Admission and evidence that the US is bombing Syria and not ISIS

a reply to: markosity1973

I have no problem helping Syria pick up the pieces once the blood shed is over, but as for helping them fight their war for them. F them. Assad and co are just as big of dicks as ISIS.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: markosity1973

I have no problem helping Syria pick up the pieces once the blood shed is over, but as for helping them fight their war for them. F them. Assad and co are just as big of dicks as ISIS.

You've succumbed to our Western propaganda machine.

We are not from the middle east. Who are we to tell them how to run their countries?

Libya, Iraq and Syria all had dictators, but the average person could go about their daily business in safety. We stepped in all those countries have gone to all hell now.

Assad was preparing reforms for his country before all of this started. Gadafi was trying to create a single currency for Africa (like the Eurozone) and Hussein switched Iraq to trading oil in Euros instead of the USD (very quckly reversed by the US occupiers after they deposed him)

There will be an ulterior motive (probably the Russian military base) for America being so interested in Syria.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: markosity1973

I have no problem helping Syria pick up the pieces once the blood shed is over, but as for helping them fight their war for them. F them. Assad and co are just as big of dicks as ISIS.

You've succumbed to our Western propaganda machine.

Succumbed to it? More like I just tire of constant warfare and America thinking that we should fix the world's problems every time some new group of crazies enters the scene. There are 190 some countries in the world. The US is only one of them. MOST have capable militaries. Yet, it's ALWAYS us who has to squash this #.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons that America outspends all other countries in military spending has a bit to do with other countries having grown reliant on America's military so they know they can keep their spending lower.

We are not from the middle east. Who are we to tell them how to run their countries?

Libya, Iraq and Syria all had dictators, but the average person could go about their daily business in safety. We stepped in all those countries have gone to all hell now.

So? Nothing we do is going to fix them. We just create newer and worse problems. It's a stupid cycle that is BEYOND obvious to break. Yet we keep falling for the same stupid rhetoric, "well we went in BEFORE and caused this problem so it is on us to fix it now!" Yet when we go back, we'll just create newer problems that we'll declare that we have to fix later.

Assad was preparing reforms for his country before all of this started. Gadafi was trying to create a single currency for Africa (like the Eurozone) and Hussein switched Iraq to trading oil in Euros instead of the USD (very quckly reversed by the US occupiers after they deposed him)

Ok. Fine. That still doesn't mean I support sending my military over there to help them.

There will be an ulterior motive (probably the Russian military base) for America being so interested in Syria.

Probably. There are ulterior motives for everything done on the world stage. Even if we allied with Russia in this conflict, there would be ulterior motives for us doing so.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll give you that that is better evidence than what the OP provided, but I have no way of knowing who or what the targets are of those attacks.

Exactly. They are falling on Kobani, Syria, a border town opposite Turkey. Good place to start the 'Humanitarian Corridor'. Seems the "Coalition" (read that NATO) got its no fly zone after all.

Captured US cruise missile

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your cynicism saddens me.

What happened to the basic human trait of helping someone out in need. Just because. No agendas, no expectations, just because they need it?

Politically and socially I am probably the last person that should want to go there and help out. But I am human and I see a need and I see wrong being done. I feel compelled to help out and if there is a humanitarian agency I can join to get over there, I just might.

Why can't the leaders of the world do the same?

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Your cynicism saddens me.

What happened to the basic human trait of helping someone out in need. Just because. No agendas, no expectations, just because they need it?

Blowing other people up or slaughtering them en masse isn't my idea of helping people in need. I already told you that I am MORE than willing to help Syria pick up the pieces once this is over with.

Politically and socially I am probably the last person that should want to go there and help out. But I am human and I see a need and I see wrong being done. I feel compelled to help out and if there is a humanitarian agency I can join to get over there, I just might.

Why can't the leaders of the world do the same?

I just see a waste of tax dollars that will lead to further wastes of tax dollars. What about the people in need in our own country that are in jail for non-violent crimes? What about the gang warfare that occurs on a daily basis here (something that circles back to drugs)?

Heck, we are talking about foreign people suffering. So what about our own damn neighbor, who because of our ignorant laws against drugs, has had its country stolen from under them by gangsters who wage constant warfare against each other with civilians caught in the middle?

But NAH, a country half-way around the world is TOTALLY more important than our own problems closer to home...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dunno, maybe actual, PHYSICAL evidence of this happening?

We can't just attack another country for no reason…

When has that stopped us? We'll just make up a reason, like Iraq having WMDs fourteen years ago.

Somehow I find this video fairly relevant to the discussion:



Admiral Lyons speaking after being called on by John Kerry. I think he makes some good points. There is definitely a political agenda to the current strikes and his speech seems to fit right in.

who 'profits' from bombing any place? there's your answer

originally posted by: blacktie
who 'profits' from bombing any place? there's your answer

The wars ongoing in Syria and Iraq benefit Russia to the extent of natural gas sales to Europe continue from Russia.

Middle East factions have been trying to build pipelines to Europe and even have some agreements.

Hmmm.

a reply to: UnBreakable

When has that stopped us? We'll just make up a reason, like Iraq having WMDs fourteen years ago.

Wallah, the ISIS Crisis.

a reply to: DJW001

Just bear in mind who is weakening governments in the area ... not the Iranians nor the Russians.

ISIS openly declared war on US and EU.

assad never did.

yet still US think assad is the bigger threat and make more efford to get rid of him than ISIS.
wake up people!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Azureblue

If this is not an admission and evidence that the US is bombing Syria and not ISIS what is?

Please explain. I see nothing about the United States bombing anything.

I suggest you read the article and think about what the implications of the press sceretary said are.

a reply to: UnBreakable

When has that stopped us? We'll just make up a reason, like Iraq having WMDs fourteen years ago.

And yet they did have them.

How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it millions of times. I’ve read stories here and there over the last several years about WMDs being found, but of course it never got much news coverage – until now.

The New York Times shockingly admitted in an explosive front page report that thousands of WMDs were found in Iraq since the start of the war.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

www.thepoliticalinsider.com...

I guess those who were effected by them, and those who found them were just lying.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Did Colin Powell already re-apologize about his previous apologies ?

a reply to: Azureblue

I suggest you read the article and think about what the implications of the press sceretary said are.

Care to point out exactly where that is even implicated, because it isn't in this article you sourced?

"Our concern would be that any effort to bolster the Assad regime right now would potentially be destabilizing," Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Tuesday.

They are saying that aiding the Assad regime that it will only prolong the fighting there...nothing there about the US admitting to not bombing ISIS, and nothing about there being evidence of them there to only bomb Syria.

Your taking what is said and trying to make your own narrative out of something that isn't there.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Did Colin Powell already re-apologize about his previous apologies ?

So your saying those who found them and those effected by them are lying?

Are you saying they never found them?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

As I remember it, Colin (Colon seems more appropriate) Powell was the one standing front and centre doing the misleading!

Poor man, he's just a victim too and we should all pity them for being misled!

Hanging the bastards is another option of course!

a reply to: Azureblue

I suggest you read the article and think about what the implications of the press sceretary said are.

I have. There is nothing in there that suggests that the United States is bombing Syria, not Daesh. That's why you need to explain yourself.