The Kremlin Speaks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone
Roger Stone, who was fired by the Trump campaign in 2015 has an axe to grind?
And someone ask him if he’s found another Eliot Spitzer madam to push for president...
Meanwhile, the US is still being overwhelmed by the worst of chemical weapons....killer "pain killers" from Mexico and China and pharmaceutical companies that hype their use. Why aren't we bombing the facilities that provide the poisons that are killing US citizens? Why doesn't NATO stop bullying for an expansion of its borders and instead protect those of European descent who are being slaughtered in South Africa?
I'm disgusted that President Trump has not left Syria and let Syria and its allies take it from here.
Who is “Syria”?
It depends on the meaning of “WHO”, Roger.
An attack on a chem weapons sites is not exactly an attack on “Syria”.
There is every indication that these precision “stikes” were a humanitarian response, based on verifiable information and evidence, that a chlorine attack on civilians occurred, by someone.
Removing the chems and more planes that could deliver it, is not an entry into Syria’s civil war.
Chemical weapons is the red line that will draw fire from Western nations, among those who are not sleeping with the Russians in exchange for fuel oil, like Merkel’s Germany (who slithered away from the humanitarian action delivered by France, UK and the USA).
Roger is spot on.
He tried hard to keep Trump from bringing in so many GOPe/Bush?Never Trump types over a year ago—and Trump unfortunately didn’t listen. He still had the idea that someone his crazed opponents would come around to support him once he was in office.
And clearly they got to him again. The last time Trump shot missiles in response to a Syria gassing false flag it was attributed to the ever-sensitive Ivanka coming in and pushing it. No such word of that this time. And I fear that it was a more vial blackmailing of the President that got him to buckle on this round. Either way, I am sure that Bibi-pal Jared couldn’t be happier.
Let Putin expend more resources propping up Assad. Why should anyone in the US care?
Trump even gave them a heads-up with his appearance on tv to announce the strike so Syrians could leave and prepare.
It was all done for show to quiet hawks who were demanding Trump 'do something'.
If we see an escalation in chem and terror attacks it will prove some group or nation is trying to provoke a war.
If Trump gets sucked-in then we've got a problem.
Don’t agree it was a mistake. The US response to assads launching WMD was proportional and appropriate.
As for Stone’s assertion that it didn’t make sense for assad to use them? Lots of things happen which don’t make sense.
I don’t think the neocons have had much sway since their badly managed Iraq occupation. Our current involvement in Syria, and other failed states, is limited and designed to prevent another 911.
How on earth would killing MORE people rescue Syria?Since the question is framed as "How on earth..." let me ask the question this way:
How many Jews would it have been acceptable to gas before the world is motivated to stop a crime against "humanity?"
The cry of "never again" was meant to set a line in the sand that some forms of warfare are unacceptable to a humane civilization. Using chemicals against people was decided by all to be one of them.
The question then becomes whether the powers of the world are: 1) willing to live up to the expectation, and 2) capable of acting to punish to send the message that "the earth" is serious about this.
So the answer to Hitchens' question might be that it might not "rescue Syria," but it reminds "the earth" that the red line of chemical warfare is still going to be defended.
If chemical weapons can be determined to have been used, it can be debated whether the Syrian government used it or rebel groups used it or disguised actors used it to frame another, but "the earth" cannot let that confusion serve to dissuade them from acting if the underlying fact is that chemical weapons were used. It's not on the governments who retaliate if they hit the wrong actor, it's on the participants of the conflict to police themselves in the rules of engagement and act accordingly.
If one side moves to frame the other, so be it if both sides feel the wrath of response. The message is still sent that chemical warfare will not be tolerated and it behooves all sides of a conflict to move to make sure to "the earth's" satisfaction that they are not prepared to cross that red line.
Original poster responds:There is absolutely no concrete proof of people being killed by chemical weapons etc. in Syria in the alleged attacks in recent years.
Its made up videos of alleged victims done by jihadists and spread by mainstream media followed by government officials claiming horrible things have happened.
Those who rant against Assad are allied with the MSM and their spreading of Al Qaeda jihadist lies about chemical attacks in Syria.
My reply:
Killed, non-lethally used, or faked?
My point still stands. If the world drew a red line at the use of chemical weapons, and a terrorist group fakes the use of weapons as a means of war, it's still on those who harbor the terrorists to be responsible for those acts.
Either deny the Jihadists safe passage, or be culpable for their acts as if you had done them yourself. It's the same principle as when an accomplice to a crime is charged with first degree murder when another actually pulled the trigger.
If Assad (or anyone else) doesn't want to be blamed, then they need to act to be above reproach. If the argument is that they are -- now, then is this a new behavior of convenience or have they demonstrated over enough of history to show that they are a maligned country? Should they have done more in the past to deflect assumptions of guilt on them now?
Keep in mind that I'm not talking about your "routine" despotic dictatorship, I'm talking about the use of chemical weapons. Did Syria at one time accept a cache of weapons, was Syria at one time forced to destroy discovered chemical weapons, or does Syria have a history of unilaterally rejecting chemical weapons?
What is Syria's level of culpability in being accused as a credible user of chemical weapons? Is it high enough to justify a response as a deterrent to others to not get involved at all with chemical weapons to avoid the perception of guilt?
If you're looking for someone who set off a bomb, who are you more likely to suspect, the person found with a box of matches or the person who carries nothing?
-PJ
As someone who is a Jew and is, of course, faithful to a different country than America (sarc/), I realize that Tucker Carlson makes a good point that we do not definitely know who did the gas attack in Syria; however, I am glad my President struck those Syrian gas stores because Assad threatned to use them against Israel and the neo-Nazis; e.g., the author of “The Turner Diaries,” expressed the hope that Syria would use them against Israel before he died of cancer. I do not want to see another holocuast on film or in real life.
So we hit their chemical weapons depots.
I don’t see where this is unnecessarily entangles us any more than we already were. It seems to me that we can still exit Syria. Only we are leaving them with a lot fewer chem weapons and have put the world on notice that if you use such weapons, you bring down the international community on you.
I guess we should have elected Roger Stone as President...
I read every word of this.
I agree with every word of this.
Never saw a leftist liberal ever resolve a problem.
Oh goody. Useless twaddle from Alex’s new best friend