Didn't take long for Trump to change his stance :hehe:
Printable View
Didn't take long for Trump to change his stance :hehe:
It's a strange message, to be honest. "You can have your little civil war and kill as many people as you like, but if you use a weapon we don't like, we'll bomb you. Despite the fact that your enemies are our enemies."
Mind you, I bet Donald is still sitting there with his chin on his chest. "It really happened? Just because I said 'go', all those missiles actually got launched?" :hehe:
for my healthy salad. I put some in a container. I don't have time for breakfast so I usually eat a salad around this time of the day.
really I should just buy a bottle and keep it here at my desk.
should have done this diet long ago. 16lbs lost. and I no longer sweat.
There is no evidence that Govt forces in Syria launched a chemical attack, other than the claims of the Islamists. Why would they? They are winning the civil war and have no need to resort to weapons of desperation. The Islamists have a long record of hoaxes to try and get the US to provoke US intervention on their behalf.
I'm deeply suspicious of 'false flag' operations, a. We're just a whisker away from shouting, "Wake up sheeple!"
One would imagine that the Yanqui boffins with the satellites and the radar and all that would know where the original attack was launched from. One doesn't know for sure, of course.
Phil Giraldi, a former intelligence official, believes that it was a conventional attack on a warehouse which stored some sort of chemical weapons.
I ask again - why would the Syrian Government need to resort to weapons of desperation? They are winning and will win unless the US stops them.
Trump is caving in to the McCains to take the pressure off himself from the howling media and establishment.
http://original.antiwar.com/wp-conte...rump-tweet.jpg
For every Phil Giraldi you'll be able to find a different opinion.
As for your question, who knows what local operational developments might have prompted such an attack by the regime?
The only thing we know is that we don't know very much. Fog of war, innit? What we might suspect is that there are chaps sitting in the Pentagon peering at great big screens who know much more than we do.
In this day and age it's not a huge ask for them to see that X number of Mig-29s took off from the exact airbase that was neutralised last night in the moments before the chemical attack that took place. I would suggest that it would be a remarkable coincidence that those Migs followed a flight-path very close to the locations where chemical weapons were used at the exact time that they were used. The US have all of that airspace covered with very advanced radar systems considering their on-going operations in the area.
Remember 2013? Syria accused of using chem weapons?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/
If there were no chemical weapons why did the Russians sponsor an agreement for the Syrians to stop using them?
The Syrian Govt did have chemical wepps, and they were gotten rid of with the help of the Russians, and verified by the UN.
For those speaking of the technicalities of tracking jets - even if that is taken to be true it does not indicate what sort of munitions were 'delivered'. The Islamists did have chemical weapons (as proven in the Turkish parliament) and it is feasible that a store of such has been hit.
It's also, when people are winning, they sometimes want to go one step beyond. And then when they do, their intentions are laid completely bare. This is just what happened in this case. But it's also happened in some other cases, some interpersonal cases. Like when someone you're talking to just goes a bit far, and then you're all like, all right mutherfvcker. I get it.
In another example, in Untouchables, when Al Capone/Deniro splays this guy's head over the tiles by means of a bat. The dude was like, "yes yes, of course, Al Capone." Bam.
This may well be true, but it was his stated willingness to ease off on the regime change stuff, and maybe seek better relationships with Russia that had the establishment foaming at the mouth. The same people who were making ridicules accusations of Trump being a Russian agent are now patting him on the back, calling him presidential and asking for more of the same. If he wants an easy ride, he will do more of the same. Whoever is elected is always accountable to The War Party.
Interesting though, that the missile attack in Syria didn't really do much other than act as a therapeutic release for those addicted to that sort of thing and perhaps to give the president some breathing room.
Right. Not least because he would be *our* chap in Washington.
Essentially, nobody cares about chemicals or WMDs; we loosed off a few shots simply because everyone thinks it's the right thing to do in any case.
And just like we didn't support Bush because he invaded Iraq; rather people supported invading Iraq because it was Bush. The Donald is a fast learner and he has good people holding his hand on this stuff.
Yes, he's stated lots of things. No sense paying much attention to any of that.
This president has tendencies and impulses, many of which actually conflict with one another, rather than a political philosophy.
Keep in mind that most voters don’t have ideological commitments either, which is why politicians will always frustrate those who do. The Syria-business proved broadly popular. At this point, what more does anybody want or expect :shrug:
Furthermore, elections have consequences, as the man said. Nobody voted for the Donald because they thought he'd be consistent and predictable.
Most of his countrymen prefer him now to the headchoppers, which is the choice everyone needs to make at this point. The armed opposition are not the pro-democracy campaigners of the old days (in fact democratic reforms have since been implemented). They are Islamists. Assad is both clinging on to power and maintaining a secular state against an Islamist, terrorist state. Pick a side.