited by Krataiboy
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Guess we're down to plain old trolling, then. No others but verified conspiracy theorists?

So 22% for the official UK narrative; 60+%  against.  

 

My views are mainstream Morch.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Your logic is flawed. The Douma rebels were on their last legs, anyway. Assad had little to gain and a hell of a lot to lose (as has been explosively demonstrated) by risking a chemical attack.

 

As to his strategic skills, they are self evident in his triumph over seven years in resisting the best efforts of the US, her allies and sundry proxies to unseat him. Did you not bother to read my quote from today's issue of The Times of Israel?

 

His nation hasn't been shredded by a "civil war", but US-fomented strife, using whatever forces (including IS) they could recruit, in pursuit of the PNAC blueprint. Why else do you think Bolton, one of the architects of the plan, is now Trump's guru?

 

This is self-evidently a(nother) US proxy war, along the lines of that in Afghanistan where CIA asset Osma Bin Laden and the mujahideen (file name Al Qaeda) took on the Russians, using American weapons, supplies and money. Believe it or not, the US proxy war is one of eight being waged in Syria right now.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asad-abukhalil/syria-proxy-wars_b_5874488.html

 

Oh, and if I were to tell the boys and girls at Langley, Virginia, that somebody out there actually believes they have turned over a new leaf, you can bet they'll bust a gut laughing.

 

Nothing wrong with my logic. The Douma rebels were "on their last legs" for years. And them that surrendered right after the chemical attack still numbered in the thousands. They would have been defeated, eventually, but hardly overnight, as it happened. Assad gained a major pocket of resistance, right on his front door, being cleared. Rebels relocated (in accordance with surrender terms) to the Idlib area, where they will be less of a direct threat to his rule, and easier to dispatch later on. There's also quite a message sent to other groups, broadcasting the regime's ruthlessness and resolve. You may think these "little" in terms of gain, I'll disagree. As for losses - what did Assad actually lose?

 

Assad's triumph? As in cementing his client/vassal state position to two outside forces? His regime may very well survive, but not due to any strategic prowess, but despite his failures. That the uprising failed is less of a surprise, that several years down the line Assad still does not have things fully under control is another matter.

 

That you claim the Civil War is a myth, does not make it so. Waffling on about PNAC doesn't change that. Making wide brush claims and statements about supposed US goals, support for rebels and whatnot - doesn't make these into accurate accounts or concrete facts. Bolton wasn't in place when Trump took office, Bolton wasn't in place when the previous attack was carried out.

 

There was nothing said about this or that agency "turning a new leaf", that's just a faux comment added by yourself.

  • Sad 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

So 22% for the official UK narrative; 60+%  against.  

 

My views are mainstream Morch.

 

Figured you'd misrepresent figures some. That's not actually what the survey indicates. There was 22% support for a missile strike,  but 61% support for the notion that Assad's regime did carry a chemical attack. There were no 60+% "against" - 43% opposing strikes, 34% "don't know". As for support for your supposedly "mainstream" account - a dismal 5% (with 34% "don't know"/"other").

 

So in effect, acceptance of the narrative is rather wide, whereas rejection refers to means of response. Not quite what you advertised.

 

Any more obvious spins you wish to post?

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/04/12/two-one-public-oppose-missile-strikes-syria/

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The current situation in the Middle East is one in which no country "has hegemony". It doesn't make for a particularly peaceful Middle East. How would "the Kurds" serve your design? In order for them to be a power reckoned with there needs to be a whole lot of breaking countries apart (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), and for "the Kurds" to overcome their internal differences. Don't see this happening anytime soon, and not without a whole lot of the bloodshed and mayhem your claim to seek to avoid.

OK, well maybe EU should support Iran?

 

Shameful that the Kurds got no support for their own country (a la Israel) from the USA. I don't think any country trusts the USA anymore

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

His nation hasn't been shredded by a civil war,

You must be joking. 

