President Trump & the USA

[foxes21]

 

24 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

False flag by whom? 

 

And how would whoever orchestrated the attack be sure the US would respond, given Trump's previously stated position?

Assad is getting the blame for the attack, but why would he attack his own people. Especially the timing of the attack, when his campaign was beginning to gain an advantage. Why would he destroy that advantage, by attacking his people.

 

The false flag could have been done by any of the countries I spoke about in my post. Assad is protecting Russia's interests, by stopping these new pipelines being built. For the new pipeline's to get built, Assad's regime needs to be destroyed. In comes America.

 

If it is a false flag then America and Trump are in on it too, of course America would love to have Syria's resources, they just needed a reason. Even if they aren't in on it, the consequences of using a chemical based attack are severe & it would require a response like the one Trump ordered.

 

Anyway false flag operations are usually used as a tool to propagandize the public & get them on board with war. The Propoganda spewed by the media these past 48 hours in support of America attacking Assad, is no different in the build up to the Iraq war.

 

I'm shocked like you, about Trump backtracking on his stance on war. He must have been bullied/compromised and given in to the globalists & military industrial complex demands, who will want war.

 

Edited 7 April 2017 by foxes21

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Even if the US were successful in removing Assad, there's still the small matters of ISIS and Russia to get past before a new pipeline could be built.

 

Your suggestions, presented as you have, appear fanciful at best. 

 

My understanding is Its agreed on both sides that Assad's airforce were in the air on the night in question... the debating point is whether his planes dropped bombs with chemicals or just bombs that ended up hitting chemicals the rebels held and just happened to be stored within the strike area. 

 

 

 

[foxes21]

 

 

23 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Even if the US were successful in removing Assad, there's still the small matters of ISIS and Russia to get past before a new pipeline could be built.

 

Your suggestions, presented as you have, appear fanciful at best. 

 

My understanding is Its agreed on both sides that Assad's airforce were in the air on the night in question... the debating point is whether his planes dropped bombs with chemicals or just bombs that ended up hitting chemicals the rebels held and just happened to be stored within the strike area. 

 

 

 

Do the research and there is no reason why Assad would attack his people with chemicals, especially at this moment in time.

 

Right now, 90% of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria have been knocked back and being forced out of Syria and towards Iraq, in a pincer movement. In this situation, wouldn't Al-Qaeda or ISIS launch a chemical attack to blame it on Assad?

 

There are so many players in this who'd benefit from the aftermath of this attack. America themselves, the pipeline interested countries, the terrorist groups. The false flag is so obvious.

Edited 8 April 2017 by foxes21

[DJ Barry Hammond]

43 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

 

 

Do the research and there is no reason why Assad would attack his people with chemicals, especially at this moment in time.

 

Right now, 90% of ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria have been knocked back and being forced out of Syria and towards Iraq, in a pincer movement. In this situation, wouldn't Al-Qaeda or ISIS launch a chemical attack to blame it on Assad?

 

There are so many players in this who'd benefit from the aftermath of this attack. America themselves, the pipeline interested countries, the terrorist groups. The false flag is so obvious.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39517960

 

What is the Assad government's position?

Foreign Minister Muallem told BBC Arabic that the Syrian government would, together with Russia, consider accepting an investigation mandated by the UN Security Council, if its conditions were met.

 

Speaking separately at a news conference, he accused jihadist groups not party to a ceasefire brokered by Russia and Turkey of storing "chemical weapons in urban and residential areas".

The Russian military confirmed on Wednesday that the Syrian air force had launched air strikes in the Khan Sheikhoun area but said they had hit a rebel depot full of chemical munitions.

How plausible is the Russian version of events?

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear Regiment, told the BBC it was "pretty fanciful".

"Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he said.

"It's very clear it's a Sarin attack. The view that it's an al-Qaeda or rebel stockpile of Sarin that's been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue."

Hasan Haj Ali, commander of the Free Idlib Army rebel group, told Reuters news agency: "Everyone saw the plane while it was bombing with gas."

