Getting rather serious this Syria thing.

[RockySpears]

"Alexander Zasypkin, Moscow's ambassador to Lebanon, is the latest, repeating a warning by the head of the military that missiles would be shot down and their launch sites targeted."

  Are the Americans really stupid enough not to take this seriously?  Their fleet in the Med is a sitting duck for the Russian military.  One sunk/struck US vessel and it could easily be Game Over.

  Those here that Prep, may want to review their plans,

RS

[12gauge82]

Unless the Russians and Syria back down, I think America, possibly backed by France and the UK will put a strike in, the thing is, it was made clear further chemical attacks in Syria was a red line not to be crossed, I think not taking action could be as dangerous as doing nothing at all, a case of give an inch and the Russians will take a mile, then two, then a few thousand.

[Hamster]

Why should Russia or Syria back down ? This is a false flag in the same old fashioned way that every time they rout out the Western backed Islamist inspired terrorists with a dozen fancy names murica's butt gets more and more hurt and orders a world wide fake news propaganda attack. 

Why would Assad use chemicals AFTER he's already taken this town over ? It's more and more ridiculous to believe anything the muricans ever say when it comes to the middle east. In my view Russia can't and won't back down because capitulation to bullies will only serve to make them bolder. Those who larfed and larfed and said I was being dramatic over the Skirpal affair please take note, this false flag was planned well ahead and in fact Russia has been pre-warning everyone that it was going to happen - it'll get waaaaay messier before it improves, if at all. The Empires are falling and can't comprehend Western hegemony and grip over the rest of the planet is coming to an end, tis the dying throes. 

[lksopener]

Great reply Hamster. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

hello, you can argue the toss over this fore ever but when you see the TV reports and those Syrian nationals including so many lovely young children in pain and despair or dead it should strike a cord in all humanity,  

[Hamster]

Our own former Ambassador to that country says it's a false flag. The media is complicit in lying to us, front men/women get handpicked to be compliant and unquestioning to the evils being committed, the main news networks and in particular the BBC are simply utilised as believable and "legitimate" sources for misinformation : 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Hamster

[Hamster]

"Tell me you believe that Washington is so concerned about a couple of dozen Syrians "killed" in an alleged chemical weapons attack in their own country that they are willing to deploy a fleet of warships and thousands of their troops, risking a confrontation with other nuclear powers, to punish a "crime" they themselves vehemently condemn but refuse to allow an independent investigation on.

Tell me you're aware of their lying over Saddam Hussein's WMD (already admitted to), of their lying about Libya and Yugoslavia; tell me you know all that, but you still believe this time is different.

Tell me that and I'll tell you to look in a mirror to see the image of fool."  - George Ades

 

[12gauge82]

30 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Why should Russia or Syria back down ? This is a false flag in the same old fashioned way that every time they rout out the Western backed Islamist inspired terrorists with a dozen fancy names murica's butt gets more and more hurt and orders a world wide fake news propaganda attack. 

Why would Assad use chemicals AFTER he's already taken this town over ? It's more and more ridiculous to believe anything the muricans ever say when it comes to the middle east. In my view Russia can't and won't back down because capitulation to bullies will only serve to make them bolder. Those who larfed and larfed and said I was being dramatic over the Skirpal affair please take note, this false flag was planned well ahead and in fact Russia has been pre-warning everyone that it was going to happen - it'll get waaaaay messier before it improves, if at all. The Empires are falling and can't comprehend Western hegemony and grip over the rest of the planet is coming to an end, tis the dying throes. 

My mind is always open to other possibilities and if you reread my comments in the skirpals thread you'll see that, but to suggest Russia is innocent or any better than western country's would be ridiculous, look at their record over the years, my reasoning for believing the official line on Syria is what would we want to strike them for, we had the chance before Russia got involved which now appears to be a mistake, russia has vetoed an independent investigation, why would they want to do that if it wasn't Assad? If we don't act it'll be innocent children who pay the price.

