Strike on Syria
Trump should be chemically weaponed.
Chemical weapons are on par with nuclear ones. With small arsenal it would be possible to exterminate whole Israel. Syria might not have such capability yet but they are working on it since they seem to have chemical weapons. So every reason to strike them to stop the chemical weapons proliferation is good. Sometimes like in case of Iraq just the suspicion of having them is enough. Another totalitarian regime with weapons of mass destruction is North Korea so they are next on the list.
You really belive the chemical weapons Story is true?Originally Posted by falsehope
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I believe the russian version is not true.
USA did another evident act of war against people and legal, democratically elected Syria's government. USA give illegal military support to islamistic bands, which they organised previously to ruin the economy in Syria and for other own egoistic and antihumanistic purposes, like did that befor with Iraq, Libya, etc. USA use impudent and stupid lie to base own actions in media's propaganda.
By Russian sources USA did this now to break the successful attack and advancement of Syria's army against islamistic bands. No of critical objects were destroyed and mb this was intentional as the task was to scary syrians in their fight against islamists. Also outdated anti-aircraft defences of Syria were able to hit 2/3 of those rockets. Now Russia plans to situate in Syria more modern weapons, though it had the rule and seems was able to hit all the rockets - it's better if will be officially done by Syria to avoid direct opposing with USA which may easily transform idiotic Europe to radioactive wasteland [as USA keep there military bases]. No more croissants would be too much loss.
USA were created by bandits and stay such.
I groaned when I saw this topic
So if I'm ever a rebel in a country like syria, guess all I gotta do is get a hold of some chemical weapons, use them on civilians and frame the government for it, then let foreign powers do the rest. Ez war ez life.
Last edited by Muddy; 04-14-2018 at 04:07 PM.
You need to understand that it's russian government and its RT who are notorious liars and the ones who bend the facts to make US look bad. The reality is actually the opposite what your government wants you to believe, that it's the US being liar and russia telling the truth. US, France and UK (the ones who really did attack this time) did not lie about their intentions, but the RT does lie at the moment. It's simple as that.
While I'm pretty sure the Russian government lies, I'm also suspicious of the intentions of the US, UK and French government. All these countries have a military industrial complex that is basically a big money making machine, so long as the bombs drop, they keep making that money.
Personally, I think the creation of safe zones in Syria is in order. While I really dislike Assad and especially Putin,since I think he's taking advantage of every weakness he can, and drawing us into war, like on a chess board, but that's precisely why we have to be smart and not play his game. The reason Russia clings to Syria so much is that the port of tartus is the only access Russia has to the Meditaranean Sea.
There are geo-strategic interests here, both for Russia and the West. The humantarian rhetoric is bullshit to get people to sympathize with military efforts of the West. If they are so sincere about humanitarian interests, why do they never utter a peep about what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen? Could it be because Saudi Arabia is our commercial partner, meaning we have nothing to gain from attacking them, in terms of geo-strategic interests? And yet Saudi Arabia is the biggest source of funding for sunni terrorism in the middle east, and Saudi money was behind the 09/11 attacks.
So why is there no concern over Saudi Arabia, and there is over Russia?
Not saying Putin is a good man or anything, but all war is decided by geo-stategic interests not humanitarian concerns.
Last edited by Ave; 04-14-2018 at 07:17 PM.
there's consistency here, its simply a Fe kind. that doesn't make it humanitarian if you define humanitarian by some metric of well being that is perfectly efficient and logically coherent (Te). but if you look at it as playing whack a mole with bad guys who grab the imagination theres a Fe field plainly at work here. Syria finally just reached the point where the time was ripe for symbolic action, and I call it symbolic even though its real, because you're right, judged in light of what all they could be doing, as a logical matter, this is an insignificant and biased drop in the bucket. however it is a matter of objective ethics, not objective as in "correct from all possible angles" but objective as in emotion has propelled the powers that be into action. in that sense it is humanitarian, with all its warts. but it is not linear-perfect Fi either, rather its humanitarian in a deeper more mysterious sense, which is to say its an "all-too-human" affair, from all sides
Yeah, politics is all about public opinion and getting the wider public to sympathize, which is very Fe.
What I'm saying though is that the real motive is different from the one presented to the general public by politicians, not sure what function this is and I frankly don't think it matters, what matters is to see clearly whats going on.
