US strike on Syria

[Bape]

Originally Posted by Aggo

If assad is gonna gas civilians then someone needs to make a show of force.

This.

[Bape]

Originally Posted by Aggo

If assad is gonna gas civilians then someone needs to make a show of force.

This.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

you all are idiots if you think that assad was behind the chem attacks.. it makes no sense for him to commit political suicide and resorting to chems when he already had the upperhand against the rebels . it was staged, isis used weapons

Assad has very likely done this before, dunno what you're on about like he's not a lunatic already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
first link i found, holds troves of incriminating info on a 2013 syrian chemical attack.


EDIT: This is also linked to the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, which bore parallel unique hallmarks and was determined by US investigation to be carried out by the syrian government. Despite the syrian government & opposition relentlessly blaming each other for the attack, neither of them taking credit.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

you all are idiots if you think that assad was behind the chem attacks.. it makes no sense for him to commit political suicide and resorting to chems when he already had the upperhand against the rebels . it was staged, isis used weapons

Assad has very likely done this before, dunno what you're on about like he's not a lunatic already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
first link i found, holds troves of incriminating info on a 2013 syrian chemical attack.


EDIT: This is also linked to the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, which bore parallel unique hallmarks and was determined by US investigation to be carried out by the syrian government. Despite the syrian government & opposition relentlessly blaming each other for the attack, neither of them taking credit.

[Wayco]

There's a big difference between Syria and ISIS like Sub said. They're actually at war with each other and we're not backing Assad. The American government just hinted the other day Assad could stay in power then there's Chem blasts. Doesn't make sense for him to have done this. However, a lot of other people have much to gain with he invasion of Syria. The old Trump was right on Syria unless he's privy to information that shows Assad did it. I heard reports that Syrian military started to evacuate the days leading up to the attack so that looks kinda bad. But also a journalist on the pro war side tweeted out or wrote the day before that the attacks already took place. Which is strange.

[Wayco]

There's a big difference between Syria and ISIS like Sub said. They're actually at war with each other and we're not backing Assad. The American government just hinted the other day Assad could stay in power then there's Chem blasts. Doesn't make sense for him to have done this. However, a lot of other people have much to gain with he invasion of Syria. The old Trump was right on Syria unless he's privy to information that shows Assad did it. I heard reports that Syrian military started to evacuate the days leading up to the attack so that looks kinda bad. But also a journalist on the pro war side tweeted out or wrote the day before that the attacks already took place. Which is strange.

[NOBLE]

It was unilateral, done without Congressional approval and without consultation with the UN. Trump wouldn't be the first US president to do this. Obama did it with Libya and so has practically every president since WWII. However, according to the constitution, a president is supposed to get approval from Congress which has the responsibility of declaring war. The US has not declared war since 1941, yet has been in numerous armed conflicts. With this particular president, who has stated "America First" as a mantra and decried American involvement in global affairs, the 180 turn-around seemed impulsive...like he just saw some bad pictures on TV and decided to bomb Syria. I'm not sure if it was justified or not, because a proper multi-lateral investigation hasn't been done as to exactly who dropped the chemical weapon. It's just one side, the US, saying they know Syria dropped the chemical weapon and they know which base it came from. Dropping chemical weapons is definitely a bad thing which definitely deserves a response, but I feel like Trump should have waited for a lot of things...like Congressional approval, international cooperation following an international investigation. To think a one-off dropping of cruise missiles will solve the problem is naive. This will likely be a long-term affair, and as such, should have been prepared for better...especially considering Russia is on the ground there.