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Benguin said:

 

Ahh political compassing at its best. Pro life, though backed heavily by religion, is or rather was a liberal ideology. Being against same sex marriage is certainly not liberal unless your position is that the marriage is fine so long as a minister of religion is not forced to do the service under discriminatory laws, in that case is the oppression of the minister, who devotes his life to a cause, less than the oppression of the couple he refuses to wed? I'd like to think people are more free thinking and take each issue on its own merits.

 

Most Christians, as we're surely discussing them here, are far more tolerant over homosexuality than they're of abortion as they see the latter as murder. I'd conservatively guess that Oberfell is supported 5 or 6 times less than Roe v Wade amongst American Christians. As for the rest of the electorate, pro life v pro choice is still relatively divided whereas same sex marriage is totally one sided, even amongst republicans. 

 

 

Interesting distinction. I certainly agree that being pro-homosexual marriage is a liberal ideology, but is it really accepted that much within the Christian arena when so many people cherry pick that one Leviticus passage to argue against it, despite the rather shaky argument ground it has? Pro-life I'm not massively sure about either, I think you could make an argument about the right to bodily autonomy superceding the right to life or vice versa and label both as liberal arguments. In secular circles, I think the status quo tends to prevail (according to the latest Gallup poll 69% oppose overturning R v W, though polls are polls.)

 

I think you're likely right regarding more Christians being able to tolerate gay marriage than abortion and amongst the general population the gap being closer for the latter than the former, but I'm still of the opinion that one being challenged could easily be followed by the other given politicking by the same groups.

[Benguin]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting distinction. I certainly agree that being pro-homosexual marriage is a liberal ideology, but is it really accepted that much within the Christian arena when so many people cherry pick that one Leviticus passage to argue against it, despite the rather shaky argument ground it has? Pro-life I'm not massively sure about either, I think you could make an argument about the right to bodily autonomy superceding the right to life or vice versa and label both as liberal arguments. In secular circles, I think the status quo tends to prevail (according to the latest Gallup poll 69% oppose overturning R v W, though polls are polls.)

 

I think you're likely right regarding more Christians being able to tolerate gay marriage than abortion and amongst the general population the gap being closer for the latter than the former, but I'm still of the opinion that one being challenged could easily be followed by the other given politicking by the same groups.

Accepted is probably the wrong word, there is a difference between being quietly intolerant of something and actually voting against or else speaking out. I think it's only Christians who subscribe to sola scriptura who would actually speak out, whereas even the most liberal of Christians would still take issue with abortion.

 

Obergefell is recent, maybe in ten years there could be reason to challenge it but now certainly not. Roe v Wade is older and the original plaintiff is now one of the biggest voices of pro life in the US.

Edited 8 April 2017 by Benguin

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Benguin said:

Accepted is probably the wrong word, there is a difference between being quietly intolerant of something and actually voting against or else speaking out. I think it's only Christians who subscribe to sola scriptura who would actually speak out, whereas even the most liberal of Christians would still take issue with abortion.

 

Obergefell is recent, maybe in ten years there could be reason to challenge it but now certainly not. Roe v Wade is older and the original plaintiff is now one of the biggest voices of pro life in the US.

 

That's fair enough, especially the time elapsed argument, and I daresay you have had more firsthand time interacting with the Christian community in the US than I have.

 

Guess we'll find out soon enough!

[Alf Bentley]

Decent article on Trump's bombing excursion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/07/convenient-u-turn-president-who-cant-be-trusted

 

"Sometimes the right thing can be done by the wrong person. Donald Trump’s bombing of a Syrian airfield seems to belong in that category, though even that verdict depends on events yet to unfold. For one thing, we don’t yet know if the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that rained down on the Shayrat base in the early hours of Friday morning were a one-off or the start of something more. [...] But let’s say the Shayrat strikes are not repeated. Given that the century-old prohibition on the use of chemical and biological weapons is a rare and valuable taboo, one that crumbles if not enforced, it’s hard not to welcome an act of enforcement. As Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham House, told me: “There are so few norms that are considered sacrosanct. If you don’t enforce this one, you create a sense of global anarchy, a global free-for-all.”