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

My mind is always open to other possibilities and if you reread my comments in the skirpals thread you'll see that, but to suggest Russia is innocent or any better than western country's would be ridiculous, look at their record over the years, my reasoning for believing the official line on Syria is what would we want to strike them for, we had the chance before Russia got involved which now appears to be a mistake, russia has vetoed an independent investigation, why would they want to do that if it wasn't Assad? If we don't act it'll be innocent children who pay the price.

I could say to you ,look at the US's record over the years, they are hardly saints when it comes to killing innocents are they ?

And no Russia has not vetoed an investigation ,it has offered support and protection to an OPCW  investigation, it vetoed military action against Assad.

Let me ask you this, the US 'coalition' (where have we heard that before) have already decided they are going to use military force to 'punish' assad, despite it not being passed by the UN.
So we can expect some more $1 million dollar a pop tomahawks flying over, some more bombs and some more 'collateral' civilian deaths ?
How does that equate to saving the innocent children ?

Hamster is on the money here, and the whole Skripal thing should be making more and more sense to you now.

Would you like to see this country go to war with Russia ?
Could we even afford a limited war? Or rather, who will we borrow off to finance it ?
The cold war has been over for decades in truth, why re ignite it all now, who profits ?
Follow the money.
 

[Hamster]

21 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

My mind is always open to other possibilities and if you reread my comments in the skirpals thread you'll see that, but to suggest Russia is innocent or any better than western country's would be ridiculous, look at their record over the years, my reasoning for believing the official line on Syria is what would we want to strike them for, we had the chance before Russia got involved which now appears to be a mistake, russia has vetoed an independent investigation, why would they want to do that if it wasn't Assad? If we don't act it'll be innocent children who pay the price.

1) it is murica that has vetoed independent investigations yet again, previous false flag investigations have concluded they were not committed by the Syrian side, mad dog Mattis himself is on record as saying so

2) murica doesn't give a flying fig about children or poisoning in general, it has been piping poisonous water to its own citizens in Flint, if they cared about innocent deaths why such silence when Israel only last week killed 17 protestors using snipers and wounded approx 750 ? And please, no anti semitic boremepants, I'm anti Zionist but pro Jew, my best English friend is a Jew. 

[12gauge82]

31 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I could say to you ,look at the US's record over the years, they are hardly saints when it comes to killing innocents are they ?

And no Russia has not vetoed an investigation ,it has offered support and protection to an OPCW  investigation, it vetoed military action against Assad.

Let me ask you this, the US 'coalition' (where have we heard that before) have already decided they are going to use military force to 'punish' assad, despite it not being passed by the UN.
So we can expect some more $1 million dollar a pop tomahawks flying over, some more bombs and some more 'collateral' civilian deaths ?
How does that equate to saving the innocent children ?

Hamster is on the money here, and the whole Skripal thing should be making more and more sense to you now.

Would you like to see this country go to war with Russia ?
Could we even afford a limited war? Or rather, who will we borrow off to finance it ?
The cold war has been over for decades in truth, why re ignite it all now, who profits ?
Follow the money.
 

I totally agree, the West, particularly America is no better, it's recordd is appalling and America the UK and allies have attempted to consert control all over the globe, anyone standing in the way has been squashed, if you look at my post above, I said Russia is no better.

I'm certainly not against the idea we in the West could be up to some tricks but I don't think it makes sense in this case, we had the chance to bomb or launch an invasion of Syria well before Russia got involved, so why didn't we do it then? Instead of risking open war with Russia now?

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I totally agree, the West, particularly America is no better, it's recordd is appalling and America the UK and allies have attempted to consert control all over the globe, anyone standing in the way has been squashed, if you look at my post above, I said Russia is no better.

I'm certainly not against the idea we in the West could be up to some tricks but I don't think it makes sense in this case, we had the chance to bomb or launch an invasion of Syria well before Russia got involved, so why didn't we do it then? Instead of risking open war with Russia now?

Public opinion ? You need the backing of the populace, at least in spirit, before undertaking a course of war.
You have to create the bogey man.
Why would the public support a war that has seemingly nothing to do with them ?
Unless of course you have demonised the target country ,to the extent that war with them is virtually welcomed.

