This is why I don't bow down to any single glorified walking meat-bag.
No human is perfect.

(04-07-2017 05:46 AM)Akwesi Wrote:  US: We're cool with Assad staying.
Assad: Cool, now I can do whatever I want.
Trump: *bitchslap" It doesn't work like that.

For now, at least, that's all there's to it. I understand the largely negative response here, but it's disproportionate. This isn't a declaration of war, it's just feedback. I'd be surprised if this goes much further. Assad will take it down a notch and Trump will cool off. Nothing is fucked.

That only works if there is evidence that it was definitely Assad's forces that carried out the attack, which we have not yet seen.

It's Trump seemingly falling for the usual neocon false flag escalation that had got everyone down.

But.

You can only join the dots connecting events in hindsight, not in the moment. We need to see how this unfolds over the next few days.

Morning news today has hosts asking "was the missile strike enough retribution? What is next?" Zero trump bashing though, today he has their seal of approval.

I'm as bitterly disappointed as many are here. However to keep things in perspective, over 12000 US bombs were dropped on Syria in 2016 alone, and we heard very little about these strikes.

Hell.
Trump may have shown that his bark is worse than his bite.

Eyewitness says Syrian military anticipated U.S. raid

http://abcnews.go.com/International/eyew...d=46641107

Syrian military officials appeared to anticipate Thursday's night raid on Syria's Shayrat airbase, evacuating personnel and moving equipment ahead of the strike, according to an eyewitness to the strike.
Dozens of Tomahawk missiles struck the airbase near Homs damaging runways, towers and traffic control buildings, a local resident and human rights activist living near the airbase told ABC News via an interpreter.

Local residents say the Russian military had used the airbase in early 2016 but have since withdrawn their officers, so the base is now mainly operated by Syrian and Iranian military officers. There is also a hotel near the airport where Iranian officers have been staying, though it was not clear whether it was damaged.

Former National Security Adviser and ABC News contributor Richard Clarke said this attack, one of the quickest displays of force by a new president in recent history, is largely "symbolic."

I'll be listening to liberal talk radio today to see how their tune has changed.

What a bunch of crybabies some of you are.

Wait for it... you'll be feeling silly soon.

Even PJW went full uterine last night. Need to walk it back.

I know everyone wants to cry in their cereal today....but...

1. If Russia didn't want us to bomb Syria in such a fashion they could have stopped us.
2. I believe this relates to the "Red Line" Obama said existed...and when it was "crossed" felt the need to ponder that over a round of Golf. That red line cannot be crossed again.

Symbolic? Perhaps....I do know the Globalists are happy.

I believe this is a one off (for now).

First caller into Cernovich periscope, throws the Jewish/Isreali angle. Mike acts like he has no clue and doesnt respond. Calls weak signal and hangs up.

I turned it off after

(04-07-2017 06:44 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  I'll be listening to liberal talk radio today to see how their tune has changed.

Still on "muh russia"

also, they are working the "Trump did not get congressional approval for strike, he should be impeached"

I'm kind of wondering what the big deal is about the hit on Syria. America bombs countries (or "cruises" them in this case) when we don't like what they do. Such actions are almost instinctual. Ingrained in our DNA at this point. Kind of ho hum if you think about it.

If anything, Trump is just showing he's getting the hang of the job. You aren't a real American president until you've called on military firepower and used it on someone. It's become a right of passage. Like a soldier of ancient times dipping his fingers in the blood of his first kill and painting his face with it.

Trump is just going by the standard American playbook. Nothing more. The mainstream media will continue to attack this guy no matter what he does, no matter how "normal" it was considered with earlier occupants of the Oval Office.

Trump's presidency was never fated to be smooth ride. It's going to be an uphill battle and firefight with no letup until the very end.

(04-07-2017 07:31 AM)EEB Wrote:  I'm kind of wondering what the big deal is about the hit on Syria. America bombs countries (or "cruises" them in this case) when we don't like what they do. Such actions are almost instinctual. Ingrained in our DNA at this point. Kind of ho hum if you think about it.

If anything, Trump is just showing he's getting the hang of the job. You aren't a real American president until you've called on military firepower and used it on someone. It's become a right of passage.

