Syrian Air strikes Started

Graywolf said:
But we, with two other countries, took out a potential threat to humans (possibly even US) without any civilian deaths. Where is the bad in that? As far as not telling us (and our enemies!) what he plans to do, unlike Obama he is not giving the 'heads up" to our enemy.
Click to expand...

He's not giving a heads up? Really? I guess telling the Russians to move their personnel and equipment out of the areas we were going to strike wouldn't be considered a heads up?
 
drypowder said:
They all succumb to AIPAC, which is why Democrats and Republicans always seem to be two sides of the same shekel.

Nearly every talking head in the media over the last few days spoke definitively of Assad being responsible. They didn't ask the exceedingly obvious question - what did Assad (or Iran or Russia) stand to gain from a gas attack? The jihadists and the countries funding them (US, Israel, SA) benefited from this gas attack.

These talking heads aren't complete idiots. They are in on the agenda.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but...intel agencies of 4 separate countries came to the conclusion. We didn't go it alone. Even mattis said this one was different.
 
Name calling, drypowder? Really guys I thought you were above this. I'll get your crying towel for those that can't handle a position other than what's in your little mind. It's obvious you would rather be hit with nerve gas in THIS country before nipping it in the bud. There's a word for that, but I'm a Lady.....sometimes.
 
Chuckman said:
I would agree, but...intel agencies of 4 separate countries came to the conclusion. We didn't go it alone. Even mattis said this one was different.
Click to expand...
OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) arrived in Damascus today. But let's not wait, let's attack!

So countries that didn't visit the site have come to a conclusion to justify an attack. Note that these countries came to a similar conclusion after last year's false flag attack and they launched missiles, only to admit months later that they still don't know who perpetrated the attack. But we should trust them this time?
 
Graywolf said:
Name calling, drypowder? Really guys I thought you were above this. I'll get your crying towel for those that can't handle a position other than what's in your little mind. It's obvious you would rather be hit with nerve gas in THIS country before nipping it in the bud. There's a word for that, but I'm a Lady.....sometimes.
Click to expand...
Such nonsense. Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am an American nationalist. America FIRST. This is one thing I admire about Israel - they are unabashedly Israel first. Sadly, America is nowhere near that, for a multitude of reasons. And this is why I support the balkanization of America to separate out the neocons, commies, etc.

Please explain to me why Assad would deploy the gas attack US/Israel/West claims he did.
 
Last edited:
@drypowder @Pink_Vapor @gunbelt

Y’all, this is a public area of the forum. If you can’t make your argument without resorting to grade school language and insults then take your comments elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Cleaned up the language, bullying, inappropriate you tube link posts. It’s in off topic guys. We’re gonna start handing out time outs for those that want to misbehave.
 
Burt Gummer said:
Cleaned up the language, bullying, inappropriate you tube link posts. It’s in off topic guys. We’re gonna start handing out time outs for those that want to misbehave.
Click to expand...

Let it be known that I, again, was uninvolved in shenanigans.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
drypowder said:
Grade school kids are using the term neocuck? If so, there may be hope for this country yet!
Click to expand...

Just knock it off and give the admin/mods (not just me) a break. Act like an adult and understand you’re a guest here.
 
Last edited:
Graywolf said:
It's obvious you would rather be hit with nerve gas in THIS country before nipping it in the bud.
Click to expand...

Yeah?

I really don't think Assad has any notion of launching an attack on the US mainland...with any form of weapon.

Now...if we terminate Assad and create yet another power vacuum in the area, many of those chemical agents will make their way to the black market and will stand a greater chance of being used by a high bidder inside the CONUS.

Sides that, where does the United States have the authority to tell another sovereign country what weapons they may or may not possess?
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) arrived in Damascus today. But let's not wait, let's attack!

So countries that didn't visit the site have come to a conclusion to justify an attack. Note that these countries came to a similar conclusion after last year's false flag attack and they launched missiles, only to admit months later that they still don't know who perpetrated the attack. But we should trust them this time?
Click to expand...

I would say that if you don't think about a dozen countries intelligent Services aren't crawling around Syria you are sorely mistaken.

So, we'll see.

For the record, I think we should pull out of Syria totally, fully, and completely. But I am not going to lose sleep over a lobbing missiles over there. That is low on my priority list.
 
Last edited:
Chuckman said:
I would agree, but...intel agencies of 4 separate countries came to the conclusion. We didn't go it alone. Even mattis said this one was different.
Click to expand...
Did the intel agencies in those 4 countries say Saddam Hussein was building nukes?

Did the intel agencies in those 4 countries say that Iran was NOT building nukes?
 
gc70 said:
Did the intel agencies in those 4 countries say Saddam Hussein was building nukes?

Did the intel agencies in those 4 countries say that Iran was NOT building nukes?
Click to expand...

