Trump to address the nation on Syria tonight (UPDATE: Launching strikes)

Status
Not open for further replies.

y2dvd

Member
Nov 14, 2017
2,002
We preemptively strike before verifying evidence, already have civilian casualties, and just escalated tensions with Russia. All around fuckery.
 

hussien-11

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,803
Jordan
So, Trump aside, how does anyone here in this thread who are against the strikes propose how to prevent Assad using chemical weapons against his own people?
Are people really brainwashed to this degree? there are still people believing this funny (police of the world) image ? do you really, really think or believe they did that because of those ...chemical weapons (if they exist) and to save citizens? then what about saving Gazza or other places were people are dying mindlessly? the civil war has been going on and people were dying for years now in Syria, so why they are stepping in only now? its just the outcome wasn't to their liking. they want to weaken Al-Assad and his army because they consider him an enemy and they want to get rid of him. Trump is no different than Al-Assad at all, I'd say Trump is even worse, because he is the one bombing another country and middling in their affairs.

This just fuels the cycle of violence at the expense of the Syrian people! /s
yeah because they know the outcome of such a massive attack this quick, and really no one was harmed even after dropping all those missiles!
what a strange world we live in.


anyway, I have many close people and friends there, I wish for their safety and I wish this war and acts of violence ends as soon as possible.
 

aeolist

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,191
User Warned: Hostility
i have to imagine that everyone here arguing for war is a teenager because anyone who remembers iraq has no excuse to be that fucking stupid
 

Azerach

Member
Oct 29, 2017
887
Yeah, they were horrible.

Just as horrible if they were killed with regular bombs or shot in the head, which happens all the time in Syria.

But because people are killed by drowning with foaming mouths and lungs, it somehow makes their murder even worse?

Dead is dead.
Killing civilians with weapons of mass destruction is bad, okay.
 

fierrotlepou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,255

He's crying here.


"It's never enough, unless we put DIRTBAG HILLARY in and WORSHIP THAT UGLY GODDAMN PIECE OF ..."

This nearly gives him a heart attack.
 

Ac30

Member
Oct 30, 2017
13,007
London
Are people really brainwashed to this degree? there are still people believing this funny (police of the world) image ? do you really, really think or believe they did that because of those ...chemical weapons (if they exist) and to save citizens? then what about saving Gazza or other places were people are dying mindlessly? the civil war has been going on and people were dying for years now in Syria, so why they are stepping in only now? its just the outcome wasn't to their liking. they want to weaken Al-Assad and his army because they consider him an enemy and they want to get rid of him. Trump is no different than Al-Assad at all, I'd say Trump is even worse, because he is the one bombing another country and middling in their affairs.



yeah because they know the outcome of such a massive attack this quick, and really no one was harmed even after dropping all those missiles!
what a strange world we live in.


anyway, I have many close people and friends there, I wish for their safety and I wish this war and acts of violence ends as soon as possible.
Trump's a dumbass narcissist but isn't busy massacring his own people. Not even close.
 

Ether_Snake

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,560
i have to imagine that everyone here arguing for war is a teenager because anyone who remembers iraq has no excuse to be that fucking stupid
That comment is hyperbolic. Destroying a few facilities used for chemical weapons production is not war.

Firing at Gaddafi's motorcade to allow rebels to catch up to him and overthrow the government though? Much closer.

whereas launching cruise missiles into suburbs is fine
Do you mean chemical weapons dropped in suburbs?
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,045
The US the US the US.

The whole narrative people are using to criticize the attacks is based on the idea that the US acted alone, on orders from Trump. But the reality is this is a joint effort by France, the UK, the US, and supported by many countries, including Canada and Germany.
Okay? I don't know why your being all defensive. That is specifically a U.S damage report, not a UK one and not a France one, I would say the same thing if it was. I am saying that trusting the coalition on the damage fully is like trusting Syria and Russia as they downplay the damage. 3rd party sources are best for things like this as they tend to actually be in the middle of the estimates that parties taking part in a conflict will give.

Anyways, I am and always was for strikes on Syria (No-fly zone to be precise) since Obama was in office and haven't changed my stance, so you are talking to the wrong guy on this. However, the criticism of how effective the strike was is fair game as just being a "show" is worthless.
 

MarineMountie

Banned
Jan 18, 2018
456
lol

They have nowhere to go. We've shut the gates in Europe too.
Places like Europe and the US are just land masses. They are not ever expanding paradises that has the room and resources to support every person that has a hard time in their country. That is why strikes like last night are needed when dictators get out of control. Is better refugee system possible? Sure. I live in Columbus, OH and in some places you would swear that you actually live in Somalia so I think we are doing an OK job with that with a lot of cities all things considered.
 

SuiQuan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
333
The attack was because of Syria's use of chemical weapons. Which was used on innocent civilians. So yes. Russia's backing off Syria is only because of their need for Syria's Naval Ports. Which is more Noble?

There is a reason that 3 world powers attacked them after their use of chemical weapons. They attacked the chemical weapon facility as well as the research facility. No deaths. There is a reason Canada and Germany have come out in support of the attack.

So why do you think the attack was made? Just random dart throw and it hit Syria? Or was it the chemical weapons use on civilians?
It actually kinda is a dart throwto an extent. They attack what they believe to be the sites related to CW production. We will never know if they actually had any solid intel on targets or not. Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t and targeted several facilities based on probability and what intel they have. Depends on who you choose to believe. These things are never as precise as we would like - thus collateral damage, friendly fire, wrong targets etc. War is a mess.

As a side note, what could be the peaceful way of bringing an alternative to Assad’s regime, without external angling angling for their personal interests, I wonder. Doesn’t he basically run unapposed since 2000? I even checked the Syrian constitution to find the ammendment they made to it to make it possible for him to get elected at the age of 34-35 for the first time in 2000. The original age limit was 40.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,970
I can't believe Trump used the Mission Accomplished slogan.
We preemptively strike before verifying evidence, already have civilian casualties, and just escalated tensions with Russia. All around fuckery.
This is not a pre emptive strike, it is a response to Assad's use of Chemical weapons.
There was no actual contention over Assad's use of Chemical Weapons.
No civilian casualties have been reported as of yet.
Russia has escalated tensions all on their own.

Just where are you sourcing your news from?
 

Deleted member 9986

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,248
In before the west attacks the rebels for their documented use of chem weapons-oh wait it is not about the weapons at all but geopolitics, quelle surprise!
 

Ayato_Kanzaki

Member
Nov 22, 2017
946
Are people really brainwashed to this degree? there are still people believing this funny (police of the world) image ? do you really, really think or believe they did that because of those ...chemical weapons (if they exist) and to save citizens? then what about saving Gazza or other places were people are dying mindlessly? the civil war has been going on and people were dying for years now in Syria, so why they are stepping in only now? its just the outcome wasn't to their liking. they want to weaken Al-Assad and his army because they consider him an enemy and they want to get rid of him. Trump is no different than Al-Assad at all, I'd say Trump is even worse, because he is the one bombing another country and middling in their affairs.



yeah because they know the outcome of such a massive attack this quick, and really no one was harmed even after dropping all those missiles!
what a strange world we live in.


anyway, I have many close people and friends there, I wish for their safety and I wish this war and acts of violence ends as soon as possible.
I believe France and UK are at least trying to maintain the ban of NBC weapons, if only because they don't want ot see a world where their use become commonplace. As for Trump, he couldn't care less, but that's a welcome distraction from his own problems.

But if you try to compare by measuring evil unleashed, for all of Trump's stupidity and pettyness, he isn't anywhere close to Al-Assad's level. It isn't Trump who opened the doors of his jails to free thousands of religious fanatics, in order to decredibilize peaceful protesters during the Arab Spring. Fanatics who were a major factor in the creation of ISIS. It isn't Trump who unleashed his army on protesters, causing a signifiant part of his population to rebel in outrage, then ordered said army to shell and bomb rebels into submission. It isn't Trump who ordered dozen of gaz attacks.

By now, if you count the direct deaths, and add those who died from indirect cause, like refugees drowning trying to reach European coasts, Al-Assad's death toll probably exceed a million. And Syria is in ruins for decades.
 

Real Hero

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,329
Don't buy into the alex jones crap, he's clearly acting when he's doing the crying shit. Look at him at end of the clip he's almost laughing at himself
 

SuiQuan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
333
Places like Europe and the US are just land masses. They are not ever expanding paradises that has the room and resources to support every person that has a hard time in their country. That is why strikes like last night are needed when dictators get out of control. Is better refugee system possible? Sure. I live in Columbus, OH and in some places you would swear that you actually live in Somalia so I think we are doing an OK job with that with a lot of cities all things considered.
While I don’t disagree with this, I think some people and countries might have a problem believing the good will of those countries, especially the US, when they choose to be friends with and turn a blind eye to what is happening between Palestine and Israel and what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen. It’s difficult to understand why they are being so selective and makes the whole thing look hypocritical, even IF the original intention is for the good of the people. If you stand up for what’s right - do it everywhere, otherwise you get the “protecting personal interests” perception.
 
Oct 30, 2017
4,190
After John Kerry said they worked with Syria to get rid of the chemical weapons, I wouldn't trust claims that they're all gone now or that we set back their production "by years" due to this. It would be nice, but I doubt it.
 

mazi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
31,308
Member has been banned (1 week): spreads misinformation. History of infractions.
i'm reading that NOW they're gonna send a team to investigate the chemical attack, now that they've destroyed the "evidence"? yeah makes a lot of sense.
the chemical attack was just staged to give them an excuse for this attack, it's very obvious.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,827
don't know, but unlike many of people in this thread i'm not able to believe without any evidence that it was assad, my guess would be the "rebels"
You said it was "obvious" it was staged. How could you come to such a conclusion if you say there's no evidence one way or the other?
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
28,970
False flag conspiracy theories are absolutely disgusting, whether its Sandy Hook or the latest use of chemical weapons by Assad.
 

mazi

Member
Oct 27, 2017
31,308
False flag conspiracy theories are absolutely disgusting, whether its Sandy Hook or the latest use of chemical weapons by Assad.
not saying it didn't happen, but i wouldn't put it past the supporters of the rebels to plan an attack in order for today's attack to seem justified and legitimate
 
Jan 10, 2018
4,689
How hard is it for some of you to understand that west doesn't allow chemical weapons and will react on it.

This attack wasn't to create more stability. It was to punish those who launch chemical weapons and damage there infrastructure to do so.

It's a warning, that West isn't tolerating it.

All those WW3 and "i hate trump" comments are just sensational garbage that US media thrives on i guess. And have no relevance towards this. Russia will not go to War with Europe and US ever.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are dropping all the time white phsophorus on populated areas.

Weirdly, the west isn't just okay with it, they make the bombs.
 

Jackpot

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,827
because instead of waiting for an investigation, they did the attack first
That's not evidence of anything. Even if we accepted the attack didn't happen as they said, it would be - at most - evidence of a rush to judgement.

It's certainly not evidence that they arranged child crisis actors in a scripted video of the aftermath of an attack complete with realistic make-up and cries of pain. Come back to reality.
 

Hentailover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,675
Moscow
They at least shot down some, in the facebook ivestream you could saw ground fire doing just that
Just a little correction, it's not really russia. TV here in moscow shows all reports saying that russian anti-air systems werne't even engaged. Shot down missles are reported to be shot down by Syrina's own defense system (probably supplied by russia though).

This thread is already full of weird confusions, kinda feel like pointing out some things since I do kinda have a bit of an inside perspective here.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,127
i'm reading that NOW they're gonna send a team to investigate the chemical attack, now that they've destroyed the "evidence"? yeah makes a lot of sense.
the chemical attack was just staged to give them an excuse for this attack, it's very obvious.
Russia has been calling for an objective investigation but yet vetoed a UN motion for that same thing. The international community wanted it first but was denied because Russia is full of shit and are trying to hide something.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,045
Yeah, they were horrible.

Just as horrible if they were killed with regular bombs or shot in the head, which happens all the time in Syria.

But because people are killed by drowning with foaming mouths and lungs, it somehow makes their murder even worse?

Dead is dead.

Unless the US kills Assad himself and figures out how to push Russia out of the country, nothing will change and this is all bullshit.

I think people like you miss the bigger picture here. Yes, armies can go on mass slaughters using conventional weapons, but the difference is the scale of each bomb's use. You can use 500lb bombs to take out certain areas without demolishing an entire neighborhood. The way it is used can make it a war crime. For example the MOAB can be considered a WMD because it is about large scale indiscriminate destruction.

Now, imagine a world where chemical weapons are not completely frowned upon, illegal, and there is no consequence to using it other than your enemy using it right back at you. Sounds familiar, don't it? Yep, we would be seeing WW1 level causalities in a really short amount of time. There is a reason why chemical and biological warfare is a red line to cross. There is no excuse whatsoever for the use of it, you can't claim "well we are just really bad at targeting enemies with our air strikes".

I think its really easy to understand why chemical weapons is the line in the sand that any nation should stand. The only reason its been limited use is because Syria knows they are treading water, otherwise it we would be hearing of a lot more death counts due to chemical attacks.
 
Jan 10, 2018
4,689
Places like Europe and the US are just land masses. They are not ever expanding paradises that has the room and resources to support every person that has a hard time in their country. That is why strikes like last night are needed when dictators get out of control. Is better refugee system possible? Sure. I live in Columbus, OH and in some places you would swear that you actually live in Somalia so I think we are doing an OK job with that with a lot of cities all things considered.
USA let since 1980 3 Million refugees in.

Turkey hosts 3,5 million refugees currently.

Give it a break man.
 

Doc Holliday

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,857
The thing that bothers me is that Assad or the Russians don't need to use chemical weapons at this point.

Assad knows using chemical weapons would trigger a response from the west. So I'm curious to see what happens now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.