Trump launches military strike against Syria

[Seamus_L]

Kucinich: No evidence Assad was behind chemical attacks video.foxnews.com/v/5391391570001/?#sp=show-clips

 

[meltzerboy]

Kucinich: No evidence Assad was behind chemical attacks video.foxnews.com/v/5391391570001/?#sp=show-clips

I didn’t read the link yet, but really? Assad wasn’t involved and didn’t know? I would think Putin also knew about the chemical weapons.

 

[exnihilo]

By whom are we obliged to be “multiculturalists”?

By the state, Church and society. If someone wanted to merely preserve European or Christian culture in the US they are considered a pariah.

It would be difficult to name a single country, other than in the Americas, that is not ultimately based on race, religion or language. Some are even based on tribe. Belgium is named after the Belgae. France after the Franks. There is no good reason, other than animus peculiar to them, to say Jews, who are identifiable as a people, cannot have a country when plenty of others do.

There is a difference in a place being identified with an ethnic group or religion and trying to make it such a place. There is a difference in the English happening to live in England and the English deciding to make some foreign territory English.

And which Islamic majority state has abandoned oppression of those of other religions?
Israel, of course, tolerates other religions, which is unique for the region.

The state of Israel is officially tolerant of other religions, but that doesn’t change the fact it is intended to be for a particular race or religion. I don’t think most people would approve of US policy if we still had freedom of religion but our official purpose was to be a state for Europeans or Christians.

 

[ATraveller]

How do we know what we know is accurate? It maybe a surprise because the media has been negligent in covering Syria but Idlib is under the control of an Al Qaeda affiliate. It used to be called Al Nusra but changed its name twice since last year or 2015. More careful journalists have pointed out we’re getting contradictory reports. They keep pointing out that some of the eyewitness accounts from Idlib smelled the gas approaching such as this:

A nurse at the hospital, who did not wish to give his name, said: “The smell reached us here in the centre; it smelled like rotten food. We’ve received victims of chlorine before - this was completely different.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/05/syria-gas-attack-sobbing-father-cradles-dead-twins-19-family/
That’s inconsistent with odourless sarin, which Assad is being accused of using:

Sarin is near impossible to detect until it’s too late. The gas has no decipherable smell or taste and is absorbed simply through exposure.

metro.co.uk/2017/04/05/what-sarin-the-chemical-weapon-used-in-syria-does-to-your-body-6554762/#ixzz4dmjvwLbQ
As these journalists have pointed out, what’s happening now is 2017’s 2003 and WMDs.
It’s recommended people watch this BBC interview with a former UK ambassador:
youtube.com/watch?v=_LKsn4ZutxQ

 

[Abba]

Kucinich: No evidence Assad was behind chemical attacks video.foxnews.com/v/5391391570001/?#sp=show-clips

Exactly what I have been saying. This is the reason a proper investigation was needed instead of showing children pictures to justify the false accusation. The chemical weapons were in heavily controlled rebel territory.Knowing Assad has NEVER used chemical weapons and would NEVER use them against his people, I figured his army must have gotten a tip that the rebels had them there and they bombed the place. But, who controls the so-called “rebels”? To spin a false story to pin it on Assad and even to crazily claim that Russia was involved - it’s just crazy. Yet, this is what is fed to the public.

Again, the rebels used chemical weapons in Damascus in 2013 and the USA et al tried to blame it on Assad. But, they know how it got there for the rebels. They brought it in from Egypt with the help of Mossad/CIA. A commission was form which determine it belonged to the rebels. Yet, people keep passing on the misinformation and pretend not to know. They misinform the public, and this is disrespectful and dishonest.

Yet, with the spin and spin; the second biggest military airbase of a foreign nation was destroyed and this without consulting congress nor the Security Council.

This is when Russia came in and took on the responsibility of getting the chemical weapons out of Syria. Assad no longer wanted those weapons because he knew that it could fall in rebel hands and they would use it and blame it on his government. This is the reason, the Russians said a couple of days ago, that they would like to reinforce the Syrian Military but, do not see that happening as they do not want heavy arms to fall in the hands of rebels and currently the security for the Syrian government is vulnerable.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The very calculated, methodical, and gradual anihilation of the Palestinian people is most definitely a genocide. What is real is evident; what is evident is real. Truth stands on its own, even when it is being obscured. Undeniable.

The Palestinians are being methodically annihilated? I guess I missed that somewhere.

 

[pnewton]

He campaigned on better relations with Russia and Safe Zones in the Middle East such as Iraq, not further escalation in Syria. If people are being gassed, then he should be contacting Russia and focusing on safe zones in Iraq.