Maybe war with Russia was the goal all along (I truly hope its not )
Maybe when they werent so involved, it was a less attractive prospect than now, and dont forget, the US  had a different regime in power then.

Make no mistake, there are very serious stakes on the table here.

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Public opinion ? You need the backing of the populace, at least in spirit, before undertaking a course of war.
You have to create the bogey man.
Why would the public support a war that has seemingly nothing to do with them ?
Unless of course you have demonised the target country ,to the extent that war with them is virtually welcomed.

Maybe war with Russia was the goal all along (I truly hope its not )
Maybe when they werent so involved, it was a less attractive prospect than now, and dont forget, the US  had a different regime in power then.

Make no mistake, there are very serious stakes on the table here.

Can't disagree with much of that, however, I can't see the West wanting to pick a fight with Russia, I don't care how rich or what influence you have, there'd be nowhere to hide from a nuclear war.

[RockySpears]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

russia has vetoed an independent investigation,

  If I am not mistaken, America vetoed Russia's request and Russia vetoed America's request.  The Americans want the "Independent" team to decide who is to blame, but the Russians want the UN to decide who is to blame after looking at the Independent findings.

  Chemical weapons were only banned because they were rubbish, especially things like chlorine gas and mustard gas (Nerve agents are better, but still hugely ineffective for combat if you have any of your own troops, or innocents, in the area of their use).  They are very weather dependent, very easily avoided by combatants and are just as likely to harm your own troops.  They are seen as "unsportsman-like" (because an exploding shell is so much braver).  For a fuller explanation, try this:  http://jbshaldane.org/books/1925-Callinicus/index.html

  Like every time before, the US makes a complete hash of every conflict since the Second World War, it simply cannot act diplomatically.  Its entire economy is based on war. 

Sadly the UK just lapdogs along,

RS

Edited April 11, 2018 by RockySpears
Callinicus link

[Mice!]

whatever happens its no going to help the people living in the war zones, seems like Syria is just the latest political football, while the big two strut about. The idea of the west going against Russia is simply too scary to believe.

[Smokersmith]

The latest tweet from Trump is chilling  ... get ready Russia, the missiles are coming (to Syria)...

[Uilleachan]

Who would resort to the use of chemical weapons with victory in sight? 

The old "he chemically attacked his own people" trope gets trotted out everytime the wests favourite head-choppers get their a-rses handed to them. Nothing but BS to get you onboard with GWIII 

[Hamster]

Now do you understand how it's possible to be exposed to military grade nerve agents and not only survive but recover in a month ? It was a test to see which (mainly European) nations could be relied on to take sides against this months bogeyman. 

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Now do you understand how it's possible to be exposed to military grade nerve agents and not only survive but recover in a month ? It was a test to see which (mainly European) nations could be relied on to take sides against this months bogeyman. 

A test by whom? 

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

A test by whom? 

The outside forces that you don't believe exist. 

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, Hamster said:

The outside forces that you don't believe exist. 

Who are the outside forces?

[Hamster]

4 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Who are the outside forces?

Ask yourself which entities most benefit from the destruction of country after country in the middle east, think money and think global geo-political power grip. 

[DanBettin]

Everyone's so sure of their opinion when it comes to debates like these. Having an opinion is fine, but being reserved and keeping a bit back to stay open-minded is a good approach, I find.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, DanBettin said:

Everyone's so sure of their opinion when it comes to debates like these. Having an opinion is fine, but being reserved and keeping a bit back to stay open-minded is a good approach, I find.

Of course it is, but then what exactly would we do about it even if we were sure?

Go and stock up on pot noodles and bog roll, or keep calm and carry on ?

It makes no odds whether Im right or wrong, what will happen will happen.

[12gauge82]

11 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Ask yourself which entities most benefit from the destruction of country after country in the middle east, think money and think global geo-political power grip. 

I could see how someone providing arms or money for arms and all that goes with war could benefit but I would think too risky when it could create war between America and Russia and their respective allies, there may not be much world left after that, so who are you referring to by outside powers?