It is a classic political move. In order to distract the general population from domestic issues, you create some crisis of state so that patriotic fervour would force everyone into supporting you (for a while anyway). Finding someone to bomb (preferably someone who can't bomb back) is a good way to do that, and it has usually worked when governments have tried it. Sometimes it doesn't, such as what happened with Argentina and the Falklands war. But the mistake they made was underestimating the ability of the distractees to bomb back. If you adopt that strategy and are forced into a humiliating defeat, then your goose is cooked.
Trump for President. Who's hopping on the bandwagon? Who's digging a bunker?
- Thread starter PuntMeister
- Start date
The whole situation is bizarre.
Assad is winnng the war, and calls for his ouster from the West had eased.
Why would he use poison gas at this point, and when the world was assured he had no stocks left?
This still smells to me like the rebels did it to their own people to put Assad and Russia back in the crosshairs.
Assad is winnng the war, and calls for his ouster from the West had eased.
Why would he use poison gas at this point, and when the world was assured he had no stocks left?
This still smells to me like the rebels did it to their own people to put Assad and Russia back in the crosshairs.
This is a good observation and it might be somebody else too to detract from the real issue. It may even be the Russian with some collusion to help somebody out from the ongoing investigation.There seems to be no report of real damages from the strike. 59 Tomahawk Missile? Strange. Usually in this kind of happening, the Russian would have been up in arms condemning the US and demanding this and that already. They seem unassertive in my opinion.
who knows what decision making process goes on in Assad's inner circle, could be he wanted to prove to his detractors that he could get away with anything and the united nations would be gridlocked in decision fear
might have not expected resolve from the Americans, Ronald Regan era the same, taught the world that having a cowboy as president who was not interested in checking polling data before making a decision required a different approach
might be a good thing for those who think political indecision will give them an advantage to learn that things can change, especially north korea
in the Regan era, the politburo had to accommodate a moderate leader going forward or Regan was going to out spend them on defense with his star wars program
Putin needs to be put in his place as well but that might be more difficult
might have not expected resolve from the Americans, Ronald Regan era the same, taught the world that having a cowboy as president who was not interested in checking polling data before making a decision required a different approach
might be a good thing for those who think political indecision will give them an advantage to learn that things can change, especially north korea
in the Regan era, the politburo had to accommodate a moderate leader going forward or Regan was going to out spend them on defense with his star wars program
Putin needs to be put in his place as well but that might be more difficult
There's also a possibility that Assad figured Russia had his back and could do whatever he wanted. The rebels have made some headway lately in some Damascus suburbs, and are still quite entrenched in the north in some areas. He had very good reason to believe the rest of the world wouldn't care.
One thing that's quite glaring about this incident: The Russians have deployed the S-300 air defense system in Syria. It didn't stop a single cruise missile. The Russians (and Iranians, who have recently deployed the same system), have reason to be concerned.
One thing that's quite glaring about this incident: The Russians have deployed the S-300 air defense system in Syria. It didn't stop a single cruise missile. The Russians (and Iranians, who have recently deployed the same system), have reason to be concerned.
Sorry if you've been living under a rock, but the facts are:
September 27, 2013: The Executive Council of the OPCW Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) adopted a timeline for destroying Syria's chemical weapons. Hours later, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted to adopt a resolution that endorses the OPCW timeline for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. The Security Council Resolution says that the body will impose measures under Chapter VII of its charter if Syria does not comply with the resolution, or uses or authorizes the transfer of any chemical agents.
October 1, 2013: A joint team of OPCW and UN officials arrived in Syria to begin destruction of the country's chemical weapons stockpiles and facilities.
October 31, 2013: The OPCW confirmed that Syria destroyed, or rendered inoperable, all of its declared facilities for mixing and producing chemical weapons. The OPCW was able to inspect 21 of the 23 sites where these facilities were housed. The remaining two sites could not be visited due to security concerns, but inspectors said that the equipment was moved out of these sites and destroyed.
January 7, 2014: Syria delivered the first load of chemical weapons to its port city Latakia. The chemical weapons were then loaded on a Danish ship that sailed out into international waters. China and Russia are providing protection for the ship, which will eventually transfer the cargo to the US ship, the MV Cape Ray, to be neutralized using hydrolysis.
April 22, 2014: Another shipment reached Latakia port, bringing the total of the chemical weapons stockpile removed from Syria to 86 percent.
April 24, 2014: An additional shipment to Latakia brings the total to 92 percent.
