Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Some stuff was nicked or captured before that happened. Â That's convenient. Is there any real evidence at all to support this? I mean, literally anything? Has Russia got a single damn piece of information other than it's "word", and the word of the fuckwit who currently rules Syria, that this is what happened? Â I'm prepared to give Russia a lot of slack in the face of Western aggression, but I'm not going to choke back their bullshit unless they have any actual, meaningful evidence to contribute. As it stands, the West for all its 'hastiness' in responding here, has the far more convincing story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) That's convenient. Is there any real evidence at all to support this? I mean, literally anything? Has Russia got a single damn piece of information other than it's "word", and the word of the fuckwit who currently rules Syria, that this is what happened?  I'm prepared to give Russia a lot of slack in the face of Western aggression, but I'm not going to choke back their bullshit unless they have any actual, meaningful evidence to contribute. As it stands, the West for all its 'hastiness' in responding here, has the far more convincing story. There has been no ground investigation. Like last time during Obama who in his wisdom held off and it was found that the rebels used the chems because it wasn't the type Syria had (we know this because we sold it to them). Mi6 and Porton Down confirmed this. (This is the 5th time I'm having to explain this).  Why would Syria use Chems when they are winning the ground war on 17 fronts?  ''Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria’s infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.''   ''Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin. Five of those arrested were freed after a brief detention. The others, including the ringleader, Haytham Qassab, for whom the prosecutor requested a prison sentence of 25 years, were released pending trial. In the meantime the Turkish press has been rife with speculation that the Erdoğan administration has been covering up the extent of its involvement with the rebels. In a news conference last summer, Aydin Sezgin, Turkey’s ambassador to Moscow, dismissed the arrests and claimed to reporters that the recovered ‘sarin’ was merely ‘anti-freeze’.''  https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The argument against the idea that they've inadvertently blown up a munitions depot appears to be that doing so would have all but entirely destroyed the Sarin. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) I have no idea I'm not a chem weapons expert. Â Why would Syria use Chems (and risk bringing America into the war) when they are winning the ground war on 17 fronts? Â Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So what's your theory, Parky? If it wasn't Assad, who used the chemical weapons? I'm pretty sure Trump would rather it would have been Isis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Trump will lose the next election if he escalates in Syria. It certainly is totally counter to the promises he made to the core support. No more wars and rebuilding America rhetoric will be seen as hollow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Don't underestimate the stupidity of the American voter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Doesn't sound too promising does it  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-russia-air-strikes-syria-suspend-agreement-memorandum-direct-conflict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 So what's your theory, Parky? If it wasn't Assad, who used the chemical weapons? I'm pretty sure Trump would rather it would have been Isis Trump doesn't have the intel and hasn't waited to find out like Obama did. This attack shows that there is no continuity in Trumps thinking. One minute they are talking (last week) about de-escalating in Syria and the next its a cruise missile strike. We'll have to wait till there are experts on the ground who can give provenance to what has happened there. Clear thinking on Syria should mean get Isis out first and then work out what to do with Assad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I have no idea I'm not a chem weapons expert.  Why would Syria use Chems (and risk bringing America into the war) when they are winning the ground war on 17 fronts?    You aren't a chemical weapons expert and yet you're telling me that it's not effective when dropped from planes... I don't think you get to play that one both ways  Why would the risk it - who knows. Maybe because they've had no repercussions previously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Doesn't sound too promising does it  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-russia-air-strikes-syria-suspend-agreement-memorandum-direct-conflict-military-donald-trump-putin-a7671631.html This just means that Russia will expand the S300 and possibly the S400 force in Syria and at some point will shoot down an American missile or plane. They can do it now but probably are shocked by Trumps off the cuff response to a very complex issue. Edited April 7, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Trump doesn't have the intel and hasn't waited to find out like Obama did. This attack shows that there is no continuity in Trumps thinking. One minute they are talking (last week) about de-escalating in Syria and the next its a cruise missile strike. We'll have to wait till there are experts on the ground who can give provenance to what has happened there. Clear thinking on Syria should mean get Isis out first and then work out what to do with Assad. At least now he's pissed off his mate vlad we might finally get to see the golden shower video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 ...I mean, I'd personally be amazed if anything remotely interesting comes of this. But who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 You aren't a chemical weapons expert and yet you're telling me that it's not effective when dropped from planes... I don't think you get to play that one both ways  Why would the risk it - who knows. Maybe because they've had no repercussions previously? Yeah cause Assad is gagging to get America into the war. Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Yeah cause Assad is gagging to get America into the war. Lord. Â He's gagging to win the thing, we know that for certain. If Chem weaps help, and he's not previously brought the yanks in by using them, why stop now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17828 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) He's gagging to win the thing, we know that for certain. If Chem weaps help, and he's not previously brought the yanks in by using them, why stop now? If it was Assad, he would have refrained with Clinton in power. Might have chanced it with Trump though. Parky is spot on though with the unpredictable trigger happy nature of Trump though. Launching cruise missiles without due diligence is also something Clinton, with her temperament and experience, would have avoided. Edited April 7, 2017 by Renton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 If it was Assad, he would have refrained with Clinton in power. Might have chanced it with Trump though. Parky is spot on though with the unpredictable trigger happy nature of Trump though. Launching cruise missiles without due diligence is also something Clinton, with her temperament and experience, would have avoided. Â This is the same Clinton who, in response to this attack, said that she would blow up every airbase in Syria, and implement a hardline stance with Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted April 7, 2017 Author Share Posted April 7, 2017 Very good, succinct string. Recommend reading it all... Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Very good, succinct string. Recommend reading it all... Â Â Agree with basically all of that - but what they need to do to get rid of him, are things that they won't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 12767 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 I assumed Parky's point re: chemical weapons was the possibility of using those weapons in a terrorist attack in a major city tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19839 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Very good, succinct string. Recommend reading it all...  https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/850164712587251712 Thanks for sharing, some excellent points. I think this one is the most pertinent  [tweet] [/tweet] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 707 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 We (the West) could've snapped Assad like a twig 3-4 years ago when he was on the brink, but we stood by and did nothing. Now that he's already retaken Aleppo, butchered a quarter of his people and sent another quarter fleeing through Turkey to Europe, feeding the likes of Wilders, Orhan, Le Pen and Farage, NOW some gas is a step too far. A handful of missiles are too little, too late.  This is a show of force to prove Trump's independence from Russia and make him look decisive and presidential. He won't escalate in Syria. He won't stop Assad, any more than Obama did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Thanks for sharing, some excellent points. I think this one is the most pertinent  [tweet] [/tweet]  I thought the question of why this was allowed to happen in the first place was key tbh. No point getting rid of Trump if you don't address the underlying catastrophe that created him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 @@Happy Face  What do you make of these guys?  https://off-guardian.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Superb comment on the Guardian  What strikes me about this decision by Trump, which we all know he would have been Twitter-raging about if it had been six months ago, is that he clearly decided that this situation required him to live up to the "tough" rhetoric he frequently uses. It also provokes a useful bit of handbags with Russia, at a useful time in that bit of the picture. But mainly, you can almost see him going "Right, what are we going to do - options!" "Well, Mr President, we could fire off some missiles at something military over there. That's the usual doing-something-nothing approach." "Bah! Did Obama do that?" "No Sir, he did not." "OK, I'm listening. How many missiles?" "Well, five or six is usually sufficient." "Right! I want sixty, d'yhear? Sixty! I want that place going off like popping candy! That's how we show we mean business!" "Sir, we only have 59 missiles in theater." "Well 59 then, goddammit! But find me the guy who is in charge of ordering missiles, I want a word with that guy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now