If it's not a big deal to some, then it should be.

For a bit of light relief look at Trump's critical tweets from 2013 regarding Obama authorizing an attack on Syria

https://www.rt.com/usa/383834-trump-syri...ld-tweets/

I would single out the following tweet in particular:

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!" - Donald J. Trump

After having slept on it, I feel better about the whole situation. Trump was served up a scenario, whether real or fabricated (and I firmly believe the latter) and like EEB said above, he reacted by the standard American playbook.

Anyone pointing to Trump tweets from 2013 to try and show his hypocrisy - the game had changed, with "chemical weapons" being "used" by "Assad". Coupled with the most effective weapon: emotional propaganda in photos, videos, and victim stories. A different time, and scenario, then when Trump was making those statements 4 years ago.

If Trump didn't react this way and instead said we need more time, we need to investigate, etc. etc. then you'd get another onslaught of anti-Trump rhetoric from everyone. Instead, everybody in the media has folded and nary a pee from anti-Trumpers. And what the hell are a few missiles worth, anyways (rhetorical question, we know)

If an investigation happens and proof comes out that it wasn't an Assad-sanctioned attack, then that gives Trump cover to go after the intelligence community and, more importantly, the deep state - kind of like he was doing in December/January if you recall. I wouldn't see that hurting Trump at all, and it'd be a valuable/teachable moment to not be so fucking emotional and quick to judgment and instead question and investigate everything.

The three things bothering me right now are are the following:

(1) The impression that Trump changed his mind seeing pictures of children. There are tens of millions of children sick, starving, or living out a meagre existence in third-world, or war-torn, or dictator-run countries around the world. I expect better out of Trump, or the president, to not be so emotional (but we're living in a time where emotion trumps logic/reason 99 times out of 100, so fair enough)

(2) That people believe this is going to stop the "Trump is an agent of Putin" rhetoric. You already have news reports coming out saying the U.S. warned Russia beforehand about when and where they'd strike, so, there goes your attempt to dislodge that narrative. They'll just claim he's still a stooge and this is a fake show of force to try and deflect - just wait.

(3) Unrelated to this fiasco, but Bannon's supposed displacement in the white house, coupled with Kushner's ascendancy. Kushner has to go, and if he did chances are good he'd take Ivanka with him - that would be one of the best possible actions for the current administration. I won't hold my breath. I'm firmly on the "Kushner must go" bandwagon and considering the anti-Trump media and "resistance" forces are starting to beat the drum on that, I'd say all Trump supporters should also back up that call. Literally everyone's united on getting that little shit out of there.


So I can take a few missiles, but yeah, "boots on the ground" and that's it. So long to your 2nd term, Trump. It would've been nice if he didn't follow the typical playbook and instead tried an investigation/getting more evidence because of how incredibly sketchy this whole situation is.

(04-07-2017 07:51 AM)Last Parade Wrote:  After having slept on it, I feel better about the whole situation. Trump was served up a scenario, whether real or fabricated (and I firmly believe the latter) and like EEB said above, he reacted by the standard American playbook.

Anyone pointing to Trump tweets from 2013 to try and show his hypocrisy - the game had changed, with "chemical weapons" being "used" by "Assad". Coupled with the most effective weapon: emotional propaganda in photos, videos, and victim stories. A different time, and scenario, then when Trump was making those statements 4 years ago.

If Trump didn't react this way and instead said we need more time, we need to investigate, etc. etc. then you'd get another onslaught of anti-Trump rhetoric from everyone. Instead, everybody in the media has folded and nary a pee from anti-Trumpers. And what the hell are a few missiles worth, anyways (rhetorical question, we know)

If an investigation happens and proof comes out that it wasn't an Assad-sanctioned attack, then that gives Trump cover to go after the intelligence community and, more importantly, the deep state - kind of like he was doing in December/January if you recall. I wouldn't see that hurting Trump at all, and it'd be a valuable/teachable moment to not be so fucking emotional and quick to judgment and instead question and investigate everything.

