Assad crossed many Red Lines but I aint Broadcasting our Strategy!

apparently there is a us attack underway reported by cbs news 60 cruise missiles inbound to syrian airfield that launched the attack.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Stevemagegod

You cannot reveal a strategy when you don't have one. It's already more of the same: angry rhetoric.

Doesn't it get to be tiring watching all your posts become redundant?

Trump keeps his word. He is not Obama.

What word? This one?

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Or that probably doesn't count now.. hmm. I imagine people who support Trump didn't have issues with the above comment he made to Obama - and also don't have issues with him attacking Syria tonight. Funny, how that works.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Ohanka

and here is the page from which your the first image comes from. first printed in March 2014

this is the Arabic Page,
.sadasaida.com

and google translate page,
Video The Syrian air force may enter the Sukhoi-22 fighter into the battle

Great finds HDH

a reply to: Stevemagegod

yeh those chemical weapons are really bad , almost as bad as all the depleted uranium left lying around after the wake of US shock and awe

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Stevemagegod

yeh those chemical weapons are really bad , almost as bad as all the depleted uranium left lying around after the wake of US shock and awe

No, they are much worse. Depleted uranium is used for its density, which makes it good for piercing armor. The residual radioactivity is incidental and not weaponized. Both the United States and Russia use it. Russia may even be using it in Syria now, but for some reason no-one is complaining.

The chemical agents Assad is using are intended to kill painfully. They are a terror weapon, which is why their use is banned by convention. If you are really concerned about the use of depleted uranium, you can join a movement to get it banned:

www.bandepleteduranium.org...

ETA: I think depleted uranium should be banned because it makes recovery from war more complicated... and just looks bad when propagandists call it a "nuclear weapon."

Russia reports 6 MiG-23 jets were destroyed by Trump.

twitter.com...

a reply to: DJW001

Hey thanks I'll check that out

shame there isnt a petition to globally ban firearms eh!

a world full of guns is a world full of fear


I really wish a scientist would just create nanomachines to go around the world disabling all nuclear materials and guns so to render them inert or destroy them completely

a global ban on guns would be epic , but it will never happen because too many people are scared

a reply to: allsee4eye

well that seems more than just accidental or collateral ,

this could be very bad for trump

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

This is why I voted for him. Obama broadcasted his strategy way to much.

HOLY #....Are you serious?

Trump literally called the Russians and asked them to evacuate the airbase before the bombing and then decided not bomb the runways in the EMPTY airbase...

Planes are already using the airbase again.

WTF are you talking about?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

This is why I voted for him. Obama broadcasted his strategy way to much.

HOLY #....Are you serious?

Trump literally called the Russians and asked them to evacuate the airbase before the bombing and then decided not bomb the runways in the EMPTY airbase...

Planes are already using the airbase again.

WTF are you talking about?

And all of a sudden the investigations into the Trump campaign colluding with Russia have vanished from the news cycle. Not a bad bit of political kabuki, I must say.

a reply to: DJW001

The residual radioactivity is incidental and not weaponized

"Incidental and not weaponized"...you mean to say that it's safe to ingest? Gee where do you get your science from?

and just looks bad when propagandists call it a "nuclear weapon."

So you'd rather call it an weapon that utilizes some force "we shall not name" for political expediency - can't use that word nuclear even though the residual toxic effects are known.

This is from an official site...just to help "deny propaganda"

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

While depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, it still retains all the chemical toxicity associated with the original element. In large doses the kidney is the target organ for the acute chemical toxicity of this metal, producing potentially lethal tubular necrosis. In contrast, chronic low dose exposure to depleted uranium may not produce a clear and defined set of symptoms. Chronic low-dose, or subacute, exposure to depleted uranium alters the appearance of milestones in developing organisms. Adult animals that were exposed to depleted uranium during development display persistent alterations in behavior, even after cessation of depleted uranium exposure. Adult animals exposed to depleted uranium demonstrate altered behaviors and a variety of alterations to brain chemistry.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

"Incidental and not weaponized"...you mean to say that it's safe to ingest? Gee where do you get your science from?

So... when a conventional bullet enters someone, they die of lead poisoning?

So you'd rather call it an weapon that utilizes some force "we shall not name" for political expediency - can't use that word nuclear even though the residual toxic effects are known.

No, I would rather call it a weapon that uses inertial mass as a destructive force. It does have some residual radiation that makes it, arguably, radiological, but calling it a radiological weapon is like calling a lead bullet a "heavy metal poison." A nuclear weapon uses the energy contained in nuclear forces as a weapon, not just radioactivity. I am not surprised that you do not know the difference.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Stevemagegod
Assad crossed many Red Lines but I aint Broadcasting our Strategy!

As he was 'allowed' to cross "many red lines", obviously our 'strategy' seems to be making empty threats.
And, considering the source, he ain't broadcasting his strategy because he has none, not because he suddenly grew ethics or strategy beyond the childish!
Time will tell...

You mean just like how Obama had no strategy?

Obama's apparent 'cowardice' can hardly be called a 'strategy'.

Because if his strategy was so grand why does Trump have to clean up Obama's mess.

Every successive president has 'cleaning' to do.
That is why they are elected, on their 'promises' to 'clean/fix'.
Saying that Bashar's doings are Obama's fault seems a bit of a stretch, but second guessing history is a fools errand.
In the face of that huge cowardice/gun shyness of Obama, I find myself mildly ammused by that Trump airstrip bombing!
A definitive measured response which is going to gain many returns in the messages that it sends to other Assads.
I think it was beautifully strategic.
I wonder who came up with the plan? *__-

Obama promised to end all Wars. And yet here we are discussing the multiple red lines that Assad crossed. Trump may be childish but at least he lives in reality by not promising to end all Wars.

Well, yes, "at least" Obama didn't make THAT promise!
I guess that we are not talking of all the campaign 'promises' broken, already, though.
Trumpian logic; deny, distract, attack ("lash out"... 'childish') the messenger, repeat.
Perhaps he'll get a chance to evolve from a corrupt deal maker to a human being?
We'll see... *__-

a reply to: Idreamofme

First, his intelligence is questionable minus business. If you're stupid, you aren't going to make it through Wharton. Past that, he has zero military experience and is absolutely clueless when it comes to foreign policy. All of that is bad but it's dangerous when he controls the military and doesn't surround himself with people who know how to handle the nuances of the office.

That being said, I don't believe Assad did this. At least, not purposely. I'm going to go with ISIS stored munitions hit by a missile. I don't see Putin doing it either. Who is left? We all know the answer to that.

a reply to: PRSpinster

That being said, I don't believe Assad did this. At least, not purposely. I'm going to go with ISIS stored munitions hit by a missile. I don't see Putin doing it either. Who is left? We all know the answer to that.

Bear in mind that Putin bombed apartment buildings in Moscow to justify the Second Chechen War. What if the chemical attack was a ploy to justify Trump firing missiles harmlessly at a deserted Syrian air base to "prove" that he is not a Russian puppet? You will notice that discussion of the probe into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia has stopped for the moment.

a reply to: DJW001


Someone seems to be telling porkies, as the report of the gas attack happened before the airstrike. mind you these days I would be surprised if their was an actual missile strike, it could all be entertainment. sputniknews.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: DJW001


Someone seems to be telling porkies, as the report of the gas attack happened before the airstrike. mind you these days I would be surprised if their was an actual missile strike, it could all be entertainment. sputniknews.com...

So Russian state media is reporting that the gas attacks were reported before the attacks after the attacks prompted by the reports of the attacks were reported...? Someone in the FSB just earned themselves a Beria Medal for Creative Disinformation.