Why? did the UN put Russia in charge of security in Syria and I missed it?

 

[pnewton]

And if another factions asks for aid, the United States would be justified in providing it? Another war by proxy with the Soviets? Russia being first in does not make the more innocent in this confrontation, but less.

Nor is he mine,what alternative solution do you have to these leaders that have no problem slaughtering there own citizens for their own ends ?
Should we not get involved ?

I know the Russians would not like this, but international response is best addressed by multiple nations. If nothing else comes from this chemical attack by the Assad regime, I hope to see a more internationally unified response to Syria.

 

[pnewton]

Why so? I think Trump did the right thing, something Obama did not do with regard to Assad. Of course there are always risks of escalation as well as civilians being killed. Besides this, if Assad is forced to leave (or killed), what will the next regime be like?

A good question. One thing I like about the response so directly against the chemical weapon use is that it allows that it was the action, not the person being attacked. If Assad has the leadership capability to lead Syria when the dust settles, it is useful that he know that in this day and age even dictatorships have limits.

 

[Reuben_J]

National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster: U.S. Wants to Eliminate ‘Murderous Regime’ in Syria

Mahita Gajanan
4:20 PM ET

National security adviser H.R. McMaster said the United States wants to defeat the Islamic State and remove Syrian President Bashar Assad — although not in a unilateral move — in his first televised interview.

McMaster left open the possibility for further military action against Syria following a missile strike last week ordered by President Trump in response to the country’s chemical attack against rebel forces that killed 87 people including children.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” McMaster said Trump was seeking a “political solution” for a regime change in Syria.

“It’s very difficult to understand how a political solution could result form the continuation of the Assad regime,” McMaster said.

“Now, we are not saying that we are the ones who are going to effect that change. What we are saying is, other countries have to ask themselves some hard questions. Russia should ask themselves … why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population?”

McMaster said U.S. goals of both destroying the Islamic State and ousting Assad were “simultaneous.”

He did not rule out further strikes on Syria if Assad continued egregious attacks against rebel forces with chemical or other weapons.

We are prepared to do more," he said. “The president will make whatever decision he thinks is in the best interest of the American people.”

time.com/4732401/hr-mcmaster-donald-trump-syria/?xid=homepage

Perhaps a new democratic government of Syria that represents various interests in the country without Assad and ISIS would be an ideal solution for their present predicament.

However, this would take steel determination because both Assad and the ISIS pose stubborn resistance to this change. Let’s see how this will play out.

 

[josh987654321]

Why? did the UN put Russia in charge of security in Syria and I missed it?

The US armed all these rebel groups and now look at Syria, not only Syria but ISIS, which was given birth to by the US so that they could do the USA’s dirty work in overthrowing their governments.

I also didn’t notice the USA (Obama’s administration) bombing the oil trucks headed into turkey which were aiding ISIS. Gross incompetence by the USA to say the least, or more likely, complicit in ISIS.

Russia is involved in backing Assad and trying to restore law and order in Syria, so if Assad is using chemical weapons and committing crimes, the appropriate course of action is dialogue with Russia to curb their use, and set up safe zones out of Syria in places like Iraq where people can flee to.

Unless you want to go to war with Russia over Syria? in that case, count me out! You guys had your chance and you screwed it up abysmally by arming these rebel groups to overthrow their governments, much of whom simply became ISIS, and when they occupied the oil fields, why did the US not bomb the oil trucks? why was it Russia who had the common sense to do that? Probably because while condemning ISIS on one hand, the other hand was using them (To weaken and ultimately overthrow Assad). So who really is complicit in war crimes?

 

[ATraveller]

The US armed all these rebel groups and now look at Syria, not only Syria but ISIS, which was given birth to by the US so that they could do the USA’s dirty work in overthrowing their governments.
…]
Russia is involved in backing Assad and trying to restore law and order in Syria, so if Assad is using chemical weapons and committing crimes, the appropriate course of action is dialogue with Russia to curb their use, and set up safe zones out of Syria in places like Iraq where people can flee to.

I doubt Isis was propped up by the US. As for arming them, it wasn’t intentional as far as anyone is aware of. The rebel groups yes. Some of the ‘moderates’ were armed but some of those chickened out and ran away and left weapons behind for jihadists including Al Qaeda and Isis to obtain.
Then there’s this very disturbing investigation on the BBC from 2015:

Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.

He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?

This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.

bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

 

[pnewton]

Unless you want to go to war with Russia over Syria?

