Some of you may know, some of you may not, but it's kind of a big deal, the things that happened the last few days and hours could have a dramatic outcome depending on how international governments react to these events.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500947

 

What is known:

 

• airplanes were seen dropping bombs above the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Syria
• approximately 80 people died from the use of a chemical agent in this bombing

 

What is unknown:

 

• who's responsible for the attack (some (i.e. western governments) accuse the Syrian government of dropping those bombs with chemical agents in them, some others (i.e. Russia and allies) say the chemical agents were already on scene, hidden in a djihadist cache and were released in the air from the explosion of the bombs)

 

President Trump, after being opposed to military intervention according to his speeches in the past, turned around and authorized the US army to bomb a Syrian airport (59 Tomahawk missiles were shot). ISIS took the opportunity of this US attack on the airport to assault it and try to take it back. EU Council President Tusk said he was ready to work with the US to end brutality in Syria. UK agreed with Trump on his decision and supports the US. Russia claimed it was an unnecessary attack against Syria's state sovereignty.

 

What do the 'muricans think about Trump's decision? Other people?

 

Personally I think everyone is reacting to this way too quickly, out of emotion, irrationally (I've a feeling of deja-vu from the supposed mass destruction weapons in Irak). It's unknown yet who's responsible for this, and attacking a Syrian airport like Trump did could lead to an international armed conflict, especially with every country taking position on the matter. Once again Trump showed he's not fit for presidency, overreacting and in total contradiction with his previous decisions and speeches.

Edited April 7, 20179 yr by Hystery

Trumps a moron and his buddies just changed the rules to get his pick on the scotus....looks like my healthcare, civil rights, and leagal rights are under fire.....hang them all.....trump..and congress

As a Trump supporter I don't condone this action, but I'm not entirely against it. Trump ran his presidency on a near-isolationist stance regarding world affairs, which was attractive to me, and yet here we are authorizing missile strikes on targets in countries that have nothing directly to do with us.

 

My reasoning behind my marginal support of this action is simple. It was a surgical strike on a military target with minimal casualties, Russian troops on the ground were warned priorly and given ample time to evacuate, and no civilians were harmed. Compare this to years past where drone strikes killed hundreds of civilians, with bombs even dropped on Doctors Without Borders which the Obama administration pretty much called an "Oops." But of course, there was no outcry back then because Obama was the best president we've ever had.

 

Bottom line is that Trump is trying too hard to show that the US has the balls to take action against governments that use or condone the use of things like chemical weapons against civilian populations. I feel like the strike was rushed and emotionally-charged, and IMO it would be best for Syria to solve their own problems, but people saying he should "hang" or die or he's unfit to be President are glossing over the simple fact that no President has ever been perfect. It's not like he dropped a nuke on Damascus.

 

 

Follow the Money,the banker's who own our governments fund both sides.Divide and Rule.Trump is a puppet it is as simple as that.

1 hour ago, M3Creepsta said:

As a Trump supporter I don't condone this action, but I'm not entirely against it. Trump ran his presidency on a near-isolationist stance regarding world affairs, which was attractive to me, and yet here we are authorizing missile strikes on targets in countries that have nothing directly to do with us.

 

My reasoning behind my marginal support of this action is simple. It was a surgical strike on a military target with minimal casualties, Russian troops on the ground were warned priorly and given ample time to evacuate, and no civilians were harmed. Compare this to years past where drone strikes killed hundreds of civilians, with bombs even dropped on Doctors Without Borders which the Obama administration pretty much called an "Oops." But of course, there was no outcry back then because Obama was the best president we've ever had.

 

Bottom line is that Trump is trying too hard to show that the US has the balls to take action against governments that use or condone the use of things like chemical weapons against civilian populations. I feel like the strike was rushed and emotionally-charged, and IMO it would be best for Syria to solve their own problems, but people saying he should "hang" or die or he's unfit to be President are glossing over the simple fact that no President has ever been perfect. It's not like he dropped a nuke on Damascus.

 

 

 

Just now, billiarboy said:

Follow the Money,the banker's who own our governments fund both sides.Divide and Rule.Trump is a puppet it is as simple as that.

 

That's not an argument to any of my points but thanks.

Just now, M3Creepsta said:

That's not an argument to any of my points but thanks.

Whatever,I am not arguing but painting a picture of the true facts,you need to break free from your programming and indoctrination!

Just now, billiarboy said:

Whatever,I am not arguing but painting a picture of the true facts,you need to break free from your programming and indoctrination!

Reaching deep into the ad-hom there buddy. Keep it on topic and take the tinfoil off. 