 

Estimated 500k dead, majority being civilians. About half the pre war population are refugees / IDPs. Turkey occupying a buffer zone in Syria, Kurds opposed to Assad occupying Syrian land mass where the oil wells are located, IS still not finally destroyed in Syria, Idlib Province occupied by 'rebels' (future killing zone), no political solution in sight for unification of the country. No actual funded plans to address the massive amount of destruction etc, etc, etc. "Syria not shredded" seriously???

 

BTW interested to hear your assessment by when Assad will control the entire country.

Edited by simple1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

The current situation in the Middle East is one in which no country "has hegemony". It doesn't make for a particularly peaceful Middle East. How would "the Kurds" serve your design? In order for them to be a power reckoned with there needs to be a whole lot of breaking countries apart (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran), and for "the Kurds" to overcome their internal differences. Don't see this happening anytime soon, and not without a whole lot of the bloodshed and mayhem your claim to seek to avoid.

What do you mean by "the Kurds" in italics? Are they a figment of my imagination. Shall I begin writing "the Israelis" in the same way? What are these internal differences? EVERY Kurd wants there own land so that the Kurdish diaspora have a homeland.

 

Yes, right now there is no one country with hegemony. But the Saudi/Israeli partnership with USA blessing looks dangerous.

 

I do hope the Kurds make some powerful allies. Particularly against the Turks.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

OK, well maybe EU should support Iran?

 

Shameful that the Kurds got no support for their own country (a la Israel) from the USA. I don't think any country trusts the USA anymore

 

Iran, without any such direct support, is strong enough to challenge regional rivals and act as a regional force. Further support, such as suggested, may tip the scales.

Posted
Just now, Morch said:

 

Nothing wrong with my logic. The Douma rebels were "on their last legs" for years. And them that surrendered right after the chemical attack still numbered in the thousands. They would have been defeated, eventually, but hardly overnight, as it happened. Assad gained a major pocket of resistance, right on his front door, being cleared. Rebels relocated (in accordance with surrender terms) to the Idlib area, where they will be less of a direct threat to his rule, and easier to dispatch later on. There's also quite a message sent to other groups, broadcasting the regime's ruthlessness and resolve. You may think these "little" in terms of gain, I'll disagree. As for losses - what did Assad actually lose?

 

Assad's triumph? As in cementing his client/vassal state position to two outside forces? His regime may very well survive, but not due to any strategic prowess, but despite his failures. That the uprising failed is less of a surprise, that several years down the line Assad still does not have things fully under control is another matter.

 

That you claim the Civil War is a myth, does not make it so. Waffling on about PNAC doesn't change that. Making wide brush claims and statements about supposed US goals, support for rebels and whatnot - doesn't make these into accurate accounts or concrete facts. Bolton wasn't in place when Trump took office, Bolton wasn't in place when the previous attack was carried out.

 

There was nothing said about this or that agency "turning a new leaf", that's just a faux comment added by yourself.

My capacity for cud-chewing has limits, I'm afraid. My wife and 16 children are demanding some of my time. For now, we'll just have to disagree on the gory details of the Syria situation - though at least we appear to broadly agree on the main point under discussion: the futility of the latest missile strikes.

 

My faux comment (You do love that word faux, don't you!) was an incredulous knee-jerk response to your believing the US claim that it has withdrawn support from its rent-a-mobs in Syria. Hard one to prove or disprove, but I hae me doubts. Notwithstanding, I'll tell the boys and girls at Langley to stop rolling round the floor forthwith.

 

Without being able to call on motley hordes of proxy fighters, how the heck is the US going to continue the implementation of its PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which has been discreetly re-branded as into the deceptively innocuous-sounding Foreign Policy Initiative?

 

It is difficult to imagine the Americans squandering the flower of their able-bodied youth on overthrowing foreign governments who won't do as they are told (Syria and Iran are both in the FPI cross-hairs) when they can persuade local yokels, foreign mercenaries and sundry extremist outfits a la Al Qaeda and ISIS to do the spadework.

 

Vietnam clearly was a lesson well learned.

