US launches Tomahawks on Syrian airbases

During the Obama Administration they tried with the CIA to fund the rebels who were against Assad. Then a few years later when that did not pan out the US military was sent but only for rebels who were fighting ISIS not Assad. All this time ISIS has grown stronger and those in Syria continue to die. The longer the conflict the more money that can be diverted and more deals to be made on the backs of the Syrian people. I mean, the 1.5 billion given to Iran is being used by Hezzbollah which is Assads radical arm. It is a Sunni/Shia conflict that will last forever unless someone else steps in.

So, now when he said he would do nothing during his campaign he did launch missiles in range of Russian troops(remember a few days ago he said Kaine said Trump would not call out Assad because of the Russian ties) without warning minutes after eating dinner with the president of China who is building bases in the Pacific.

It was a show of force and he took care of the world with a few Tomahawks.

I just keep waiting for Russia to agree to topple Assad and watch the real collusion rumors start to spread from MSNBC.

originally posted by: matafuchs
During the Obama Administration they tried with the CIA to fund the rebels who were against Assad. Then a few years later when that did not pan out the US military was sent but only for rebels who were fighting ISIS not Assad. All this time ISIS has grown stronger and those in Syria continue to die. The longer the conflict the more money that can be diverted. I mean, the 1.5 billion given to Iran is being used by Hezzbollah which is Assads radical arm. It is a Sunni/Shia conflict that will last forever unless someone else steps in.

So, now when he said he would do nothing during his campaign he did launch missiles in range of Russian troops(remember a few days ago he said Kaine said Trump would not call out Assad because of the Russian ties) without warning minutes after eating dinner with the president of China who is building bases in the Pacific.

It was a show of force and he took care of the world with a few Tomahawks.

I just keep waiting for Russia to agree to topple Assad and watch the real collusion rumors start to spread from MSNBC.

/snork

Hey, you aren't in the market for any bridges, are you?

originally posted by: roadgravel
Syrian aircraft may have bombed a location but the bombs may not have been chemical. The chemicals may have been on the ground.

Link

Naa they werna on the ground they were in whatever was dropped from those Planes of Russian or Syrian.

This week the world witnessed yet another chemical attack in Syria. After horrendous footage from Khan Sheikhoun showed children suffocating from sarin gas and relatives crying over piles of dead bodies, Russia was forced to react. But while Washington used the attack as an excuse for missile strikes on a regime-held airbase in southern Syria, Moscow did the exact opposite - it used it as an excuse for more excuses. And the excuse was produced quickly: The ministry of defence announced that there was no chemical attack but that a rocket had hit a stockpile of "terrorists'" chemical weapons, which led to the release of the poisonous gas.

Just Like.

To many Russian journalists, this explanation sounded familiar. In 1999 during another "counterterrorism operation" (the one that brought Vladimir Putin to the presidency), a Russian rocket attack hit the central market in Chechnya's capital Grozny. Between 60 and 140 people died, hundreds were injured. The Russian authorities were quick to announce that the incident was caused by an explosion of a stockpile of weapons belonging to the "terrorists".

And Some.

Eighteen years later the Kremlin is using the same excuses, but this time not to protect itself but its ally Bashar al-Assad. But who are these excuses for? The international community would hardly believe them, given how absurd they are: Even if the Syrian opposition had stockpiles of sarin gas or a similar nerve agent, an air strike couldn't have released the gas. The two sarin gas precursors are stored separately and are mixed only just before they are to be used. In other words, you would have the same success releasing sarin gas by bombing chemical stockpiles as you would making borscht soup by throwing a grenade into a vegetable market.

So True.

So clearly, the only audience that this lame excuse is intended for is the domestic one. Russian housewives who watch TV regularly are unlikely to go on Wikipedia to find out what sarin gas is. In principle, they wouldn't have known about the chemical attack, if no one had told them, but in the era of the internet, controlling information is more difficult and therefore it's better to have the excuse ready ahead of time.

The chemical brothers Put-in and Ass--ad.
www.aljazeera.com...

originally posted by: crazyewok
And he was doing fine using conventional weapons. Long as he used only conventional bombs he was being ignored.

So why risk it all with Chemical weapons?

