As just one insignificant United States citizen I wish " my government " would stop murdering people all over the world!!

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/syr...stop-your.html

Personally, I support the US airstrikes on Syria, when your gassing your own people, you cannot call yourself a legitimate leader, sorry. If those same people where Russian citizens, they would do the same, so it's called hypocrisy to condemn the US. I never thought I would actually agree with anything Trump does but, in this case, about bloody time!! If the superpowers had half a brain they would drop a bomb right on Assad's house with him and his inner circle in it!!

So you clearly overlooked a key detail. For at least a year Assad with the help of Russia turned the tables on the conflict; so the question then begs what is the tactical advantage of using chemical weapons? Assad was already winning. So, why should I buy this narrative then? Are you 100% sure it was Assad's forces? Why wasn't there an investigation before the strike? Now all of the sudden the US will do a probe? Is that a proper way to do an investigation? Strike first - then look? What if the US doesn't find what they are looking for?

RT Crosstalk - Trump's War

There are only two countries in the area where there is no discrimination by race or religion: Syria and the Lebanon. When the Yezidi were driven out of Baghdad, many were unwilling to settle in the rural north and so they went to Damascus: they knew they would be safe there. When the insurgents took over Homs, the Christian population fled and every church in the city was destroyed. That's why the Christians of Syria all support the government. It astonishes me that the majority of the US claim to be Christians, yet they seem less concerned for the persecuted Christian in Arab lands than I, a pagan!

For your first question, I do agree that it was foolish on Assad's part to use them (particularly now). Assad was ONLY (as you stated) winning, because of Russia'a help. I'm not asking you to buy any narrative, that's up to your good self, as to what you would like to believe (same for anyone else).

Yes, I am 100% sure it was Assad's forces, as that's why he supposedly had to get rid of his chemical weapons. But as in the case of Libya (and many others) people like that NEVER get rid of ALL of their stockpiles and it's foolish to think they actually would (particularly when their still fighting a war). Russia may be helping Assad, but they have no logical reason to do it themselves (using chemical weapons in a foreign country, like Syria). Furthermore Russia has even LESS to gain by using chemical weapons, and where are the 'rebels' going to get chemical weapons from?

It's pretty obvious who done it, so why does there need to be an investigation? In these sorts of cases, governments like yours NEED to respond, to send the message that, this kind of war crime CANNOT be accepted.

Under normal circumstances I would agree that there should be an investigation, but once again were talking about gassing people, not just shooting them, sorry.

Well again I am not disputing that there wasn't a gas attack - I am just disputing who really carried it out.

Well it seems the US is not 100% sure https://www.rt.com/news/383991-us-pr...attack-russia/ - The problem I have is the changing of the details. NOW there is going to be a probe? Then again it is a rather moot point, after all we were so sure that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons too; and that wasn't based on any false or information at all...

I only put Libya in comparison in terms of the state that it is in right now. Syria before all this madness had a fairly high standard of living, even higher than Libya - if the end result of Syria is going to be the same as the state Libya and Iraq before that - well you see my misgivings of this recent strike.

Correct Russia's forces are greater in terms in force and equipment - plus remember the Russians also have a base in Syria.

YES! That is one of the questions nobody is asking. Which first we must ask again, how do we know for sure that it was Assad that carried the gas attacks? Again would it not beg the question to strike AFTER you have presented undeniable irrefutable proof? You do not pull the trigger, and then go back saying you are going to probe whether or not Assad was the culprit. How would this work in say a sentencing? Guilty - life in prison or execution. Now lets make sure the defendant really is guilty, AFTER sentencing? Doesn't make any logical sense does it?

Then why have a probe? Either you are sure or not - there is no room to question.

Some theorise that this was to show that the US will act if there is a red line - thats fine and I hope this is a one off thing - but this still does not prove it was Assad's forces.

What is the difference in it's basic terms? Dying from a shooting can be just as painful as being gassed. Plenty of civilians have already died being bombed; I would venture to think that it is just as cruel to shoot someone and have them painfully die as much as it is to gas someone. I cannot see how bombing or shooting is somehow less cruel.

Again what I have a problem with here is the action in principle. How can we be sure it was the Syrian government? What if it were the western backed rebels? How did they acquire these weapons if that is really true? I will admit a bias - and I have no problem if I am wrong - I hope I am - if it is proven it was indeed Assad or anyone associated with him - fine, and I will retract my skepticism and admit I was wrong. But do you see why I have a hard time at this present time believing it was Assad? The west's track record has not been very good up until this point - and this is why so far I am taking the other side.