In my opinion, I think that the U.S. attack was necessary and more action needs to be taken. This was an obvious attack aimed directly at civilians by the Assad Regime, and we need to continue to hammer Assad regardless of this apparent Russia–Assad alliance. It's obvious that the Russians weren't going to do anything to contain their apparent ally, so the U.S. and its allies need to stay on top of it. The Russians better get used to it. 

 

Edited April 7, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

11 hours ago, Asuna said:

Trumps a moron and his buddies just changed the rules to get his pick on the scotus....looks like my healthcare, civil rights, and leagal rights are under fire.....hang them all.....trump..and congress

 

8 hours ago, billiarboy said:

Follow the Money,the banker's who own our governments fund both sides.Divide and Rule.Trump is a puppet it is as simple as that.

 

 

Please stay on topic. This thread is about the Syrian chemical attack and the US strikes in response, not about whether you like or dislike Trump.

He f*cked up. In 2013 he tweeted that a president needs approval of congress for such a strike...now he is doing the same thing without approval. Unconstitutional.

But even if this was a good thing...why is it always the US that has to do something? Why never hold back and let other countries take action. 

3 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

In my opinion, I think that the U.S. attack was necessary and more action needs to be taken. This was an obvious attack aimed directly at civilians by the Assad Regime, and we need to continue to hammer Assad regardless of this apparent Russia–Assad alliance. It's obvious that the Russians weren't going to do anything to contain their apparent ally, so the U.S. and its allies need to stay on top of it. The Russians better get used to it. 

 

 

How do you know this bombing was from the Syrian regime though? Do you actually have an evidence of that? And why do you feel like the US need to get involved personally once again, without asking the opinion of anyone else in the world? Nothing from NATO? From the UN? From my point of view, this decision was taken an emotional response. Something a president shouldn't do. When you're president, you need to be tactful. Diplomat. Intelligent. Things aren't always as they seem. One wrong reaction can have disastrous consequences. I don't know about you, but I don't want a world-wide conflict between you, the US, and the Russian and its allies. I want peace. And more bombing and more wars and more conflicts won't bring peace.

43 minutes ago, Dutchness said:

He f*cked up. In 2013 he tweeted that a president needs approval of congress for such a strike...now he is doing the same thing without approval. Unconstitutional.

But even if this was a good thing...why is it always the US that has to do something? Why never hold back and let other countries take action. 

 

 

 

 

The reason that the United States generally takes action first is because no other country will. The United States, alongside a few other countries, is a world power and arguably the strongest nation in the world in terms of military strength. I don't entirely agree with our involvement in foreign conflicts, but there's an apparent reason behind it. As previously stated, no other country takes the initiative. There's a horror that occurs somewhere in the world and everyone turns a blind eye, and points to the United States. If the world does not want the United States to take the initiative, then it should stop pointing the finger at it.

 

26 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

How do you know this bombing was from the Syrian regime though? Do you actually have an evidence of that? And why do you feel like the US need to get involved personally once again, without asking the opinion of anyone else in the world? Nothing from NATO? From the UN? From my point of view, this decision was taken an emotional response. Something a president shouldn't do. When you're president, you need to be tactful. Diplomat. Intelligent. Things aren't always as they seem. One wrong reaction can have disastrous consequences. I don't know about you, but I don't want a world-wide conflict between you, the US, and the Russian and its allies. I want peace. And more bombing and more wars and more conflicts won't bring peace.

 

 

 

 

According to brief research, the Syrian regime possesses the largest arsenal of chemical weapon in Syria and the Syrian regime has been accused of using such weapons in the past by the United Nations:

 

"In August 2016, a confidential report by the United Nations and the OPCW explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chemical weapons (chlorine bombs) on the towns of Talmenes in April 2014 and Sarmin in March 2015 and ISIS for using sulfur mustard on the town of Marea in August 2015.^[1]"

 

I personally cannot determine whether it actually was the Syrian regime that conducted the chemical attacks but based on chemical attacks in the past, it's definitely a strong possibility. The missile strikes are said to have been targeted at the source of the chemical weapons airbase. Regardless of who conducted the chemical attack, if the chemical weapons were acquired from this airbase, then the strike on this airbase was necessary.

 

The United States is the leader of Syria's intervention effort, I'm unsure of whether or not that's a self-acclaimed title. The rest of the world would have responded the same way it has responded since we initially got involved with Syria, not at all. No initiative, the United States has to take the initiative. It's not like the missile strike did any harm, it was in response to a horrible chemical attack on civilians. Of course, everyone wants peace, but when you're dealing with these type of people peace is out the window.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack

 

 

Edited April 7, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle

Jokes aside,

 

Assad deserves to be bombed.