Because using chemical is about political strategy, not about greater or lesser humanitarian crisis. And fear.

No i dont trust him either. All i want is evidence? Why is that so much to ask?

Asking for evidence does not make me pro Assad.

No it doesn't make you pro-Assad. What it does do however, is seem disingenuous by posturing yourself as though Assad didn't do it (he's not the liar) and making the US (who is wrongly accusing him) out to be the liar.

If evidence is presented then i will condem him.

Good. Then we're on the same page.

Typical binary brained logic.......

Because I want evidence I must be pro Assad.....

I've already addressed that above.

Try not to overload your brain but there are more than two options in life.

Try not to use ad-homs as I haven't but can easily devolve into it if you want to go there.

I can not like Assad and not like knee jerk acts of aggression from my own goverment without evidence to back it up!

What "your own government"? You're from the UK....your own government had nothing to do with it.

Again another fallacy which shows you are losing in a battle for logic.

I'm not trying to win anything.

Its not about supporting Assad

Yes. It absolutely is.

its about accountability of our own governments.

Fine. Make them accountable ALL the time...go on, see how far that gets you.

I am not a sheep i do not meekly and blindy dance to my governments tune.
I want accountability for all its actions.

Who's stopping you? Go ahead! Get it! I'm in your corner and will be waiting.

I do know the history

Your understanding of this situation suggests otherwise.

and the terrorists fignting him have also had access to chemical weapons too and have a even stronger motive to use them.

Right. What they don't have is access to the region the way the Syrian Government does, nor is it not necessarily in THEIR interests to destroy one of their largest assets...their meat shields.

Why is it such a bad thing to ask for evidence of who used them?

The dramatics is getting old. No one ever suggested getting evidence of anything is a "bad thing"...I just firmly believe you haven't a modicum of understanding of the long legacy about how these draconian regimes function.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I took some Philosophy classes in college, and I'm pretty tired right now, it wasn't on purpose... but I'll take credit for the happy accident.
It was kind of Hume-eros.

a reply to: alphabetaone

You clearly have your own personal agenda.

Look what I want is simple.

I want clear proof it was Assad and not the terrorists that used the Chemical weapons to prove that the strike was justified.

That is it.

A very simple ask.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
You know how you make your job easier as president? Resolve all your conflicts.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we would stick our fat noses in where they weren't requested.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't think this was meant for anybody other than China and North Korea. A crappy message from a toddler-like President that likely will have the adverse effect from what was intended.

The humanitarian crisis in Syria is real enough and a real stand-up guy would do something about it... I'm not going to detract that from the list of possibilities...yet I think this was a calculated message that likely will backfire.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: alphabetaone

You clearly have your own personal agenda.

Look what I want is simple.

I want clear proof it was Assad and not the terrorists that used the Chemical weapons to prove that the strike was justified.

That is it.

A very simple ask.

LOL I have no personal stake in ANY of this...but AS an American citizen and considering it is MY Government that was doing the bombing, I DO have a vested interest in any repercussions, unlike yourself. Yet, that doesn't change the fact that not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

Friends, please. Let's not let this distract us from the fact you can save up to ten percent on your car insurance by switching to GEICO.

a reply to: skywatcher44

Naa.

One thing we have learned is the governments deal in deflection and half truths, and some times just lies.

I'm not buying an aircraft flying and dropping a bomb is proof. They may have had an idea they would be bombing a chemical lab though.

a reply to: alphabetaone

And my government has given the US government its full support and so if there is further action the UK could very well be involved as it has planes and ships operating in the area.

Asking for evidence is not something of a conspiracy nut, its just common sense sering as the previous military actions have been based of lies and BS.
Its not my fault both our government's have cried wolf.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: alphabetaone

You clearly have your own personal agenda.

Look what I want is simple.

I want clear proof it was Assad and not the terrorists that used the Chemical weapons to prove that the strike was justified.

That is it.

A very simple ask.

Here's a link to the flight path used to drop the chemical weapons.

www.google.com...

I know that may not be enough evidence for all, but it should be enough. Unless they were running flights over Idlib at the same time chemical weapons went off. This may be all the evidence you'll get.