[NOBLE]

It was unilateral, done without Congressional approval and without consultation with the UN. Trump wouldn't be the first US president to do this. Obama did it with Libya and so has practically every president since WWII. However, according to the constitution, a president is supposed to get approval from Congress which has the responsibility of declaring war. The US has not declared war since 1941, yet has been in numerous armed conflicts. With this particular president, who has stated "America First" as a mantra and decried American involvement in global affairs, the 180 turn-around seemed impulsive...like he just saw some bad pictures on TV and decided to bomb Syria. I'm not sure if it was justified or not, because a proper multi-lateral investigation hasn't been done as to exactly who dropped the chemical weapon. It's just one side, the US, saying they know Syria dropped the chemical weapon and they know which base it came from. Dropping chemical weapons is definitely a bad thing which definitely deserves a response, but I feel like Trump should have waited for a lot of things...like Congressional approval, international cooperation following an international investigation. To think a one-off dropping of cruise missiles will solve the problem is naive. This will likely be a long-term affair, and as such, should have been prepared for better...especially considering Russia is on the ground there.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

It was unilateral, done without Congressional approval and without consultation with the UN. Trump wouldn't be the first US president to do this. Obama did it with Libya and so has practically every president since WWII. However, according to the constitution, a president is supposed to get approval from Congress which has the responsibility of declaring war. The US has not declared war since 1941, yet has been in numerous armed conflicts. With this particular president, who has stated "America First" as a mantra and decried American involvement in global affairs, the 180 turn-around seemed impulsive...like he just saw some bad pictures on TV and decided to bomb Syria. I'm not sure if it was justified or not, because a proper multi-lateral investigation hasn't been done as to exactly who dropped the chemical weapon. It's just one side, the US, saying they know Syria dropped the chemical weapon and they know which base it came from. Dropping chemical weapons is definitely a bad thing which definitely deserves a response, but I feel like Trump should have waited for a lot of things...like Congressional approval, international cooperation following an international investigation. To think a one-off dropping of cruise missiles will solve the problem is naive. This will likely be a long-term affair, and as such, should have been prepared for better...especially considering Russia is on the ground there.

The Russians were at the actual base the attack was said to have come from. Trumps 180 pissed off a lot of his base. And the reason for him bombing Syria is of course the pictures but also losing key advisers like Flynn and Bannon who were opposed to being involved in outside entanglements.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

It was unilateral, done without Congressional approval and without consultation with the UN. Trump wouldn't be the first US president to do this. Obama did it with Libya and so has practically every president since WWII. However, according to the constitution, a president is supposed to get approval from Congress which has the responsibility of declaring war. The US has not declared war since 1941, yet has been in numerous armed conflicts. With this particular president, who has stated "America First" as a mantra and decried American involvement in global affairs, the 180 turn-around seemed impulsive...like he just saw some bad pictures on TV and decided to bomb Syria. I'm not sure if it was justified or not, because a proper multi-lateral investigation hasn't been done as to exactly who dropped the chemical weapon. It's just one side, the US, saying they know Syria dropped the chemical weapon and they know which base it came from. Dropping chemical weapons is definitely a bad thing which definitely deserves a response, but I feel like Trump should have waited for a lot of things...like Congressional approval, international cooperation following an international investigation. To think a one-off dropping of cruise missiles will solve the problem is naive. This will likely be a long-term affair, and as such, should have been prepared for better...especially considering Russia is on the ground there.

The Russians were at the actual base the attack was said to have come from. Trumps 180 pissed off a lot of his base. And the reason for him bombing Syria is of course the pictures but also losing key advisers like Flynn and Bannon who were opposed to being involved in outside entanglements.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

The Russians were at the actual base the attack was said to have come from. Trumps 180 pissed off a lot of his base. And the reason for him bombing Syria is of course the pictures but also losing key advisers like Flynn and Bannon who were opposed to being involved in outside entanglements.

The last I read, two Russian warships (both equipped with cruise missiles) were heading toward the two U.S. Navy warships that bombed the Syrian airbase. The U.S. and Russia had previously had an agreement to notify each other of their actions in Syria, and I read that the U.S. did notify Russia 1 hour before the air base was bombed. However, I don't expect Russia to take this lying down. Putin said he was "very disappointed" with the air strike. I wouldn't put it past Russia to respond by attacking U.S. military assets.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

The Russians were at the actual base the attack was said to have come from. Trumps 180 pissed off a lot of his base. And the reason for him bombing Syria is of course the pictures but also losing key advisers like Flynn and Bannon who were opposed to being involved in outside entanglements.