Those are not anywhere in the argument. If you want to start an argument about intelligence failures of other wars, start a separate thread. I was speaking in this one particular instance.

I was merely refuting the the opinion that there's no way we could have known. That may be the case, but it is a short-sighted and narrow-minded opinion, and doesn't take into consideration many intelligence agencies are there.
 
Chuckman said:
Those are not anywhere in the argument. If you want to start an argument about intelligence failures of other wars, start a separate thread. I was speaking in this one particular instance.

I was merely refuting the the opinion that there's no way we could have known. That may be the case, but it is a short-sighted and narrow-minded opinion, and doesn't take into consideration many intelligence agencies are there.
Click to expand...

The credibility of intelligence agencies rests on whether or not they have a record of developing solid information. If the intelligence agencies could not get things right in the past, why should we believe they are right this time?

Other than to prove Trump, May and Macron are more vigorous than Obama was, why was an attack arranged so quickly? When Trump first called May, she agreed to join the attack, even though she said at the time she was unsure that Assad was responsible. Why did Trump and May have to rush when members of the US Congress and the UK Parliament were asking the leaders to wait for legislative approval? Why was an attack necessary before the international organization charged with investigating chemical weapons attacks could even investigate the claim?
 
gc70 said:
The credibility of intelligence agencies rests on whether or not they have a record of developing solid information. If the intelligence agencies could not get things right in the past, why should we believe they are right this time?
Fair enough, but lets follow the same argument: if Intel agencies get things right in the past, why shouldn't we believe them?

Just so I am clear, I am neither for nor against lobbing missiles. I really don't care.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Chuckman said:
I would say that if you don't think about a dozen countries intelligent Services aren't crawling around Syria you are sorely mistaken.

So, we'll see.
Click to expand...
I said your government told you Assad was responsible for the 2017 gas attack and used that as justification to attack the Syrian government. Months later, your government acknowledges they don't know who was responsible for that gas attack.

So why do you believe them this time? Trust the government because government has never lied to you before?

Also, what would Assad's motivation be for carrying out this alleged gas attack? Not only are we not presented with evidence, we aren't even presented with a credible motivation.
Chuckman said:
For the record, I think we should pull out of Syria totally, fully, and completely. But I am not going to lose sleep over a lobbing missiles over there. That is low on my priority list.
Click to expand...
Think beyond that. Did deposing Saddam Hussein make Americans more or less safe? ISIS didn't even exist before Operation Full Employment For Jihadists Operation Iraqi Freedom.

@wsfiredude nailed it. The West will see consequences for destabilizing a secular government in favor of Wahhabists for many years to come. Jihadists have been training with chemical weapons for years during this war in Syria. Those chickens will be coming home to roost.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
Here is the declassified French intelligence report supporting French participation in the attack on Syria.

The first striking aspect of the report is that its "evidence" is mainly based on things gathered from the internet.
The French services analyzed the testimonies, photos and videos that spontaneously appeared on specialized websites, in the press and on social media in the hours and days following the attack.
Click to expand...
And the "evidence" (or lack thereof) led the French to the following conclusion.
On the basis of this overall assessment and on the intelligence collected by our services, and in the absence to date of chemical samples analyzed by our own laboratories, France therefore considers (i) that, beyond possible doubt, a chemical attack was carried out against civilians at Douma on 7 April 2018; and (ii) that there is no plausible scenario other than that of an attack by Syrian armed forces as part of a wider offensive in the Eastern Ghouta enclave.
Click to expand...
So, the French may actually believe that everything on the internet is true.
 
Last edited:
Just a point: if an intelligence agency is working and having success, then isn’t it more likely that we never actually know about it? Isn’t a part of being a spy agency actually keeping things hidden from people?

I have the impression that at any given time there are probably hundreds of threats and operations going on all over the globe. We just happen to hear about them when they fail, or when a politician decides to use one for some form of gain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chuckman said:
For the record, I think we should pull out of Syria totally, fully, and completely. But I am not going to lose sleep over a lobbing missiles over there. That is low on my priority list.
Click to expand...
Just think about how much the money, which was stolen from people like you and me, that was spent on those missiles could have done in terms of domestic improvement. Instead a bunch of GOP fap offs furthered their agenda and fattened their wallets. I don’t know about you but I’ve had enough of this nonsense.
 
Graywolf said:
But we, with two other countries, took out a potential threat to humans (possibly even US) without any civilian deaths. Where is the bad in that? As far as not telling us (and our enemies!) what he plans to do, unlike Obama he is not giving the 'heads up" to our enemy.
Click to expand...

Actually, he did give them a headsup on what his plans were.
But, since its not Obama its ok, this time.