 

Oh, and if you seriously see nothing significant - not to say sinister - about the appointment of of John "Nuke 'em all!" Bolton as Presidential adviser all I can say is you must be in a minority of one.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran, without any such direct support, is strong enough to challenge regional rivals and act as a regional force. Further support, such as suggested, may tip the scales.

You think Iran can stand alone against the Saudi/ "Israel" / USA triumvirate? Get a grip.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What do you mean by "the Kurds" in italics? Are they a figment of my imagination. Shall I begin writing "the Israelis" in the same way? What are these internal differences? EVERY Kurd wants there own land so that the Kurdish diaspora have a homeland.

 

Yes, right now there is no one country with hegemony. But the Saudi/Israeli partnership with USA blessing looks dangerous.

 

I do hope the Kurds make some powerful allies. Particularly against the Turks.

 

Not a figment of your imagination at all. Treating them as a people unified, though....another matter. Hence the italics and such. Like many other groups, they have some serious internal divisions and differing views on things. Every Kurd may want a homeland, but there are various ways envisaging both the path and the end result. There were some good posts (and links to reviews) on some of these issues a while back, when the Kurdish referendum in Iraq was a thing. And by the way, my posts regarding Israel often make a similar point - that lumping people together based on nationality, racial or religious affiliation can be misleading.

 

So far, the supposed Saudi/Israeli partnership, with USA blessing, failed to curb Iran's designs in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. You're suggesting tipping the scales in a way which may undo the current balance.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

My capacity for cud-chewing has limits, I'm afraid. My wife and 16 children are demanding some of my time. For now, we'll just have to disagree on the gory details of the Syria situation - though at least we appear to broadly agree on the main point under discussion: the futility of the latest missile strikes.

 

My faux comment (You do love that word faux, don't you!) was an incredulous knee-jerk response to your believing the US claim that it has withdrawn support from its rent-a-mobs in Syria. Hard one to prove or disprove, but I hae me doubts. Notwithstanding, I'll tell the boys and girls at Langley to stop rolling round the floor forthwith.

 

Without being able to call on motley hordes of proxy fighters, how the heck is the US going to continue the implementation of its PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which has been discreetly re-branded as into the deceptively innocuous-sounding Foreign Policy Initiative?

 

It is difficult to imagine the Americans squandering the flower of their able-bodied youth on overthrowing foreign governments who won't do as they are told (Syria and Iran are both in the FPI cross-hairs) when they can persuade local yokels, foreign mercenaries and sundry extremist outfits a la Al Qaeda and ISIS to do the spadework.

 

Vietnam clearly was a lesson well learned.

 

Oh, and if you seriously see nothing significant - not to say sinister - about the appointment of of John "Nuke 'em all!" Bolton as Presidential adviser all I can say is you must be in a minority of one.

 

 

 

So you do not actually provide support for what you post, but rely on what you believe. Fair enough, as long as that's clear. Quite a bit of regurgitation regardless of initial statement.

 

The US did not afford support for all rebel groups. Whether or not the US still significantly supports any may be questioned. With regard to the rebel group relevant to the OP, I doubt your assertions apply. And I strongly suspect you've never even been anywhere near Langley, let along know anyone who actually worked there - apart from the bar stool agents.

 

I'm not the one going on about PNAC - you are. Up to you to support this, rather than ask other posters to make your arguments. And no, you calling my views a "minority of one" does not make them so. Bolton is bad news, assuming a wide ranging conspiracy is not mandatory.

  • Sad 1
Posted
3 hours ago, samran said:

Trump turning into an expansionist globalist leader that he promised the MAGA crew he’d never be. Offering to rejoin the TPP in the same week. His true colours are coming out. 

You want to make this about the USA It was Allies acting together. France USA UK

  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You think Iran can stand alone against the Saudi/ "Israel" / USA triumvirate? Get a grip.

 

I think in effect it already does. Examples provided - Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon. Iran's influence on the rise in all four - despite attempts to alter or curb such.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
Alex Jones and David Icke for starters.
 
Last UK poll showed just 22% agree with the UK Gov's narrative.
How can anyone take Alex Jones seriously it's beyond me.I've started to watch it just for a laugh.