I just don't want my country to be drawn into a war because someone super powerful has decided his buddies in the military industrial complex need me to die for their paycheck.
I think both the concealed motives and the publicized ones are real, I think that's what I'm trying to get at. its true that if we never developed cruise missiles and chemical weapons this wouldn't be happening, but I don't think its the military industrial complex at bottom motivating this, more like simply furnishing the occasion for what we'd do with sticks and rocks otherwise. there is kind of a sense to simply offsetting any strategic gains resulting from chemical weapons use that simply makes using them pointles. i.e. if syria gains 10 inches via using chem weapons, and you take back 10 inches with cruise missles, it means syria in the future has no reason to use chem weapons if that will ultimately be the result. in that sense the idea is we can control them and stop them from using chem weapons by disincentivizing it completely [1]. the problem is there is a military industrial complex wherein in order to do that you need to be able to compete on an even footing, i.e.: to leverage such force you need to outpace the other in terms of weapons development. this continues on forever. but it is a necessary evil as long as one side is going to take the initiative [2]. in this sense I think the US is not the bad actor, but I will say that the timing of the chemical weapons use itself is suspicious, since it seems to perfectly offset the narrative of trump being russia's lackey, and providing an occassion for 1) distraction in the public eye of his misdeeds and in keeping with that 2) unifying behind 'murica. it wouldn't surprise me if in the final anaylsis russia's strategic goals were met better by framing asad for the chemical attack, letting trump seem like a strong independent coalition leading leader and general force for good, and meanwhile smokescreening their pernicious control over trump and maintaining all the real power from behind. in other words, this seems like a lot of really convinient symbolic action targetted at the american public more than anything else, and while I can't be sure of anything, the real beneficiary of all this seems to be Russia + Trump, despite the surface appearance otherwise, precisely because of the surface appearance otherwise
[1] this is why having a big economy and cruise missiles is nice, you can regulate the world via force through money, and save lives (hopefully), because at the end of the day you're just spending money to make it completely impractical for dictators to use chem weapons or other "bad stuff"--setting aside the collateral damage, but of course you can view them as being used as human shields by the dictators in question themselves
[2] in other words, as long as evil will unify and push the envelope good is required to meet it and even outpace it. that this presents a problem of escalation and ultimately good being complicit with evil in a dance of death for everyone involved is a question left to delta, it is the threat posed by beta, met by gamma, and ultimately unraveled, hopefully, by delta (alpha researches the bombs)
Last edited by Bertrand; 04-14-2018 at 07:05 PM.
The Americans did not need the pretext of chemical weapons to start attacking Assad. I see no reason to doubt that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons.
But military action is less desirable and probably more costly than accepting refugees from Syria.
americans don't need pretext to attack anyone, but it certainly helps
I think what I'm trying to say is: I don't want to go to war unless my own country is being attacked. I don't want to die or lose an arm because Macron, Trump, May, and Putin decided I suddenly need to. You're getting philosophical here and trying to bring socionics into it but that isn't the point, the point is I am genuinely scared of what will happen.
I agree you can look at this in many different ways, not saying there will be a war necessarily though I am worried. Also your argument about Putin framing Assad doesn't really make sense, like I said in my initial response to this thread it's in Putin's interest to keep his control over Syria and Assad in power. If the West has their say in who gets to be in power in Syria, do you really think that they will allow Russia to use the port of Tartus? Russia is mistrusts the West and vice versa, they are not ready to be allies soon, regardless of Trump. Believe me, Putin will NEVER let go of Syria. He's got way to much to lose by doing so.
So the scenario that plays out now is either: 1) There will be a clash between Russia and the West or 2) West bombs a few of Assad's military facilities, the media finds another Trump scandal, West stops with the bombs, Putin takes a pill and everyone forgets about Assad and Syria for another few months (and we go back to the cold war atmosphere), until a similar event happens again and we are faced with the same two possibilities. Until possibility N°1 plays itself out, we will keep going back and forth to possibility N°2.
the US has a professional Army, they don't want conscripts
I know. I am just saying my country is part of the EU and if France goes to war, alongside the US, so will we, most likely, at some point, depending on how much of a war there actually is.
Also, it isn't just about me. I don't want this conflict to escalate, even if I am not involved.