Again not because I like Assad - I'm sure he is a total asshole - so is Putin - so is all the politicians in the USA here - but I at least see the outcome if Assad is outright deposed, it will just be like Libya and Iraq. This will not help matters, but worsen matters. It will be a self fulfilling prophecy - the USA states that there are terrorists in Libya and Iraq - well, YEA now there is! So, do you see why I am so unnerved by this current situation?

Were people gassed? Yes that I again state that I am not disputing - but I would like to look before I am told to jump like so many times before. *WHO REALLY* is responsible? If it is Assad - fine, I will accept that - but I CANNOT accept this knee-jerk action. It does not prove anything, and in the scheme of things it is counter productive. Also again, I don't trust the rebels - who are they? Who is backing them? Why are the majority Sunni? If they are all Sunni, again what WILL happen to the other groups if say they are successful in deposing Assad? What will happen to the Shia and the offshoot Alawites, the Christians Yezidis, Druz? I do not see a very good outcome for those groups.

I think we can all agree at least that this is very complicated - and that is just the groups within Syria - I will also reiterate the dangers of also having two nuclear powers in the mix. This should not be treated like a game of Risk - which unfortunately the US government has been for the longest time.

I am tired of all these 'good intentions' carried out - it has not brought up the desired results - this is why I do not believe somehow this will be any different.

Styxhexenhammer666 - An Elaboration on Molyneux's Correct Point on War and Similar Propaganda

If someone asked me " Who do you think gassed those people ?" I would reply The Mossad probably did it!!

A very good link.


Also this:


Lionel Nation - There's No Such Thing As the Bad Guy

RT - ‘Donald became President of US’: MSM and political foes praise Trump’s strike on Syria

H.A. Goodman - ALT RIGHT DEMONIZED BY LIBERALS FOR OPPOSING TRUMP SYRIA STRIKE: Slate Backs Clinton's Neocons

Sooner or later President Trump's ill advised foreign adventures are going to bring " serious blowback " upon the ordinary people of the United States; and make World War III an eventuality!!

I realized that.

I seriously doubt they would launch airstrikes, if they were not sure who done it. Ever heard of chemical Ali? As well as the no fly zone over where the kurds are in Iraq? There was a good reason for that, because Saddam, DID gas the kurds.

My only point as far as Libya was concerned was that, the former dictator there did NOT declare ALL of his chemical weapons, nothing more.

Once again, not disputing that.

For starters, the 'rebels' are too busy fighting each other. The UN (and/or body's that are a part of it) HAS investigated previous chemical attacks and found ether, it was most likely Assad's forces and/or WAS Assad's forces.

And once again, I'm NOT saying there should be no investigation and once again DO agree there should be one.

Yes I AM 100% sure of who was behind it, and once again there SHOULD be an investigation into it.

Once again, I'm not telling you what you should (or should not) believe, that's once again up to yourself.

Well, a BIG difference, people don't normally suffer for as long (and choke to death) from a gunshot wound as opposed to being gassed. Yes it is very complicated, could not agree more, being once again why it would be difficult for the 'rebels' to be behind the chemical attacks.

BTW; RT is funded by the Russian government, so I would be VERY careful about what you believe from them. Just saying.

Yes I know who "Comical Ali" is, but that is irrelevant - and still did not justify the actions in Iraq, nor did it prove anything.

He did the right thing and actually did - and still got toppled for it. Again I don't care about Qaddafi, but considering the situation in Libya now - maybe we should have just left him the hell alone.

The rebels are most likely absorbed by ISIS or Al-Nusra - so at this point, they are no longer a legitimate force to recognise, henceforth I recognise the current government of Syria as a legitimate force, - not because I like Assad, but because I know it will end up just like Libya and all of the non Sunni groups will be fscked, go ahead and try to dispute me on that. I am eager for any sort of rebuttal - I am not trolling either, seriously give me a valid reason why I should change my position on this?

Yes there should be an investigation, with the USA, Russia, Swiss ALL TOGETHER - this should have been done before any such strikes.

Again, an investigation with the Swiss, US, Russia TOGETHER should have taken place. As the Swiss being the neutral third party, I would find it hard for anyone to pull of any shady shenigans.

No of course not, but I am not going to just jump to conclusions like a good little American consumer and point the finger at Assad either. Sorry - I want 110% concrete, irrefutable proof.

I see no less cruelty in being shot vs being gassed vs whatever. I would imagine they are all painful in very different ways.

I am well aware of Russia Today - but in all this they still seem like the sane ones here. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, they are all biased - but I find RT to have more credibility than CNN,FOX,MSNBC,CBS,NBC(American corporate goons). Besides, CNN told me not to trust RT because apparently RT is the cause for Madame Cyberhack to lose - so in that case, I love RT now.