Regardless of political views, the bombing was justified. 

 

Many democrats agree with Trump's decision. 

1 minute ago, SpikeTerm said:

Jokes aside,

 

Assad deserves to be bombed.

Regardless of political views, the bombing was justified. 

 

Many democrats agree with Trump's decision. 

 

The comical thing about it is that Obama was the one that initially made the threat with his "red line" per se. He himself made a statement that if Syria used chemical weapons again, the United States would take action. Syria decided to use chemical weapons again, so we've simply carried out the threat that Barrack Obama made.

Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

The comical thing about it is that Obama was the one that initially made the threat with his "red line" per se. He himself made a statement that if Syria used chemical weapons again, the United States would take action. Syria decided to use chemical weapons again, so we've simply carried out the threat that Barrack Obama made.

 

Absolutely correct; Obama was about to take action during his term too.

Its amazing how easily fooled people are by propaganda.

lol research the GULF OF TONKIN

On 4/7/2017 at 9:16 AM, M3Creepsta said:

Reaching deep into the ad-hom there buddy. Keep it on topic and take the tinfoil off. 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

On 4/7/2017 at 9:11 PM, Riley24 said:

Its amazing how easily fooled people are by propaganda.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

 

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by billiarboy

On 4/7/2017 at 10:11 PM, Riley24 said:

Its amazing how easily fooled people are by propaganda.

That can go both ways too.

4 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That can go both ways too.

In most cases, yes. But not this one.

 

Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been murdered in Syria since the war began, and the west barely bat an eye. But now 70 are killed, and its all over the news and the government launches dozens of Tomahawk missiles to retaliate. Come on dude, use common sense. Don't you remember Iraq, how the media carried carried water for the Bush administration and lied us into war? The US warned Russia before launching the missiles, didn't target the runway, and only targeted planes that were being repaired. This was a clear show of force. $70 million of taxpayer money so Trump can look like a tough guy. I mean for fucks sake, Trump's botched raid in Yemen killed 8 children. Are we really supposed to believe that the Trump administration was so emotionally impacted by Assad's chemical act that we just HAD to act? No, dude. That's propaganda. Trump was the one who ADVOCATED for murdering civilians on the campaign trail. And speaking of the campaign trail, Trump promised he wouldn't get us in any more messes in the middle east. Where the fuck are all the Trump supporters angry that he lied?

 

 

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by Riley24

33 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

In most cases, yes. But not this one.

 

Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been murdered in Syria since the war began, and the west barely bat an eye. But now 70 are killed, and its all over the news and the government launches dozens of Tomahawk missiles to retaliate. Come on dude, use common sense. Don't you remember Iraq, how the media carried carried water for the Bush administration and lied us into war? The US warned Russia before launching the missiles, didn't target the runway, and only targeted planes that were being repaired. This was a clear show of force. $70 million of taxpayer money so Trump can look like a tough guy. I mean for fucks sake, Trump's botched raid in Yemen killed 8 children. Are we really supposed to believe that the Trump administration was so emotionally impacted by Assad's chemical act that we just HAD to act? No, dude. That's propaganda. Trump was the one who ADVOCATED for murdering civilians on the campaign trail. And speaking of the campaign trail, Trump promised he wouldn't get us in any more messes in the middle east. Where the fuck are all the Trump supporters angry that he lied?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, common sense suggests that the Earth is flat and stationary. Using common sense as a basis for life isn't very wise, in my own humble opinion. Everything isn't always what it seems to be, and making assumptions based on given circumstances can be detrimental. Just because something appears to make sense doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. 

 

In regards to the topic at hand, I agree that it was a show of force, but it was a necessary show of force. If I recall correctly, a few years ago former President Barrack Obama made a threat against the Syrian Regime. He stated that if the Syrian Regime were to use chemical weapons again, hence crossing his "red line", the United States would respond with military action. Not only did Obama make that dry threat, but Hillary Clinton suggested that the United States bomb Syrian airfields a few days prior to the missile strikes. Hillary Clinton would have bombed the same airfield that President Trump bombed, so I don't know why people act as though this is a Trump exclusive. The President has received commendation from top Democratic officials. You can't hold President Trump accountable for what wasn't done while he wasn't in office, that's on Obama's shoulders. I'd like to know where the outcry was when Obama ordered drones to slaughter, reportedly, thousands of people across the middle-east with drone strikes; but forget that, Obama is the alpha-American. The man does no wrong. He's the greatest president this nation has ever had the privilege to have. 

Edited April 9, 20179 yr by TheDivineHustle