Just like its ok that Trump said, repeatedly, via tweets, that attacking Syria was a bad idea, and only done because of Obama's poor satisfaction rate...And then he goes and does the same.
 
noway2 said:
Just think about how much the money, which was stolen from people like you and me, that was spent on those missiles could have done in terms of domestic improvement.
Click to expand...
Last night I had a dream. A dream of the glorious border fence that could have been built using the funds wasted on this attack.
 
The Founders warned against imperialism, but their words have went unheeded.

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the older world, the first observers of mutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire, what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this–America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of mind. She has a spear and a shield; but the motto upon her shield is Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

John Quincy Adams
July 4, 1821
 
Unconstitutional, plain and simple, just like when Obama did it to Libya. Granted that’s a bad regime possibly committing horrible acts, but it was an act of war launching missles into another nation, and should be taken to congress as one man should not yield so much power in this republic. The constitution specifically grants the power to declare war to congress. The president should only be using the military in such a manner without congressional approval when there is an imminent threat to the USA.

Anyway where is such concern when there is attempted genocide of Christians in that region?
 
Wow. The threat of a looming world war kinda puts people on edge here, huh?
 
Silver_Bullet said:
Unconstitutional, plain and simple, just like when Obama did it to Libya. Granted that’s a bad regime possibly committing horrible acts, but it was an act of war launching missles into another nation, and should be taken to congress as one man should not yield so much power in this republic. The constitution specifically grants the power to declare war to congress. The president should only be using the military in such a manner without congressional approval when there is an imminent threat to the USA.

Anyway where is such concern when there is attempted genocide of Christians in that region?
Click to expand...

I'd have to double check my reading and opinion, but right now I kinda think the War Powers Act is totally Unconstitutional. So all the bombings and terrorist acts by our Presidents in my lifetime have been illegal and impeachable. But hey, if we win it's all good right? :(
 
CZfool68 said:
I'd have to double check my reading and opinion, but right now I kinda think the War Powers Act is totally Unconstitutional. So all the bombings and terrorist acts by our Presidents in my lifetime have been illegal and impeachable. But hey, if we win it's all good right? :(
Click to expand...
Artical 1 Section 8 clearly and specifically grants congress the power to declare war, and the power isn’t shared with anyone including the President.

The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. For it to be constitutional the constitution would need to be amended.
 
Silver_Bullet said:
Artical 1 Section 8 clearly and specifically grants congress the power to declare war, and the power isn’t shared with anyone including the President.

The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. For it to be constitutional the constitution would need to be amended.
Click to expand...

Gee, I haven't heard that on many news shows in my life. Must be the so-called highly educated haven't a clue.
 
georgel said:
Wow. The threat of a looming world war kinda puts people on edge here, huh?
Click to expand...

Sure bud seems that way.

Me, I just got a porch built today, my boy did Boy Scout stuff, and I’m just needing some popcorn for the end of the world.

Or maybe I just to the point of what happens happens
 
Last edited:
Silver_Bullet said:
The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. For it to be constitutional the constitution would need to be amended.
Click to expand...
I’ve lost count of how many times these turkeys (sorry to disrespect the bird) have done something unconstitutionally day proclaimed it just because they want it to be. Even the court is just another cog in this cabal. They then use violence, including against the people of the nation, using funds stolen from saud people to hire armed thugs to enforce their illicit edicts. Though it won’t be a popular sentiment, this is why I often refer to police and even military as well meaning but misguided because they’re carrying out this unlawful agenda while believing they're doing otherwise.

This needs to be stopped.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
I’ve lost count of how many times these turkeys (sorry to disrespect the bird) have done something unconstitutionally day proclaimed it just because they want it to be. Even the court is just another cog in this cabal. They then use violence, including against the people of the nation, using funds stolen from saud people to hire armed thugs to enforce their illicit edicts. Though it won’t be a popular sentiment, this is why I often refer to police and even military as well meaning but misguided because they’re carrying out this unlawful agenda while believing they're doing otherwise.

This needs to be stopped.
Click to expand...
They are not all well-meaning, and in fact quite the contrary.

Most NCOs I speak to still take their oath seriously, the younger recruits are definitely a mixed bag...COs, eh...

Fighting a losing battle. Once the NCOs with 7-10yrs or more in start retiring the US military will be an empty shell of its former self. Political correctness and the current ROE is putting the nails in the coffin.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I don't recall the words, "I am declaring war on Syria.", ever coming out of Trumps mouth. If he didn't declare it....
 
Graywolf said:
I don't recall the words, "I am declaring war on Syria.", ever coming out of Trumps mouth. If he didn't declare it....
Click to expand...
So if I come to your house and start taking stuff out of it I’m not stealing until I declare that I’m here to rob you.

Say that out loud and see how stupid it sounds. That’s what you just did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom