Post: #426

Some appropriate memes for the current geopolitical situation:

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #427

I take solace knowing Russia will nuke cities full of libtards.

I find it most absurd that Tillerson goes from managing a balance sheet and cash flow to accusing Russia of shit he knows nothing about.

Post: #428

(04-07-2017 02:57 AM)Orson Wrote:  ...
First, since Obama did not get Syria to relinquish chem weaps in exchange for non-intervention, this means Trump-led USA has a new Sherriff to enforce agreements. Secondly, this attempts to restore the status quo ante on the use of banned weapons like chem weaps. Third, it puts Putin in an awkward position: you didn't perform getting the chem weaps out? And you are a signatory banning them?

This gives Trump bargaining power with Putin - and not just in Syria!
...

Are we allowed to file this under "reasons Assad would have to be retarded to use chemical weapons"?

Post: #429

Excellent! Next we can have "Turkey" shoot down one of our no-fly-zone patrol planes and really embrace a war big enough to make John McCuck, and Killary, happy.

Edit: this was supposed to quote the Turkish no-fly-zone article. Dunno where it went....

Post: #430

Nick Desenso bought into the false flag hypothesis, but changed his mind to supporting this air strike, "The one weakness with the false flag is is that it assumes Assad is a rational person, and not a psychopath."

Post: #431

(04-06-2017 09:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  It looks like... Trump just targeted a random runway and a few tanks of fuel?
He didn't even take out most of the jets?

Now I'm less pissed, and more utterly confused. This is a pointless show of force... but who is he showing, and why?

I have been happily ignoring the day to day political bullshit for awhile, but I might as well weigh in with a halfass theory. I don't know the specific details of what's been going on. But perhaps the point of this was to give just a taste of the true power America has.

See, most people in the middle east have no idea what kind of military might we really have. We barely use any of it. We fought over there for years using mostly mechanized infantry and tanks with the occasional precision strike from a helicopter or jet. We didn't even extensively use indirect fire as far as I know. On the scale from 1-10, we were using a force profile set to about a 2.

I've talked about this before, but what it comes down to is to the middle eastern fighter, strength you won't use is strength you don't have. Rifles and tanks? Airplanes with bombs? That shit isn't impressive. Any ME government has plenty of all of that, and the technical differences between our high tech crap and their janky-ass equipment aren't obvious at a glance. But what they don't have is cruise missiles that can hit a building in any specific window you want them to (okay, the specific window thing is a mild exaggeration).

Also, you can't give ultimatums to a middle eastern fighter and then not follow through to some extent. That is the height of weakness and just emboldens them, far more than it might embolden someone with a western mindset. I'm not saying that's what President Trump was doing--did he even give an ultimatum? I dunno--but it's something to keep in mind. Foreigners are foreign, middle easterners don't think like westerners and it's something that is forgotten by westerners 99.9% of the time.

I have no opinion on whether Assad did whatever he's accused of or not. I don't think it's a given that it's some kind of false flag, but who knows? I do know I have no interest whatsoever in the US getting involved in a serious engagement with Syria. That's fucking stupid.

I've been trying to keep in mind the media narrative when I've heard about some of the crap coming out of the administration, since I haven't been around here where we try to dig into the truth a bit more than most, but all in all I'm not so impressed with this administration so far. It seems confused and ineffectual. At least we'll get some supreme court justices out of it, if they don't take the Roberts route.

Anyway, it's nice to see things have become a total fucking shitshow in the last month.

Post: #432

Some articles to justify cynicism about the claims of the chemical attack.

"British doctor who documented Syria 'chemical attack' previously held on terror offences"
<Shajul Islam from London was considered a 'committed jihadist' by MI6.>

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-doctor-...owfacebook


I guess I am just a cynical bastard. No doubt they would never fake things again

"Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...86541.html

I am not saying that the chemical attack wasn't real but at a minimum there has been so much fakery in Syria and Gaza, any claim should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.

"Swedish Medical Associations Says White Helmets Murdered Kids for Fake Gas Attack Videos"
(Swedish Doctors For Human Rights (swedhr.org) analysed videos, the rescue after an alleged attack by Syrian government forces. The doctors found that the videos were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the alleged “Rescue” in actuality is a murder.)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/...ck-videos/

Post: #433

(04-07-2017 03:38 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  Nick Desenso bought into the false flag hypothesis, but changed his mind to supporting this air strike, "The one weakness with the false flag is is that it assumes Assad is a rational person, and not a psychopath."

Psychopaths are not irrational. If Assad was a psychopath he'd simply target women and children with conventional weapons. Chemical weapons are not some sort of game-breaking ultra powered method of killing. By and large they are incredibly ineffective and are usually used for purposes of terrorising the opponents of a regime. Hardly sensible in this scenario, considering it would bring the wrath of the world on his head.

Quote:Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/), sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy (/soʊsiˈɒpəθi/), is traditionally defined as a personality disorder[1] characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. Different conceptions of psychopathy have been used throughout history. These conceptions are only partly overlapping and may sometimes be contradictory.[2]

Nothing there about an impaired ability to recognise negative and obvious short term outcomes to pointless maniacal indulgences. If Assad was dumb enough to use chemical weapons why didn't he use them last week, and the week before, and the week before, and the week before that? It's not as if the islamists are on the cusp of seizing the bloody presidential palace.

Post: #434

We might be disappointed but Isis and Al-Qaeda are praising the US attack on Syria.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-07...mps-attack

Post: #435

As others have pointed out, the important question at this point is to determine if the gas attacks were really perpetrated by Assad or were they a false flag attack to turn the whole world against Assad and hence justify the US ramping up their military actions in Syria.

I would be looking closely at the actions of Soros and all of the "NGOs" working under his influence in the region.

What's very creepy is that exactly 100 years ago to this very day, the US entered the First World War.

Post: #436

(04-07-2017 02:57 AM)Orson Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 09:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  It looks like... Trump just targeted a random runway and a few tanks of fuel?
He didn't even take out most of the jets?

Now I'm less pissed, and more utterly confused. This is a pointless show of force... but who is he showing, and why?

The more I think about this, the more I think this is 3D chess. Missiles that can target runways and fuel tanks at a heavily defended airbase could just easily target their jets, their control facilities, or hell, some of Assad's senior general's houses. The fact that Trump opted not to target anything of value tells me that he didn't intend for this to lead to any escalation.

This puts an end to the stupid Russia allegations, and also sends a message to Assad that he needs to knock off the chemical weapons shit. It also serves as a reminder that even a more isolationist US is willing to use weapons if it feels it's necessary.


I'm happy to entertain objections to this theory, provided they can explain why Trump's "retaliatory strike" retaliated against a couple thousand bucks worth of fuel and concrete that probably won't even knock the airfield out of commission for a full day.

At first I was ambivalent at the quick attack in Syria - in part for reasons expressed here. But this retaliation does several things, and all at once, and it resonates in multiple theaters of conflict in the world.

First, since Obama did not get Syria to relinquish chem weaps in exchange for non-intervention, this means Trump-led USA has a new Sherriff to enforce agreements. Secondly, this attempts to restore the status quo ante on the use of banned weapons like chem weaps. Third, it puts Putin in an awkward position: you didn't perform getting the chem weaps out? And you are a signatory banning them?

This gives Trump bargaining power with Putin - and not just in Syria!

Fourth, the timing of this retaliatory attack coming as Trump's opening night with China's leader in Florida nicely sends home the theme that unlike Obama, Trump's no pushover. In addition to peaceful trade conflicts to address, there is the Spratly Islands territorial dispute, and then there's North Korea....

And fifth, there is Kim Jong Un of the new nuke North Korea. If he wants to stay in power, then this resolute display of power drives home the message "And I mean it!" from Trump.

A possible sixth is that it helps slay the 'traitor Trump' to Russia mania meme that's dominated so ridiculously long. In effect, "I ain't no Putin's bitch." bitches!

Thus, Trump gains a lot of chits in the game of geopolitical conflict resolution, and all of them play to his negotiating advantage.

I haven't even mentioned how this quick strike in Syria also sends a supportive message to important regional Sunni players like Saudi - and, correspondingly, it stands as a warning to Shia Iran.

Therefore, since this is more of a demonstration of resoluteness in the will use of power than an opening for continued war-making, and since this Syrian strike is limited, I find it hard to find a downside.... That is, if negotiating from a position of strength is wise, and trying to do so from a position of weakness -like Obama did - isn't.

Joel Pollack at Breitbart has made a list of strategic consequences that overlaps mine.

His second point concerns the primary pressure put on China to get the Norks - and China is their only ally - to stop their nuclear threats. And praises Trump's timing as "the most important strategic consequence" of the Syrian strike:

Quote:2. China, North Korea. The most important strategic consequence of Thursday night’s attack was the message that it sent to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was seated at dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago while the Tomahawks were flying. Trump let the Chinese know that he is capable of taking pre-emptive military action and that he keeps his word. If China does not reel in North Korea, in other words, Trump will follow through on his commitment to go to war there.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...sequences/

And the threat of US war against the Norks could mean millions streaming north, into China - "Do ya want that source of instability inside your country, bud?" Of course not.

Trump "keeps his word." The message of 2017 heard 'round the world.

Post: #437

Could be as simple as US wanting ISIS to win, the airbase was providing air cover for government forces so had to be taken out to allow a major assault by 'rebels' to be successful. I think the end game for US is that ISIS destroy Assad, then the US moves into wipe them out and install a puppet regime. Oil secured, Russia and Iran have a wedge driven between them and the encirclement continues.

No idea whether Trump's in on it, but he can't even trust the information being given to him. It could be a clever move on his part, it might be that the deep state have forced him into line. Only time will tell.

Post: #438

(04-07-2017 04:30 AM)Orson Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:57 AM)Orson Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 10:06 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(04-06-2017 09:52 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  It looks like... Trump just targeted a random runway and a few tanks of fuel?
He didn't even take out most of the jets?

Now I'm less pissed, and more utterly confused. This is a pointless show of force... but who is he showing, and why?

The more I think about this, the more I think this is 3D chess. Missiles that can target runways and fuel tanks at a heavily defended airbase could just easily target their jets, their control facilities, or hell, some of Assad's senior general's houses. The fact that Trump opted not to target anything of value tells me that he didn't intend for this to lead to any escalation.

This puts an end to the stupid Russia allegations, and also sends a message to Assad that he needs to knock off the chemical weapons shit. It also serves as a reminder that even a more isolationist US is willing to use weapons if it feels it's necessary.


I'm happy to entertain objections to this theory, provided they can explain why Trump's "retaliatory strike" retaliated against a couple thousand bucks worth of fuel and concrete that probably won't even knock the airfield out of commission for a full day.

At first I was ambivalent at the quick attack in Syria - in part for reasons expressed here. But this retaliation does several things, and all at once, and it resonates in multiple theaters of conflict in the world.

First, since Obama did not get Syria to relinquish chem weaps in exchange for non-intervention, this means Trump-led USA has a new Sherriff to enforce agreements. Secondly, this attempts to restore the status quo ante on the use of banned weapons like chem weaps. Third, it puts Putin in an awkward position: you didn't perform getting the chem weaps out? And you are a signatory banning them?

This gives Trump bargaining power with Putin - and not just in Syria!

Fourth, the timing of this retaliatory attack coming as Trump's opening night with China's leader in Florida nicely sends home the theme that unlike Obama, Trump's no pushover. In addition to peaceful trade conflicts to address, there is the Spratly Islands territorial dispute, and then there's North Korea....

And fifth, there is Kim Jong Un of the new nuke North Korea. If he wants to stay in power, then this resolute display of power drives home the message "And I mean it!" from Trump.

A possible sixth is that it helps slay the 'traitor Trump' to Russia mania meme that's dominated so ridiculously long. In effect, "I ain't no Putin's bitch." bitches!

Thus, Trump gains a lot of chits in the game of geopolitical conflict resolution, and all of them play to his negotiating advantage.

I haven't even mentioned how this quick strike in Syria also sends a supportive message to important regional Sunni players like Saudi - and, correspondingly, it stands as a warning to Shia Iran.

Therefore, since this is more of a demonstration of resoluteness in the will use of power than an opening for continued war-making, and since this Syrian strike is limited, I find it hard to find a downside.... That is, if negotiating from a position of strength is wise, and trying to do so from a position of weakness -like Obama did - isn't.

Joel Pollack at Breitbart has made a list of strategic consequences that overlaps mine.

His second point concerns the primary pressure put on China to get the Norks - and China is their only ally - to stop their nuclear threats. And praises Trump's timing as "the most important strategic consequence" of the Syrian strike:

Quote:2. China, North Korea. The most important strategic consequence of Thursday night’s attack was the message that it sent to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was seated at dinner with Trump at Mar-a-Lago while the Tomahawks were flying. Trump let the Chinese know that he is capable of taking pre-emptive military action and that he keeps his word. If China does not reel in North Korea, in other words, Trump will follow through on his commitment to go to war there.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...sequences/

And the threat of US war against the Norks could mean millions streaming north, into China - "Do ya want that source of instability inside your country, bud?" Of course not.

Trump "keeps his word." The message of 2017 heard 'round the world.

The Norks - nice dehumanising abbreviation there, makes it easier to kill them - are developing their weapons program because they see what happens to countries without adequate self-defence.

How many countries has North Korea destroyed in the last 25 years?

How many countries has the US attacked in the last 25 years?

So which country is the greater threat to world peace?

The US has lived above it's means for decades - trade deficits and budget deficits. A rational President would withdraw from empire and start trying to solve America's internal Problems - of which there are many.

Do not mistake the point I am making with any support for the North Korean system

Post: #439

-Operation Northwoods.
-Gulf Of Tonkin incident.
-Iraqi WMD.

Add Syrian 'gas attack' to the mix?

A rather sinister pattern.

Post: #440

Supposedly Russian drone footage of the aftermath of the Syrian airfield attack.
Click half way for daylight footage.
Doesn't seem to be all that much damage...

Post: #441

(04-07-2017 04:23 AM)Biologist Wrote:  What's very creepy is that exactly 100 years ago to this very day, the US entered the First World War.

Let's hope that this isn't the beginning of the Last World War.

Post: #442

BP'd?

Post: #443

(04-07-2017 05:01 AM)rockoman Wrote:  The Norks - nice dehumanising abbreviation there, makes it easier to kill them - are developing their weapons program because they see what happens to countries without adequate self-defence.

How many countries has North Korea destroyed in the last 25 years?

You should go to the DMZ, Panmunjom, and Camp Bonifas. They have been in a perpetual state of war for over 60 years.

Quote:Do not mistake the point I am making with any support for the North Korean system

So the US is worse except for everything else.

Post: #444

If you can comprehend very basic, elementary Arabic, then Twitter is an interesting place today.

I haven't seen happier AQ/ISIS Twitter accounts as of today. They have their own hashtags now thanking Trump.

White House is now their Air Force. And this never ends....tomorrow it's going to be Iran (And trust me, I have no love for the Iranian regime), and the war machine goes on.

Last evening, just as air strikes were carried out, I was at a happy hour with a bunch of "Republicans". We saw the news on Twitter. The 5 people who actually supported and voted for Trump were furious, 2 others were happy with the course of events. One of them had voted for McMullin in November, the other supported Rubio in primaries. No need for further comment, it tells the story.

btw: Good on likes of Nigel and Marine to speak out against this.

Many former Donald Trump supporters have turned on the President after his decision to retaliate against the Assad regime for its chemical weapons attack.

Quote:Nigel Farage, Milo Yiannopoulos Katie Hopkins, right-wing vlogger Paul Joseph Watson, Ukip leader Paul Nuttall and Ukip donor Arron Banks are among the Trump supporters who have been disappointed by their hero.

Mr Farage said: "I am very surprised by this. I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying 'where will it all end?'

Paid content
Recommended by

"As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I’m surprised. Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular."

He said Britain should not get involved in any further strikes, commenting: "Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better."

Other Donald Trump supporters have been more forthright in their comments.


Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said: "The U.S. bombing of Syria last night was rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better."

Infowars' Paul Joseph Watson said: "I guess Trump wasn't 'Putin's puppet' after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I'm officially OFF the Trump train.

"It's been fun lads, but the fun is over. I'll be focusing my efforts on Le Pen, who tried to warn Trump against this disaster."


American right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, who campaigned for Donald Trump, wrote: "Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates.

"Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."


Disgraced right-wing firebrand and Trump campaigner Milo Yiannapolous wrote: "There comes a day in every child's life when his Daddy [Trump] bitterly disappoints him."

Ukip donor Arron Banks labelled Donald Trump's choice "stupid" and said the President should have stayed out of the Middle East.


He tweeted: "You maybe correct but destabilising another country on the border of Lebanon and Israel just nuts. ISIS must be loving this".

And columnist Katie Hopkins asked: "Who stole my President?"

Post: #445

For supposedly ~50 cruise missiles. Still not seeing a great deal of damage...

Edit.
Still not seeing a great deal of damage.
A couple of trashed planes, with other planes unscathed.
Plus a seemingly viable airfield as a whole :

https://ria.ru/syria/20170407/1491741018.html

Post: #446

(04-07-2017 06:54 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 05:01 AM)rockoman Wrote:  The Norks - nice dehumanising abbreviation there, makes it easier to kill them - are developing their weapons program because they see what happens to countries without adequate self-defence.

How many countries has North Korea destroyed in the last 25 years?

You should go to the DMZ, Panmunjom, and Camp Bonifas. They have been in a perpetual state of war for over 60 years.

Quote:Do not mistake the point I am making with any support for the North Korean system

So the US is worse except for everything else.

I have visited both North and South Korea.

Your comment is irrelevant. The question is not whether the US is better or worse than anywhere else. My previous comment merely pinpointed the sheer damned arrogance and cheek of the US government criticizing North Korea as a threat to world peace. The last 25 years have clearly demonstrated that if there is one government entity that is the greatest threat to world peace, then it is the US.

Any attack on North Korea would only create more problems than it would solve, quite apart from the loss of innocent human lives. You don't need to be a geopolitical genius to understand this - just look at what has happened in the numerous countries attacked by the US and it's vassals during the last 25 years, and the chaos and human suffering which has resulted.

I further made the point that in view of the increased aggression of Washington in the last couple of decades, that is perfectly rational of North Korea to want to develop the means to defend itself, as it entitled to as a sovereign state.

Precisely what do you disagree with here?

Post: #447

(04-07-2017 12:41 AM)911 Wrote:  I kind of had that sinking feeling after Bannon got canned

For the last time, Bannon didn't "get canned." He was only removed as part of a routine shakeup of the NSC principals committee. He's still on the NSC and can still attend meetings. He just isn't required by law to attend every meeting.

It amazes me that people here fall for the same fake news outlets they normally hate so long as they assuage their own confirmation bias.

Post: #448

No way in hell Trump is attacking North Korea via militaristic means. Around 1 million armed North Koreans are on the border and North Korean artillery sits just 35 miles away from Seoul. Any escalation on the Korean peninsula would be a disaster for everyone with possibly millions dead. It would also do huge damage to the global economy.

Perhaps the only feasible way to hurt the Norks is to get China to cease their support. The evil dwarf's regime would crumble within months. It never seems to happen but maybe they will surprise us someday.

Post: #449

(04-07-2017 07:41 AM)Bushido Wrote:  No way in hell Trump is attacking North Korea via militaristic means. Around 1 million armed North Koreans are on the border and North Korean artillery sits just 35 miles away from Seoul. Any escalation on the Korean peninsula would be a disaster for everyone with possibly millions dead. It would also do huge damage to the global economy.

Perhaps the only feasible way to hurt the Norks is to get China to cease their support. The evil dwarf's regime would crumble within months. It never seems to happen but maybe they will surprise us someday.

North Korea is going to remain a stalemate. There's too much to lose by attacking him. Kim would pound the shit out of Seoul and do more damage with his arty than any nuke.

And fat chance China is going to do anything. NK acts as a buffer zone from having US and South Korean troops along its border. Plus, China doesn't want millions of Korean peasant refugees flooding in which will happen if China stops feeding NK.

The best hope is for the US to figure out who would likely take the reigns in the event of Kim's death and make that guy an offer he can't refuse. Then take out Kim and install the next guy.

Post: #450

One more point - North Korea does not fit the typical "regime change" narrative of states in the Middle East. The government is possibly the very worst to its own people on the planet. The country is literally a huge concentration camp that tortures and murders its own people on a daily basis. You have kids growing up in these work camps and never seeing life outside them. The toll of suffering over the decades is really quite unimaginable. Read a few books on the place. It makes Stalin look like a nice guy.

Korea is supposed to be one country, not two. Reunification should be the goal. If there was a relatively easy way to bring down the regime without millions dying or causing nuclear war, the North Korean people would most certainly welcome it.