But there is A Dangers Element to it fake news is one of the worlds Biggest problems, look at all the believers on this website, Now I believe in lots of left field things but now it's just ridiculous.

People look for a conspiracy in everything now and quite happily will believe lies that are told by this con man who is making millions.Reason being they just want to believe it so they ignore the obvious the obvious Being he is a bare face lier and then goes to his website and buy his snake oil.

Just look at this video it is staged its all fake and he is laughing all the way to the bank.The last thing he says is I won't sell out lol.

Then the believers say we ant capable of free thought its just surreal, they are telling us more lies then any government ever.

The man should be put in Prison for saying that mass shooting in America was fake how dare he.







Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted

Alex Jones basically said in court that he's playing a character. That's ENTERTAINMENT! (For a certain type of audience of course.) So, yes, taking him seriously would be seriously ridiculous. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Alex Jones basically said in court that he's playing a character. That's ENTERTAINMENT! (For a certain type of audience of course.) So, yes, taking him seriously would be seriously ridiculous. 
But people do, so its a bit like the WWE so maybe it should be called News entertainment.



Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

So you do not actually provide support for what you post, but rely on what you believe. Fair enough, as long as that's clear. Quite a bit of regurgitation regardless of initial statement.

 

The US did not afford support for all rebel groups. Whether or not the US still significantly supports any may be questioned. With regard to the rebel group relevant to the OP, I doubt your assertions apply. And I strongly suspect you've never even been anywhere near Langley, let along know anyone who actually worked there - apart from the bar stool agents.

 

I'm not the one going on about PNAC - you are. Up to you to support this, rather than ask other posters to make your arguments. And no, you calling my views a "minority of one" does not make them so. Bolton is bad news, assuming a wide ranging conspiracy is not mandatory.

1 My contributions are (mostly) well researched, but I'm open to correction if you can show I am wrong.

 

2 I didn't say the US supported all rebel groups. 

 

3. And you're right. I've never been to Langley. Do you always take EVERYTHING literally?

 

4. I don't need to "support" what I say about PNAC and its successor. They are what they are - statements of US intent.

 

5 You are actually not in a majority of one with regards to John Bolton. My grandmother says he reminds her of Mr Pastry and looks rather a sweetie.

 

No 5, in case you were wondering, is a joke.

Edited by Krataiboy
  • Like 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Alex Jones basically said in court that he's playing a character. That's ENTERTAINMENT! (For a certain type of audience of course.) So, yes, taking him seriously would be seriously ridiculous. 

 

15 minutes ago, juice777 said:

But people do, so its a bit like the WWE so maybe it should be called News entertainment.



Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

 

And then there's a reality TV personality, with WWE record to boot, playing the character of POTUS...

  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Me joking? No, you are the one who's having a laugh, cheekily reproducing only part of what I wrote out of context and trying to rubbish it.

 

What I actually wrote was: "His (Assad's) nation hasn't been shredded by a civil war, but by seven years of US-fomented strife, using whatever forces (including the egregious IS and Al Nusra) they could recruit, in pursuit of the ultimate objective of turning their PNAC blueprint into a reality". 

 

Syria's plight is not primarily the product of internal strife but external meddling by the hegemonic US, Saudi Arabia and their proxy armies. This is what has brought Syria seven long years of terrible suffering and caused the biggest refugee crises of modern times.

 

Of course I cannot say when or even if Assad will control the country. Nobody can. But one thing I would not wish upon its people is to be under the yoke of the brigands, bandits and assorted groups of head-lopping jihadists still seeking to replace him, with the help of 2,000 US "advisers".

Assad is as evil as the Islamists with his torture and killing and long before the commencement of the 2011 Civil War. 

 

You may like to revise your recent history of Syria. Assad facilitated the insertion of Islamist terrorists into Iraq during the US occupation. It was Assad who triggered the Civil War with his extremely violent suppression of the Syrian Arab Spring, including torture of juveniles, his release from his prisons of Islamists to create mayhem in an attempt to gain sympathy for his activities and so on. Not forgetting the massive corruption of his sect's 12% minority dictatorship. 