The three things bothering me right now are are the following:

(1) The impression that Trump changed his mind seeing pictures of children. There are tens of millions of children sick, starving, or living out a meagre existence in third-world, or war-torn, or dictator-run countries around the world. I expect better out of Trump, or the president, to not be so emotional (but we're living in a time where emotion trumps logic/reason 99 times out of 100, so fair enough)

(2) That people believe this is going to stop the "Trump is an agent of Putin" rhetoric. You already have news reports coming out saying the U.S. warned Russia beforehand about when and where they'd strike, so, there goes your attempt to dislodge that narrative. They'll just claim he's still a stooge and this is a fake show of force to try and deflect - just wait.

(3) Unrelated to this fiasco, but Bannon's supposed displacement in the white house, coupled with Kushner's ascendancy. Kushner has to go, and if he did chances are good he'd take Ivanka with him - that would be one of the best possible actions for the current administration. I won't hold my breath. I'm firmly on the "Kushner must go" bandwagon and considering the anti-Trump media and "resistance" forces are starting to beat the drum on that, I'd say all Trump supporters should also back up that call. Literally everyone's united on getting that little shit out of there.


So I can take a few missiles, but yeah, "boots on the ground" and that's it. So long to your 2nd term, Trump. It would've been nice if he didn't follow the typical playbook and instead tried an investigation/getting more evidence because of how incredibly sketchy this whole situation is.

You wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone pointing to Trump tweets from 2013 to try and show his hypocrisy - the game had changed, with "chemical weapons" being "used" by "Assad". Coupled with the most effective weapon: emotional propaganda in photos, videos, and victim stories. A different time, and scenario, then when Trump was making those statements 4 years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the situation is exactly the same. At that time it was also alleged that Assad had used chemical weapons - in a suburb of Damascus. The case later disintegrated.

(04-07-2017 06:56 AM)Gmac Wrote:  What a bunch of crybabies some of you are.

Wait for it... you'll be feeling silly soon.

Even PJW went full uterine last night. Need to walk it back.

Yep. It really is amazing how quick people are to jump to conclusions when their own confirmation bias wires are tripped.

I get the feeling of bitter disappointment, because I am, but it's easy to Monday morning quarterback. The militant response is good though. Trump needs to know that his base is not going to support him on this shit in the long run.

Everything depends on what comes next. This by itself is not a huge deal. It's consistent with what Scott Adams wrote. It clears a lot of the cobwebs that unfortunately Trump had no control over.

The talk from Tillerson, et al is concerning though. That's where you keep your eyes on. A no fly zone or "coalition of the willing" is your tell. Pay attention to those two phrases.

(04-07-2017 05:04 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 03:15 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  The 'elites' and many ordinary, informed, and decent people want Assad's head for a number of reasons......

This reads like an op-ed in the NYT. Right down to the word elites being in quotation marks so as to imply that the rest of us are conspiracy theorists.

Next you're gonna call us misogynists

I can't in good conscience use the word 'elites' in the way many here use it. I am from a background whereby I went to school with, and count as friends, many of those you would label as being part of the 'elite'. From a life time of staying at their houses, sharing institutions with them, and being considered a part of that world, I do consider a lot of the wackier stuff about 'elites' and their conspiracies to be fundamentally removed from reality, and divorced from reason.

Like any other group, there are some good ones, some bad ones, and some that probably go either way depending on whether you're in their strata or not.

You will notice, as will any fair minded audience, that I have not been the one to call any names, or cast any aspersions, though one or two have been cast my way in response. I have provided my thoughts, and my reasons for them. They have been substantiated by argument and reference to history, and are there to judge on their own merits.

If there are reasoned objections to the points I have made, then I have yet to hear them. 'Globalist shill' or the implication thereof, is about as close as you, or the others, have come to any kind of meaningful refutation. I'm quite open to debate, quite averse to being silenced by cheap slurs.

(04-07-2017 07:57 AM)rockoman Wrote:  You wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone pointing to Trump tweets from 2013 to try and show his hypocrisy - the game had changed, with "chemical weapons" being "used" by "Assad". Coupled with the most effective weapon: emotional propaganda in photos, videos, and victim stories. A different time, and scenario, then when Trump was making those statements 4 years ago.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the situation is exactly the same. At that time it was also alleged that Assad had used chemical weapons - in a suburb of Damascus. The case later disintegrated.

