quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
If Trump does not kill any Russians in Syria than he runs the risk of being criticized for being too soft on Putin. Liberals were quick to complain that Trump only killed Russian mercenaries, despite killing over 100 of them!, after preventing Syrian forces from recapturing their own oil fields a few months ago.

So what. Critics also complained he used a fork to eat KFC and had two scoops of ice cream. Trump will almost for sure do the right thing and the press will cry and moan anyway.

Huh? Why are we trying to satisfy the liberals of anything? All they're going to do is carp until they get everything they want, and then insist that they might as well be in power anyway in the next elections. Honestly, that's an awfully stupid way to even begin thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
If Trump does not kill any Russians in Syria than he runs the risk of being criticized for being too soft on Putin. Liberals were quick to complain that Trump only killed Russian mercenaries, despite killing over 100 of them!, after preventing Syrian forces from recapturing their own oil fields a few months ago.

Yep, that’s why I voted for Trump. So he could be led around by the nose in his attempts to avoid criticism because he wants the liberals to like him.

Waitaminute....

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Do you really think the rebels would gas their own people just for publicity value?

Yeah, actually, I do.

In fact I think that's a lot more likely than Assad snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Thought the same, last time, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
If Trump does not kill any Russians in Syria than he runs the risk of being criticized for being too soft on Putin. Liberals were quick to complain that Trump only killed Russian mercenaries, despite killing over 100 of them!, after preventing Syrian forces from recapturing their own oil fields a few months ago.

Yes, because that is the cornerstone of Trump's foreign policy: avoid criticism for being soft on Russia.

Also, we can have air superiority anytime we want over Syria. Hell, Israel has had air superiority over Syria for the last 30 years. Why would we need to supply rebels with MANPADS?

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
Providing rebel groups with manpads would deny Syrian and Russian forces free reign over the skies without the US having to be directly involved.

Ah, no.

Double plus no because the rebel groups have ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

If we give those fucks MANPADS we will see them used on commercial aviation, probably in Europe, but maybe here.

I'll offer some other observations.

It is pretty clear the incident involved chlorine gas. Chlorine is not a scheduled chemical under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) (i.e., CWC does not apply to chlorine). Chlorine is a common industrial chemical used in everything from plastics manufacture to water treatment, and would be available to all kinds of bad actors.

Why would the Assadists use chlorine? Its not a particularly effective chemical agent, generally requiring enclosed or low-lying spaces to achieve dangerous concentrations, ad even then there is virtually no persistence. I don't want to sound like I'm defending Assad, the sooner we Hellfire him into history the better, but if Syrians held back real chemical weapons, wouldn't they use sarin (as has been the case to date) for both its lethality and persistence?

OPCW to send chemical weapons investigators to Syria’s Douma

https://www.rt.com/news/423732...yria-chemical-probe/

The international chemical weapons watchdog will send a fact-finding mission to Douma, Syria, to investigate the reports of an attack there. The move follows calls from Moscow and Damascus to launch an international investigation.

“Today, the OPCW Technical Secretariat has requested the Syrian Arab Republic to make the necessary arrangements for such a deployment. This has coincided with a request from the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation to investigate the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma. The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly,” the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said in a statement on Tuesday.

Since 2014, the OPCW has an ongoing mandate to investigate suspected chemical weapons attacks in Syria. The mission is designed “to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals... for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic.” The scope of the fact-finding mission is to determine whether banned substances were used, but not to assign blame.

The incident allegedly occurred in the Damascus suburb of Douma on Saturday. It was reported by several rebel-linked activist groups, including the controversial White Helmets, who accused the Syrian troops of dropping chlorine-filled munitions on the area. They also claimed it affected dozens of civilians, and footage of children being allegedly treated for poisoning has appeared online.

Damascus has called the alleged attack a “fabrication.” Russian military specialists have explored the area as Jaysh al-Islam militants occupying Douma began to evacuate from the city as part of a Russian-brokered deal with Damascus. Moscow said the specialists had found no traces of chemical weapons or any victims treated for chemical poisoning.


The OPCW’s announcement came shortly before an expected UN Security Council meeting on the alleged Douma incident. Both Russia and the US are expected to roll out draft resolutions calling for an international investigation into the purported attack. On Monday, the UN said it was unable to “independently verify the allegations” regarding Douma.

“We're not in a position at this point to independently verify the allegations but, obviously, any allegation of continued use of chemical weapons is extremely, extremely troubling,” Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, said.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Do you really think the rebels would gas their own people just for publicity value?

Yeah, actually, I do.

In fact I think that's a lot more likely than Assad snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Thought the same, last time, too.

I agree, the rebels are the most likely culprits, they have the most to gain. I'm fairly certain the rebels gassed people before and they'll do it again.

So,
If "our" side launched the attack, what sanctions are appropriate. Do we cruise missile them ?

quote:

Originally posted by Deqlyn:



Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0niyl-vDBk

Thank you for posting this. It's sad that so many people blindly buy into a copycat media panic with citations by ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
So,
If "our" side launched the attack, what sanctions are appropriate. Do we cruise missile them ?

How 'bout we just cut off their air?

Then again: Maybe Assad did gas his people, assumed everybody would figure that didn't make any sense and blame the rebels, ...

As I understand it, we have the ability to see the aircraft that dropped the gas and hence, where it came from. This was claimed this time and the last time (which prompted the previous bombing...which, by the way, was lauded here as I recall).

I do, perhaps foolishly, still have some faith in our intelligence ability, and I do not believe that Trump would jump into this without cold hard evidence that Assad was behind it.

IMO, whoever is responsible needs to have a "hell is coming to breakfast" moment. As long as there are two people on the face of this earth we are going to have war. It's a simple fact and there really is nothing that we can do about that. But, what we can do something about is how that war is prosecuted. NBC type shit? Nope. Crucifixions and beheadings of Christians simply for being Christians? Nope. The slaughter, rape, or other violation of women and children? Nope.

It may sound cheesy, but we do have a moral obligation to assure that these things do not happen. Fight all you want, it's going to happen anyway, but fight fair. Like it or not, we are the world's referee.

There are absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Someone has to stand up for what is right. That's us.

I get what Tucker is saying, and there was a time I felt the same, but if we won't do it, who will? I don't want to live in a world where nobody will.

Syria's been using chlorine gas supplied by Iran for years. It's not on their assault weapons ban.

These people indiscriminately slaughter each other day in and day out like we commute to work. I have no sympathy for 40 people in a terrorist enclave getting killed. 500,000 - 1,000,000 have been brutally slaughtered already.

Since when do you announce you'll attack and they clear the airspace waiting for the attack- all broadcast on CNN.

I'm all for indiscriminate use of force against bad guys But on our terms. There's no good actors in this drama.