 

Yes, US made mistakes in deciding which factions to support in the first years on the war. However, overwhelming Assad is the decision maker & owner of the horror show that is Syria. As a small example look up his militia, Shabiha, whom he has taken zero action to hold accountable for their War Crimes. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

1 My contributions are (mostly) well researched, but I'm open to correction if you can show I am wrong.

 

2 I didn't say the US supported all rebel groups. 

 

3. And you're right. I've never been to Langley. Do you always take EVERYTHING literally?

 

4. I don't need to "support" what I say about PNAC and its successor. They are what they are - statements of US intent.

 

5 You are actually not in a majority of one with regards to John Bolton. My grandmother says he reminds her of Mr Pastry and looks rather a sweetie.

 

No 5, in case you were wondering, is a joke.

 

Most of your contributions aren't even sourced, what passes for "research" is an open question. You're making a claim, up to you to substantiate it, not another poster's task.

 

No, I don't take anything literary. Do you always make inane snide remarks regarding places you haven't been to, people you had no traffic with, or organizations you're not really familiar with?

 

Your comments regarding US support for rebels were broad enough to make your denial irrelevant.

 

PNAC is  not a a "statement of US intent".

 

Not much interest in your lame "jokes".

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
 

And then there's a reality TV personality, with WWE record to boot, playing the character of POTUS...

Well, you won't here Any arguments on me on that one that's for certain. Doesn't Make Alex Jones and the all the other Tin Hat gang right or better Dose it.And in some ways, I would consider Trump the same but for some unknown reason, he's managed to become president.They are two sides of the messed up coin.

 

I would like to give both of them a Slap.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

And then there's a reality TV personality, with WWE record to boot, playing the character of POTUS...

That's an entirely apt and serious comparison. Because that person actually holds the office of president. Most of the world's leaders as well as U.S. politicians have learned to filter his more bizarre ramblings and wait for him to actually do stuff before taking him seriously. But that in itself, having such a bizarre demagogue in the highest of offices, again, is deadly serious. People can't afford to ignore him and boy oh boy, he demands attention CONSTANTLY. 


To wit --

QUOTE:
Trump is drowning in scandal. He can’t focus on Syria.

He’s still calling his enemies names when he should be doing his job as commander in chief.

It tells you something about the chaos engulfing the Trump administration that the U.S. airstrikes on Syria had to jostle for public attention with the voluminous news of the president’s scandals.

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-Trump-is-drowning-in-scandal--He-can’t-focus-on-Syria-.SyegNp-ehf.html

Edited by Jingthing
Posted
18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Most of your contributions aren't even sourced, what passes for "research" is an open question. You're making a claim, up to you to substantiate it, not another poster's task.

 

No, I don't take anything literary. Do you always make inane snide remarks regarding places you haven't been to, people you had no traffic with, or organizations you're not really familiar with?

 

Your comments regarding US support for rebels were broad enough to make your denial irrelevant.

 

PNAC is  not a a "statement of US intent".

 

Not much interest in your lame "jokes".

Oh, please! Nobody, not even a you, provides sources for every statement in every posting. I give sources when I feel they are necessary or helpful or subsequently if asked. Otherwise we'd all be here round the clock.

 

"Statements of US intent", even for the most fastidious of nit pickers, strikes me as a fair description of the foreign policy recommendations produced by the PNAC think tank. 

 

I will do my level best in future not to make denials about comments which are themselves so broad as to make denial irrelevant. In fact, it will be quite a relief not to do so.

 

As you probably have already deduced, I am sworn to secrecy about the precise nature of my relationship with the boys and girls at Langley.

 

And those lame jokes? Blame them on my wooden leg.

 

Boom! Boom!

 

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 hours ago, Thechook said:

A little bit racist there.

What racist? Unless majorities of western countries are not white, point is people including children are killed by barrels of explosives dropped on their homes not forgetting the Russian air strikes on a daily basis.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...