Syria has no oil. This is all about Trump’s tiny hands.
no offense, but if you're trying to rationalize the situation you need to look at it from the perspective of the major players. if your entire point is, this may not be in the interests of others than Russia/US, then you're entirely right. it practically by definition is not. not wanting the conflict to escalate is like trivially true from the point of view of basically everyone except a select few, I think we can make that baseline and not in need of a proof
Is it in your interest?
uh no, but neither do I operate under the assumption everyone should act for my personal benefit
Answer me this: What strategic gain would Assad himself have in using chemical weapons? How would killing a few extra rebels strategically outweigh the very high risk of foreign retaliation?
I'm failing to see any reason for him using them outside of him being a reckless idiot.
What you're saying is: we need to be sheep, bend over and take it from those in power. They're acting logically after all, who cares if its not in your interest, right?
You are free. Not some pawn on a chessboard.
Fact is, Western politicians have threatened Assad before and nothing happened. I doubt he fears retaliation.
He uses chemical weapons to terrorize the population. It's not about killing a few more rebels in terms of numbers but winning the psychological war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_warfare
Also, assuming your version is true, who would have done this and for what motive?
Assad probably believed that there would be no meaningful retaliation against him, considering how he knows there was little meaningful retaliation against his previous attacks on civilians, and considering that he counts Russia as an ally, who are well-known in recent years for their extrajudicial military escapades & interventions and assassinations as well as their authoritarian actions at home. Aside from that, I have no reason to suspect that Assad is not a reckless idiot.
lol I'm not saying that. also you are alpha to the max
I know you're not actually saying that, but neither am I saying what you said I was arguing.
You can have your opinion about my type. I think you're Ne-ILE.
If the rebels within Syria ever managed to get a hold of chemical weapons somehow, it'd make perfect sense for them to use them in a manner like and in pin it on Assad. They know it would bring in Western involvement against Assad, whom have plenty of geopolitical reasons to take out Assad and just need an excuse to do so.
Assad has repeatedly used chemical weapons against civilians for more than five years, aside from using conventional weapons.
I think we can all agree Assad is a bad guy, its precisely the light he's viewed in by the powers that be that shifts according to their political needs. there was always sufficient justification to take him out, but only now is there a hubbub about it. no one disputes he was bad then and bad now, what changed was the willingness to go after him. to me that willingness benefits trump and russia, and yes it is a shame that at no point the people that the US is ostensibly acting on behalf of never came into consideration except as instrumentalities to effect a convenient drama. at least when Obama was around I feel like he actually cared about the Sryian people. evidence to this being the case is the Syrian refugees admitted asylum into the US statistics. Subteigh is keen on providing information--provide that information for us please
But why use chemical weapons specifically though, which brought down missiles against them last year when they were alleged to use them, instead of just conventional means of warfare? To get a few easy kills? To instill unnecessary fear in the people? How does that outweigh getting bases blown up and giving the rebels more cause to fight?
Love too screech for months about how Trump is the next ******, then turn around and wholeheartedly support him when he starts another expansionist crusade like ****** would.
A list of attacks using chemical weapons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of...rian_Civil_War
Note the range of different agents used. Note also that "In September 2013 the Syrian government entered into several international agreements for the destruction of its chemical weapons that stipulated an initial destruction deadline of 30 June 2014, a deadline apparently achieved in respect of declared chemical weapons." ...weapons it had no legal right to have in the first place.
I don't know the mind of Assad. I only know that Syria has been observed producing and using chemical weapons.
Who?
Definitely people in my country, brosef.
Seems like the US is going to find a way to free the shit out of Syria. Not Trump's fault really. American corporate interests own him like they did all the ones before him.
I mean Trump sort of is a corporate interest, to say its not his fault like he's somehow opposed to them but can't help it ignores the fact that he's not at all opposed to them. besides what sort of corporate interests are really at work here anyway, i mean its trivially true whoever made the weapons kind of sort of benefits, but its not like they care who we go to war with, they'd just as soon bomb the rebels
there's also the fact that there's a longstanding US policy to reverse any gains made by such weapons through missile strikes, that while common people forget, and therefore think Assad doesn't know, Assad totally knows. Thus to go ahead and use them anyway is really stupid, bordering on suicidal. To justify his actions as if this factor weren't in play just betrays the fact that is an interpretation based first of all on ignorance and not a commentary on the real Assad. this is precisely how Trump benefits from people's short memories. people think they're above it and yet here we are, case in freakin' point
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