I only know two things here- American people didn't want any more interventionism- but we got it anyway through a predictable process of circumventing an official war declaration so that TPTB could tarry on in their pursuit of occupying the M.E. to weaken Russia's power. Number two: A great thinker once said, "Certified... smokeified."
At least I think that was the quote. Idk, I'm feeling a little funny.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Not quite enough as if I was a terrorist I would have realsed the weapons as a syrian plane flew over.

What I would need to remove all doubt is:

Proof of where the Chemical weapons where realised and the epicentre. Easy to get from chemical readings in the area. Not just bomb casings but the chemical readings (this was available in the 2013 attack). This needs to all be taken by a independent observer.


Proof of the planes dropping the said chemical weapons. Easy to get from satellite and drone imagery. In fact the government claims to have this.


All pretty easy asks.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Not quite enough as if I was a terrorist I would have realsed the weapons as a syrian plane flew over.

What I would need to remove all doubt is:

Proof of where the Chemical weapons where realised and the epicentre. Easy to get from chemical readings in the area. Not just bomb casings but the chemical readings (this was available in the 2013 attack). This needs to all be taken by a independent observer.


Proof of the planes dropping the said chemical weapons. Easy to get from satellite and drone imagery. In fact the government claims to have this.


All pretty easy asks.

If you were a terrorist why wait until now to release the chemical weapons? Planes fly daily, why wait?

To me all you're doing is adding another layer, making it harder to believe that this was a "false-flag". Occam's razor and all...

Here's what we know:

-Planes were in the air at the time of the chemical attack
-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own in the past
-Assad has slaughtered 100's of thousands of his own since 2011

What would the resistance stand to gain releasing chemical agents where they reside? It's not like they could have foreseen US intervention.

The most simple solution is usually correct. Assad, who has used chemical weapons in the past, did so again.

a reply to: alphabetaone

when it walks like a duck, though...


....all we ask, as taxpayers, is that our government act in good faith. They have completely failed to do this in every possible way for 2 full generations. So now i want to see proof....i can't trust my government to act in good faith anymore.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo



If you were a terrorist why wait until now to release the chemical weapons? Planes fly daily, why wait?
.

Because they want to pin it on the goverment.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

To me all you're doing is adding another layer, making it harder to believe that this was a "false-flag". Occam's razor and all...
.

Not really. The terrorists have used chemical weapons in the past too.

Here's what we know:

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
-Planes were in the air at the time of the chemical attack
-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own in the past
-Assad has slaughtered 100's of thousands of his own since 2011
.

The terrorists have also used Chemical weapons in the past too and have slaughtered hundred.

It is not black or white.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
What would the resistance stand to gain releasing chemical agents where they reside? It's not like they could have foreseen US intervention.
.

Not but they know westurn intervention was on a knife edge. They are losing and in a desprate sitaution.
Seeing as they are quite happy to use human shields, gassing there own people is hardly beyond them

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
The most simple solution is usually correct. Assad, who has used chemical weapons in the past, did so again.

And terrorist have used them in the past too.

The evidence I have asked for is not much and if Assad has done the attacks would be easy to get.

originally posted by: Phage
So, instead of tweets it's tomahawks now?

Meanwhile, babies keep dying in Syria.

I'm not sure your point here...so what if babies are dying there? This is nothing more than empathy based on a "look squirrel" mentality. It is funny how we pick and choose what we decided to apply empathy towards...lol

Tell me what is worst?

1. The “Darfur Genocide” of current mass slaughter and rape of Darfuri men, women, and children in Western Sudan in the 100,000s....

2. Chemical attack kills less than 100

3. Russian made barrel bombs killing 10,000s

Then tell me which gets the "look Squirrel" empathy... Other than me who on ATS has mention either Darfur and barrel bombs in the last few years... I'm sure there might be a few...very few...

a reply to: Xtrozero

.so what if babies are dying there? This is nothing more than empathy based on a "look squirrel" mentality. It is funny how we pick and choose what we decided to apply empathy towards...lol

WAIT. What?

WTF?????? That is sick.

originally posted by: LAkadian
a reply to: Gryphon66

I took some Philosophy classes in college, and I'm pretty tired right now, it wasn't on purpose... but I'll take credit for the happy accident.
It was kind of Hume-eros.