 

"That he authorised the operation while he was hosting the Chinese president, may have been an accident of timing, but it will please Trump. Think of it as a dominance display in front of a rival. [...] Even as you welcome the act, its author remains wholly untrustworthy. Trump wanted us to believe he had been moved to action by the pictures of dead children in Khan Sheikhun. But what of all the “beautiful babies” killed away from the TV cameras these last six years, by bombs of a different variety? When they were being slaughtered, Trump was happy to shrug off their deaths, sending his secretary of state and his UN ambassador out just days ago to give Assad the wink that he could carry on as before. It’s not reassuring to think that the American president does not listen to his intelligence briefings or even read the papers, but only acts when a tragedy hits primetime. But what makes his newfound compassion ring all the more hollow is that while Trump is ready to bomb a runway for those beautiful babies who are dead, he still won’t let America open its doors to those who cling to life. Refugees from Syria remain on Trump’s banned list, including every “child of God” traumatised by Assad and his barrel bombs, raining fire from the sky.

And forgive me if I don’t accept that this volte-face is quite as complete as the White House would have us believe. How convenient that Trump, under fire for being Vladimir Putin’s poodle, now stands up to him in Syria. How neatly this blows away all those allegations of secret links and election hacking. Yes, there have been ample statements of condemnation from Moscow, but those don’t cost either side anything. The US appears to have given Russia sufficient warning to ensure their men weren’t hit, and Russia used none of its ample capacity to hit back. It all worked out very nicely".

[leicsmac]

There was nothing accidental about the timing or the execution of that strike, and while chemical weapons are horrific, dead is dead - they're not somehow 'more dead' because Assad used nerve gas rather than say, just standard artillery. (Though of course you do have to have lines that aren't crossed.)

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There was nothing accidental about the timing or the execution of that strike, and while chemical weapons are horrific, dead is dead - they're not somehow 'more dead' because Assad used nerve gas rather than say, just standard artillery. (Though of course you do have to have lines that aren't crossed.)

 

I think the same about nukes. Nuclear weapons are fetishised by both sides of the debate, those wanting unilateral nuclear disarmament and those wanting to keep a deterrent. It's as if it's beyond the pale to kill thousands with nuclear (or chemical) weapons, but perfectly acceptable to kill thousands with conventional weapons.

 

Granted that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can kill more people more quickly and often involve a horrible death....but conventional weapons aren't far behind. You only have to see TV reports from Syria to see how many people can be killed by conventional weapons (some suffering a horrible death) and how much damage they can do

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I think the same about nukes. Nuclear weapons are fetishised by both sides of the debate, those wanting unilateral nuclear disarmament and those wanting to keep a deterrent. It's as if it's beyond the pale to kill thousands with nuclear (or chemical) weapons, but perfectly acceptable to kill thousands with conventional weapons.

 

Granted that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can kill more people more quickly and often involve a horrible death....but conventional weapons aren't far behind. You only have to see TV reports from Syria to see how many people can be killed by conventional weapons (some suffering a horrible death) and how much damage they can do

 

That's true.

 

Also, IIRC some of the biggest atrocities committed by leaders in terms of numbers haven't involved weapons directly at all - they've just been simple engineered famines.

[leicsmac]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39542990

 

Ah, escalation.

[Parafox]

More escalation/threats...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/syria-crisis-russia-raises-prospect-of-war-if-it-is-given-g7-ultimatum-as-it-mocks-boris-johnsons-no-show/ar-BBzCkUy?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp

[Nick]

He has moved an Aircraft Carrier yesterday into the Korean Peninsula too....

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

He has moved an Aircraft Carrier yesterday into the Korean Peninsula too....

Yeah, that was the story above. Nothing like a bit of classical sabre-rattling to distract from home problems, huh?