January 4, 2016: The OPCW announced in a press release*that the last of the Syrian chemical weapons material, 75 cylinders of hydrogen fluoride, had been destroyed by Veolia Environmental Services Technical Solutions.
-------------------------------------------------------------
December 13, 2016:*Allegations were made that chemical weapons were used in the Islamic State controlled areas of the Hama Governate, northwest of Palmyra.*
The UN acknowledged the rebels were in possession of chemical weapons as far back as 2013...http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139
Why do these threads always have to turn into a competition about whose the smartest person in the room? 
Wow a decent argument backed up with sources.
Most people see this as a two sided fight: Asssad vs Rebels.
In reality there are many factions fighting each other. Assad is the leader of what was the dominant faction. Iran and Hezbollah are not backing him, they are fighting their own enemies, but on Syrian territory. ISIS is fighting everyone. Russia does not care about Assad, they want a naval base and Syria is up for grabs. Also Russia has its own problems with jihadis so it is better to fight them overseas than in their own turf.
Much more complex, layers and layers, many players all with their own objectives and rules of engagement.
Have a look through Fisk's war for Civilisation.
Most people see this as a two sided fight: Asssad vs Rebels.
In reality there are many factions fighting each other. Assad is the leader of what was the dominant faction. Iran and Hezbollah are not backing him, they are fighting their own enemies, but on Syrian territory. ISIS is fighting everyone. Russia does not care about Assad, they want a naval base and Syria is up for grabs. Also Russia has its own problems with jihadis so it is better to fight them overseas than in their own turf.
Much more complex, layers and layers, many players all with their own objectives and rules of engagement.
Have a look through Fisk's war for Civilisation.
Exactly. Assad may be cold blooded, but he's not a deranged looney toon like Kim Jong Un. Why do something so militarily unnecessary and politically very stupid?
It seems most of the "evidence" the US (& Canada) are going on as proof of Assad's guilt came from the Turks - Erdogan's government which has close ties to the rebels, including ISIL, and was one of the foreign powers that instigated the civil war in the first place. They have troops in Syria and Iraq already, with no intention of leaving. But we're supposed to trust that Erdogan is providing an objective & credible analysis to the rest of NATO?
I smell another big fat WMD rat.
Question for all of you who know way more about this stuff than I.
As I posted earlier, notwithstanding that in these countries the people who take over once the dictator is overthrown are often just as bad, why does the CIA not just assassinate people like Assad or Kim Jong Un?
I mean realistically if the CIA wanted me dead, I would be dead by week's end and there is not a thing I could do about it.
There must be some reason these ass hats are still alive?
Or is there a much more nefarious plan out there orchestrated by Russia, China, Britain and the USA where they seem to be at odds over their opposition or support of these regimes and others but it allows them to portion up the world for their own means?
Cheers
As I posted earlier, notwithstanding that in these countries the people who take over once the dictator is overthrown are often just as bad, why does the CIA not just assassinate people like Assad or Kim Jong Un?
I mean realistically if the CIA wanted me dead, I would be dead by week's end and there is not a thing I could do about it.
There must be some reason these ass hats are still alive?
Or is there a much more nefarious plan out there orchestrated by Russia, China, Britain and the USA where they seem to be at odds over their opposition or support of these regimes and others but it allows them to portion up the world for their own means?
Cheers
1- It is a lot harder than you might think. Assad will be surrounded by loyalists and rarely appears in public. He knows he is a target, CIA is well down his list of potential assassins. If Assad falls his whole clan will be destroyed, so everyone in the clan regards his survival as important as their own.
2- There is an unwritten "gentleman's agreement" that heads of state are off limits. Take Arafat. The Israelis would have loved to have his head on a stick. He appeared at the UN and they could have popped him easily. They have had no problem assassinating enemies, but this time they did not. Maybe the risk of too much fallout.
Even Osama bin-Laden didn't attack the White House. An easy target with a good clean approach across the Mall. But he attacked the Pentagon and the WTC.
No, you're confusing opinion with fact. You seem to want to think actual events, and documented timelines are opinions. Syria has been monitored quite stringently on the removal and destruction of their stocks of chemical weapons. Only the last link was to the globalresearch site, and I did so because it congregated UN sources.
Obviously the insurgency in Syria makes it difficult to say all chemical weapons in Syria have been located and removed, but my original supposition still stands. Rebels and ISIS have had access to chemical weapons and neither they, nor Assad would have any hesitation in using them. Assad has before, as has ISIS.
The issue, at present, is that Assad has/had everything to lose by using them at this point, and the rebels everything to gain if the west blamed Assad for deploying them.