It takes two to make war, and Russia is more involved in Syria. So your question is quite biased. You will believe what you want apparently.

However, I find the evidence of this chemical attack coming from this airbase compelling and believe the response to be appropriate and measured. If you don’t, no problem. Australia wasn’t involved anyway.

 

[josh987654321]

I doubt Isis was propped up by the US.

Of course they were. Where do you believe ISIS came from? they came from rebel groups who were armed and paid by the USA in overthrowing their governments, even during the 2008 presidential debates with Obama and McCain they admitted as much, they both agreed to arming rebel groups to overthrow Assad, so when ISIS occupies the oil fields, and is growing in Syria, does the USA strike ISIS? why would it do that when ISIS is aiding them in weakening Assad forces? On one hand they condemn ISIS, but on the other ISIS is very useful in the weakening and ultimate overthrow of Assad in Syria, if they were serious about ISIS, they would have bombed the oil trucks providing funds to ISIS ages ago, not wait for Russia to get involved and do it.

As for arming them, it wasn’t intentional as far as anyone is aware of.

Maybe not, but not bombing the oil fields and allowing ISIS to spread in Syria I have no doubt was intentional.

The rebel groups yes. Some of the ‘moderates’ were armed but some of those chickened out and ran away and left weapons behind for jihadists including Al Qaeda and Isis to obtain.
Then there’s this very disturbing investigation on the BBC from 2015:
bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s0qy9

True, but some of the ones armed simply went over to ISIS who occupied the oil fields and could pay them more. The USA then on one hand condemned the atrocities of ISIS, but on the other hand found the growth of ISIS in Syria very useful.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

It takes two to make war, and Russia is more involved in Syria. So your question is quite biased. You will believe what you want apparently.

However, I find the evidence of this chemical attack coming from this airbase compelling and believe the response to be appropriate and measured.

Your right, it does take two, so what are you advocating?

 

[pnewton]

Of course they were. Where do you believe ISIS came from?

Radical Islamic fundamentalists in the region.

 

[steve93]

The modern state of Israel was born out of terrorism. Zionists killed innocent civilizans in addition to British troops. The goal was to to create a racial or religious homeland for a group of people. As a result I don’t find the Palestinian acts of terror particularly meaningful about the nature of the Palestinians since in living memory that is exactly how Israel came to be. After all couldn’t the Palestinians abandon local terror once they obtain power the same as the Israelis did?

Also how can we support a nation whose sole purpose is to benefit one race or religion? We are supposed to be multiculturalists. In fact apparently it is a grave sin not to be. So how can any Christian support Israel when its very existence is to benefit one race or religion? Anyone who supported a European or Christian homeland would be a vile bigot.

This. The British were spineless sell outs. The jews stole Russian Church land holding in the Holy Land.

 

[steve93]

OK…so Zionists influence U.S. Foreign policy…I would too if I was Netanyahu and I’m trying to keep my country from being destroyed by outside forces and America just happened to be the most powerful country on Earth.

So…that means what? We should not support Israel at all and let it be destroyed by Palestinians/Iran/other Islamic states? Because they (Israel) too commit crimes the crimes of the Islamic world, which are ACTIVELY trying to DESTROY Israel, are somehow lesser or at least to be ignored?

Again…I admit the IDF and Mossad have committed atrocities against the Palestinians with the blessings of the Likkud party…not ALL Israelis----and I condemn that and hope the perpetrators are punished------and I also happen to be for a Palestinian state----which MOST Israelis also support, by the way-----

So that means the fact that the majority of the Palestinian People are in thrall to a PSYCHOPATHIC DEATH CULT and want to actively destroy the state of Israel and either wipe them out of existence or just exile them from Palestine is somehow not as important as the crimes of some Israelis, mostly not all?

You can be Zionist and still not condone everything that Israel does. Just like I’m American and do not condone everything that America has or has not done. Does not mean I do not love my country and wish it to endure. Same for Israel, the only democratic country in the whole Middle East.

If one is a Zionist, one can be anti-Likud and anti-settlements and still support the perpetual existence of the state of Israel. Most Anti-Zionist I know are not like that.

I don’t necessarily condone the methods by which their country was formed, just like I do not necessarily condone the way our country was formed and expanded. The idea of my country and what it aspires to still stands for me and I would die for it willingly. Most Israelis feel the same way.

The Palestinians would censor most of what you think and feel. In the name of Sharia/Islamic Law. You still want that?

Whatever Israel has indeed done or not done does not negate the greater evil of Islamism and its various manifestations, such as ISIL. Or the PLO, which routinely also commits the same if not at times greater crimes than Israel has ever done.