 

And it seems like the Ruskies think the UK is 100% poodle once again.

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, that was the story above. Nothing like a bit of classical sabre-rattling to distract from home problems, huh?

 

And it seems like the Ruskies think the UK is 100% poodle once again.

Yeah, there's a lot of posturing going on and I honestly felt a bit sad today digesting all the news - the world doesn't feel very safe with these key players behaving like children and what makes me a tad angry is that this is how I'm meant to feel by design of all the information that I'm reading!

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Yeah, there's a lot of posturing going on and I honestly felt a bit sad today digesting all the news - the world doesn't feel very safe with these key players behaving like children and what makes me a tad angry is that this is how I'm meant to feel by design of all the information that I'm reading!

 

I'd think it is all posturing so there's not too much to worry about there - but yes, it is infuriating that firstly people can't fvcking get along and secondly that the way it's reported is indeed meant to make you feel aggrieved about it.

 

For me the real issue isn't that there's going to be mass conflict, but rather that the divisions that are so evident right now prevent us from dealing with other matters that may end up affecting us all.

[foxes21]

 

former British ambassador to Syria says it's a false flag.

 

Edited 11 April 2017 by foxes21

[Merging Cultures]

2 hours ago, foxes21 said:

 

former British ambassador to Syria says it's a false flag.

 

I love the bit where he says he doesn't check his brain at the door. 

[Buce]

My God, Trump employs some fvcking Muppets:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39572902

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has been criticised after he declared that Adolf Hitler did not use chemical weapons during World War Two.

"We had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons," he said as he criticised Russia for supporting Syria's regime.

Critics pointed out gas was used to kill Jews and others in the Holocaust.

Mr Spicer then said he meant Hitler did not use gas on his own people "the same way" as Syria has allegedly done.

He was attempting to draw a comparison between Hitler and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is suspected of launching a chemical weapons attack in northern Syria on 4 April that left nearly 90 people dead.

The US responded by launching nearly 60 missiles on a Syrian military base.

Mr Spicer was asked to clarify his remarks during the news conference and garbled his words during the response.

"I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no, he [Hitler] was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Asshad [sic] is doing."

He added: "There was not, in the, he brought them in to the Holocaust centres, I understand that, what I'm saying, in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns dropped them down to innocent, into the middle of towns, it was brought to, so the use of it, and I appreciate the clarification, that was not the intent."

After the press conference, Mr Spicer attempted to further clarify his comments.

"In no way was I trying to lessen the horrendous nature of the Holocaust. I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centres," he said.

"Any attack on innocent people is reprehensible and inexcusable."

 

Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, was among those to rebuke Mr Spicer.

Some users also criticised Mr Spicer for referring to concentration camps as "Holocaust centres".

The Anne Frank Center called on President Donald Trump to fire Mr Spicer over the gaffe.

Executive director Steven Goldstein said the remarks were "the most evil slur upon a group of people" ever heard from a White House press secretary, and he should be fired.

 

Edited 11 April 2017 by Buce

[leicsmac]

Ah, Mr Spicer and his acute foot-in-mouth syndrome.

[SpacedX]

There is of course past form for this sort of thing...

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Everyone knew what the bloke meant but obviously were going to make something out of it. I'm no fan of "Spicey" but what's the point in jumping down people's throat for no reason?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Everyone knew what the bloke meant but obviously were going to make something out of it. I'm no fan of "Spicey" but what's the point in jumping down people's throat for no reason?

 

Because as the chief communicator for the most powerful regime on the planet, his communication - any communication with the public/press - really should be clear, umabiguous and well-thought out in order to better represent the administration he's serving. This was none of those three qualities.

[Phube]

14 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Everyone knew what the bloke meant but obviously were going to make something out of it. I'm no fan of "Spicey" but what's the point in jumping down people's throat for no reason?

 

Eh? What did he mean? He never indiscriminately used chemical weapons? Therefore Hitler was better because he discriminated?