But was the emotional propaganda so effective back then? The media narrative so compelling?

I also wonder if the show of force really would've been necessary if they hadn't publicized their "we're leaving Syria alone" posture literally days before this attack happened AND if the king of Jordan hadn't been visiting the white house the day after it happened. Just a perfect confluence of events.

Lastly, I take Trump's tweets from back then to be referring to a full-scale invasion. Is congressional approval really needed for launching a few missiles? I always assumed it was just for boots on the ground.

Quote:Syria rebels welcome US strike, urge more

https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/201...irstrikes/



Allahu Akbar fact finding mission successful.

The media and the CIA would never lie about anything.
We know that all their information was as valid as can be.
In fact the people listened to the media diligently and elected Donald Trump into office.

Quote:“Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians,” a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.

“The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides.”

Other rebel groups welcomed the US strike and called for continued military action against the regime.

(04-07-2017 08:18 AM)Libertas Wrote:  The militant response is good though.

The problem is that there isn't any militant response. Outside of this forum, both the left and right wing general public seems united in bloodthirsty glee and virtue-signalling about "dead children", "red lines" and other emotional claptrap. This is not to even mention the media and most of the country's politicians who are with very few exceptions heartily praising Trump's willingness to push USA towards another pointless globalist war. The few sane dissenters like Ann Coulter are getting slammed in the comments and accused of "not caring about genocide" by their own former supporters.

This will all encourage Trump to continue with more rash military solutions. Of course I hope he thinks a bit and stops here, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Trump opened a huge can of worms by reacting to obvious globalist propaganda in this fashion, and whether he goes on to invade Syria or stops here and does nothing else, the damage to his presidency is already significant. This will just embolden all of his enemies to keep pushing on the same buttons, because now they know that they work.

Not despairing or giving up on Trump, but stupid shit needs to be called out when it happens. Let's hope that he can resist all the (((neocon))) influence around him.

(04-07-2017 08:22 AM)Last Parade Wrote:  Lastly, I take Trump's tweets from back then to be referring to a full-scale invasion. Is congressional approval really needed for launching a few missiles? I always assumed it was just for boots on the ground.

Here's the problem...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 - The Congress shall have power to declare war.

Is attacking a sovereign country with bombs an act of war?

Let's reverse this scenario. Syria attacks a United States Air Force base with 59 one-thousand pound bombs. Would Americans consider that an act of war?

What is Axios? I've never seen Drudge link to them before.

Exclusive: Trump eyes new chief of staff; House Leader on short list

Quote:President Trump is considering a broad shakeup of his White House that could include the replacement of White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the departure of chief strategist Steve Bannon, aides and advisers tell us.

A top aide to Trump said he's contemplating major changes, but that the situation is very fluid and the timing uncertain: "Things are happening, but it's very unclear the president's willing to pull that trigger."
Keep reading 251 words

Insiders tell me that the possibilities for chief of staff include:

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who developed a bond with Trump as one of the earlier congressional leaders to support him, and remains a confidant.
Wayne Berman of Blackstone Group, a Washington heavy-hitter who was an Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President George H.W. Bush, and a key adviser on eight presidential campaigns.
David Urban of the Washington advisory firm American Continental Group, and a former chief of staff to the late Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Urban helped Trump win an upset victory in Pennsylvania, and was in constant cellphone contact with the candidate throughout the campaign.
Gary Cohn, Trump's economic adviser and the former #2 at Goldman Sachs, who has built a formidable team and internal clout.

The West Wing "Game of Thrones" has been raging ever since Trump took office. But the war between the nationalists and the moderates, led by Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, burst into the open this week after Bannon was taken off the National Security Council, setting off a torrent of leaks against him.

Bannon called reports that he was ready to quit "100 percent nonsense."

Axios' Jonathan Swan reports that Bannon told associates: "I love a gunfight."

The top aide — along with many other Trump officials, advisers and friends — told us that it seems to be more a question of "when" not "whether" change will come: "The tension, the exhaustion, the raw nerves have gotten much harder to disguise."