The thing is, you “true” Anti-Zionists do not want Israel to simply not exist. It is more than just criticizing Israel and its policies or hoping for a two-state solution. You want the Jewish Diaspora again.

Let me tell you something. It is not gonna happen. Sorry. I stand with Israel, for better or worse. And most of the U.S. does too.

“Don’t talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.”

-----Martin Luther King.

Horrors. The man was obviously a Zionist puppet.

The shame.

Of course Palestine would be for Sharia. You take help where you can get it.
If you were a Finn, you would take help from Nazi Germany. If you were a Dutchman, you would take help from the Turks (fighting to expel Spanish from their lands). National Liberation is the highest good. All other considerations are secondary. If only Ireland had taken this to heart. Just think if the Church had played there cards differently and made the expulsion of foreign rule their primary concern in the world wars. They could have brought in millions of angry, disposed and battle hardened Catholics from Spain, the Balkans, Poland, the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc. By 1945 we could have seen mass executions of Black and Tans and a tricolor run up in Belfast.
Coincide this with Church support (secretly, Polish Solidarity style) for native revolts in India and the Far East for best results.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course they were. Where do you believe ISIS came from? they came from rebel groups who were armed and paid by the USA in overthrowing their governments, even during the 2008 presidential debates with Obama and McCain they admitted as much, they both agreed to arming rebel groups to overthrow Assad, so when ISIS occupies the oil fields, and is growing in Syria, does the USA strike ISIS? why would it do that when ISIS is aiding them in weakening Assad forces? On one hand they condemn ISIS, but on the other ISIS is very useful in the weakening and ultimate overthrow of Assad in Syria, if they were serious about ISIS, they would have bombed the oil trucks providing funds to ISIS ages ago, not wait for Russia to get involved and do it.

Maybe not, but not bombing the oil fields and allowing ISIS to spread in Syria I have no doubt was intentional.

True, but some of the ones armed simply went over to ISIS who occupied the oil fields and could pay them more. The USA then on one hand condemned the atrocities of ISIS, but on the other hand found the growth of ISIS in Syria very useful.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

ISIS may be an indirect product of US attempt to undermine Assad. The anti-Assad forces would be likely the Sunni Islamic extremist who naturally detest him being from the minority Alawite tribe.

The Islamic extremists are more passionate and determined. They had followers that believe in their cause. When that belief derived from religious teaching, it make them more dangerous.

This is one of the complication in Syria that if you want to topple Assad, unfortunately those who really want to do that would be ones with religious ideology. They would therefore naturally attract to what ISIS are doing. Eventually the extremists emerged as the stronger force.

Thus be very careful of who would be replacing Assad because we could have people who are just as bad if not worse.

Any final peace settlement must have the check and balance but like in Iraq, the majority group would tend to become stronger and oppress the minority and there would be lots of revenge.

The Middle East is beyond the West understanding. Sometimes for expediency, autocracy like in Saudi Arabia would provide a more stable government.

The US had been working with dictators before as in Iran and Saudi Arabia, except these were dictators that supported the Americans, not that they were angels.

The West like to flirt with Islamic extremists but they may not be the partners that they really want.

 

[_thaddeus]

A curious thread.
The Intercept has a good article on patriotic bombings.(some say idiotic bombimgs). It’s actual journalism. {accurate and documented)

The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria
theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/
"
In every type of government, nothing unites people behind the leader more quickly, reflexively or reliably than war. Donald Trump now sees how true that is, as the same establishment leaders in U.S. politics and media who have spent months denouncing him as a mentally unstable and inept authoritarian and unprecedented threat to democracy are standing and applauding him as he launches bombs at Syrian government targets.
"
I bolded 4 Section headings from the article:

1. New wars will always strengthen Trump: as they do for every leader.
2. Democrats’ jingoistic rhetoric has left them no ability – or desire – to oppose Trump’s wars.
3. In wartime, US television instantly converts into state media.
4. Trump’s bombing is illegal, but presidents are now omnipotent.
5. How can those who view Trump as an Inept Fascist now trust him to wage war?
6. Like all good conspiracy theories, no evidence can kill the Kremlin-controls-Trump tale.
7. The fraud of humanitarianism works every time for (and on) American elites.
8. Support for Trump’s Bombing Shows Two Toxic U.S. Conceits: “Do Something” and “Look Strong”
9. Obama’s refusal to bomb Assad hovers over everything.
10. None of this disproves, obviously, that Hillary Clinton was also a dangerous hawk.
"