It's just a guess on my part, but getting reliable information in Syria is next to impossible, so my guess is as good as Trump's.
There was a really scary report on BBC months ago from a crew trying to get to the front lines in Syria to report on the action.
First, there is no real "front line" everything was fluid, shifting among the many groups.
Second, the crew were under constant threat of kidnapping from ISIS, Hezbollah, and common criminals.
Third, nobody was sure who anyone else really was. These guys don't wear regular issue uniforms or carry IFF devices.
So I would agree, all you can do is guess at the sum of all probabilities.
Since Iraq's collapse there are probably stockpiles of chemical weapons or at least precursors there. It is possible that rebels used it. I think it unlikely because Sarin is difficult and dangerous to handle, it is not like spraying Raid. And for the area reportedly covered, aerial delivery is likely. There were witnesses.
Although his chemical weapons program was dismantled Assad would be able to buy anything needed to make them.
He probably doesn't give a shit at this point.
There is no safe retirement for him. He saw what happened to Saddam, he stays in power or is killed.
He will do whatever it takes to hold on.
I've attached a recent interview with the former British ambassador to Syria. Listen to what he says, and try to think critically, not just believe everything you hear on CNN. The situation of stored chemicals being hit by a regular bomb makes more sense, and would explain the witness accounts being accurate and inaccurate at the same time. Obviously under the conditions throughout most of the country, accounting for weapons of any type isn't 100% guaranteed.
And Westwoody is right - everything and everyone in Syria is suspect because loyalties, ambitions, need and greed make for a constant state of flux. There has definitely been a rush to judgement in this case....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LKsn4ZutxQ
Last edited:
There is no logical inconsistency because I don't give a flying fuck what you want to believe or not believe.
I voiced my suspicions that the rush to judgement might be wrong, and backed it up with data and a video explaining a possible explanation.
If you want to believe the narrative being spun by Trump and the media go right ahead. I prefer to wait for more facts before making up my mind.
I voiced my suspicions that the rush to judgement might be wrong, and backed it up with data and a video explaining a possible explanation.
If you want to believe the narrative being spun by Trump and the media go right ahead. I prefer to wait for more facts before making up my mind.
Now that freakin' windbag with a dead cat on his head ,is attacking the Canadian dairy industry.....
The US has been dumping their overproduced inferior milk into Canada for years, and building up their infrastructure to over produce even more milk to export into our country.....Milk they can't and don't want to use.
They couldn't meet the standards of screened milk solids of our country, so our government on the provincial level has put tariffs on their product .....screened milk solids for further processing.
Our supply management system is about to be attacked by the US government, or they will have so much product,.....that they already turn 15% into fertilizer just to get rid of it........they will have to dump it.
My point is, when do we let our trade partners tell us what we can produce, consume, and let across our borders?
If a country over produces a product, why should another first world country allow them to dump their inferior overproduction.....that IS subsidized.......into their food chain?
If we allow the US to dump milk solids inside of Canada, our inspection standards will have to be revised.
Incidentally ......we have the highest food safety standards in the world.
I cannot believe that the average consumer in Canada would want to ingest milk that's otherwise destined to be turned into fertilizer.
The US has been dumping their overproduced inferior milk into Canada for years, and building up their infrastructure to over produce even more milk to export into our country.....Milk they can't and don't want to use.
They couldn't meet the standards of screened milk solids of our country, so our government on the provincial level has put tariffs on their product .....screened milk solids for further processing.
Our supply management system is about to be attacked by the US government, or they will have so much product,.....that they already turn 15% into fertilizer just to get rid of it........they will have to dump it.
My point is, when do we let our trade partners tell us what we can produce, consume, and let across our borders?
If a country over produces a product, why should another first world country allow them to dump their inferior overproduction.....that IS subsidized.......into their food chain?
If we allow the US to dump milk solids inside of Canada, our inspection standards will have to be revised.
Incidentally ......we have the highest food safety standards in the world.
I cannot believe that the average consumer in Canada would want to ingest milk that's otherwise destined to be turned into fertilizer.
https://fusion.net/milk-lobby-says-immigration-raids-on-dairy-farms-could-1794424350
If the immigration crackdown continues its rollout, then no Canadian in their right mind would buy American milk anyway. We might actually sell more milk to the Americans.
Last edited:
Interesting thread - guess it exists to allow some diversion from what a complete and utter fuck up Trudeau is for us. Love or hate Trump, would rather a dead cat be Prime Minister than this sack of shit we have now.