The last I read, two Russian warships (both equipped with cruise missiles) were heading toward the two U.S. Navy warships that bombed the Syrian airbase. The U.S. and Russia had previously had an agreement to notify each other of their actions in Syria, and I read that the U.S. did notify Russia 1 hour before the air base was bombed. However, I don't expect Russia to take this lying down. Putin said he was "very disappointed" with the air strike. I wouldn't put it past Russia to respond by attacking U.S. military assets.

[Ray Zeus]

i doubt russia would be that trigger happy and attack a navy ship... thats a suicide mission... but then again i could be wrong... i still think trump shouldve brought it to congress and had a vote on it though... i really cant say too much about trump since im in the DEP for the navy and i was advised against it but yea... i don't agree with his methods...

[Ray Zeus]

i doubt russia would be that trigger happy and attack a navy ship... thats a suicide mission... but then again i could be wrong... i still think trump shouldve brought it to congress and had a vote on it though... i really cant say too much about trump since im in the DEP for the navy and i was advised against it but yea... i don't agree with his methods...

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by babylon

Assad has very likely done this before, dunno what you're on about like he's not a lunatic already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
first link i found, holds troves of incriminating info on a 2013 syrian chemical attack.


EDIT: This is also linked to the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, which bore parallel unique hallmarks and was determined by US investigation to be carried out by the syrian government. Despite the syrian government & opposition relentlessly blaming each other for the attack, neither of them taking credit.

its a well known fact he used chems before, ..what im saying is this particular incident just doesnt make sense for him to use it again, knowing full well it will turn even more countries against him.not to mention , why use it when he already has upper hand..

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by babylon

Assad has very likely done this before, dunno what you're on about like he's not a lunatic already.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23927399
first link i found, holds troves of incriminating info on a 2013 syrian chemical attack.


EDIT: This is also linked to the Khan al-Assal chemical attack, which bore parallel unique hallmarks and was determined by US investigation to be carried out by the syrian government. Despite the syrian government & opposition relentlessly blaming each other for the attack, neither of them taking credit.

its a well known fact he used chems before, ..what im saying is this particular incident just doesnt make sense for him to use it again, knowing full well it will turn even more countries against him.not to mention , why use it when he already has upper hand..

[NOBLE]

There are a lot of things in this world that don't make sense...yet they still occur.

[NOBLE]

There are a lot of things in this world that don't make sense...yet they still occur.

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

There are a lot of things in this world that don't make sense...yet they still occur.

so you honestly believe that assad just felt like throwing sarin at a bunch of rebels, right after trump already stated he wasnt going to interfere with assad, and was willing to let his regime remain.. the only people to gain is ISIS, because assad is fighting islamic radicals who do not like a secular controlled country.. and by staging this chem attack ,it makes assad look like a total ass.. and playing right into the plan for isis who cant take down assad by themselves,.why should they when america can do it for them.. same shit happened in iraq.. another secular ruler who islamic radicals hated but could not take on themselves because saddam was brutal, and it takes evil to beat worse evil...sometimes, america needs to stop playing big brother and focus on america. i agree with military strikes if theres concrete proof, but this has false flag written all over it.. prove me wrong

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by Swagga Lee

There are a lot of things in this world that don't make sense...yet they still occur.

so you honestly believe that assad just felt like throwing sarin at a bunch of rebels, right after trump already stated he wasnt going to interfere with assad, and was willing to let his regime remain.. the only people to gain is ISIS, because assad is fighting islamic radicals who do not like a secular controlled country.. and by staging this chem attack ,it makes assad look like a total ass.. and playing right into the plan for isis who cant take down assad by themselves,.why should they when america can do it for them.. same shit happened in iraq.. another secular ruler who islamic radicals hated but could not take on themselves because saddam was brutal, and it takes evil to beat worse evil...sometimes, america needs to stop playing big brother and focus on america. i agree with military strikes if theres concrete proof, but this has false flag written all over it.. prove me wrong