World reacts to new chemical weapon attack in Syria

[Jaskalas]

The BBC, who tends to be pretty Anti-American a lot of the time, has interviewed military intelligence folks that say flat out the chemicals would have burned up if there had been an explosion.

Not everything in an explosion is burned. The concussive force could easily rupture and thus disperse chemical agents stored on site.
You act like explosions are 100% thorough and pure burning. I am not convinced that a ground source is impossible.

When Saddam used chemical weapons, thousands died. Because truly air dispersed chemical weapons exterminate entire cities / towns / locations. It targets everyone and kills most. The Syrian incident appears amateur by comparison. Which is consistent with incidental / minor release from a ground location.

 

[UberNeuman]

/who would have seen it coming?
/s

 

[Pulsar]

Are you seriously saying his couldn't be turkey, it couldn't be ISIS? For fucks sake man, ISIS stole tanks and tons of American gear.

You will probably ignore that the CIA dropped off hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to the so called moderates.

Syria admits to the attack. They just deny they used chemical weapons. So you are suggesting some foreign groups snuck in and timed a chemical release in several places in conjunction with the Syrian attack? They have special.hospitals for people like you.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Syria admits to the attack. They just deny they used chemical weapons. So you are suggesting some foreign groups snuck in and timed a chemical release in several places in conjunction with the Syrian attack? They have special.hospitals for people like you.

What is being suggested is that they were conventional bombs and the target itself was a chem weapon storage for the rebels.

Edit: Not saying that's valid. Just what I believe someone in the Russian ministry hinted at initially.

 

[pauldun170]

Eight years of empty rhetoric and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions has failed and accomplished NOTHING.

and the 8 years of military solutions by Bush accomplished what?
and the 8 years of diplomatic\military solutions\no fly zones by Clinton accomplished what?
and the 4 years of Bush sr diplomatic screwups followed by military solution accomplished what?
and 8 years of Reagan's screwups and narrow minded foreign policy accomplished what?

Lets face facts
The United States has used Texas\Kansas board of education schoolbooks for foreign policy classes for a VERY LONG TIME.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

and the 8 years of military solutions by Bush accomplished what?
and the 8 years of diplomatic\military solutions\no fly zones by Clinton accomplished what?
and the 4 years of Bush sr diplomatic screwups followed by military solution accomplished what?
and 8 years of Reagan's screwups and narrow minded foreign policy accomplished what?

Lets face facts
The United States has used Texas\Kansas board of education schoolbooks for foreign policy classes for a VERY LONG TIME.

My God! Is that a joke post or are you really being serious?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You are missing my point.

The hypocrisy of those cheering now but weren't before perhaps?

 

[ivwshane]

Obama was stupid in the first place for drawing the "red line". It now looks like he wants to double down on his stupidity by getting involved in this civil war. Nothing good can come from our involvement.

My, have things changed. Your hypocrisy, though, has been rather consistent.


Here is another fun one:

Personally, I'm glad that our representatives in Congress will be going on record regarding their position on military intervention in Syria. This will make it much easier to vote next election.

 

[pauldun170]

My God! Is that a joke post or are you really being serious?

I am absolutely serious when I say US foreign policy has been a failure for decades.

 

[ivwshane]

The hypocrisy of those cheering now but weren't before perhaps?

Bingo!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I am absolutely serious when I say US foreign policy has been a failure for decades.

But it has made an absolutely inordinate amount of money.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am absolutely serious when I say US foreign policy has been a failure for decades.

While I would agree with you in concept that our past in regard to foreign policy has been quite checkered, you threw me off with your response which massively extrapolated beyond my point which was very specifically related to Syria.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The hypocrisy of those cheering now but weren't before perhaps?

I'm not cheering. The flag waving makes me sad.

 

[bshole]

Russian relations are taking a dump.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian President Vladimir Putin, described the US air strikes on the Shayrat airbase as "an act of aggression against a sovereign state delivered in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext".

European Union response:

Reuters quoted Federica Mogherini saying that while the US had an "understandable intention to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons", those responsible should face justice "within the framework of the United Nations".

Saudi Arabia said:

Saudi Arabia has said it fully supports the US military strikes, praising what it described as "the courageous decision" by US President Trump.

That's right, we remain Saudi Arabia's attack dog.

Most Western nations and Asian nations spoke in positive terms of the American's unilateral attack on Syria (which killed 9 civilians). I am definitely in a minority on this.

 

[bshole]

I am absolutely serious when I say US foreign policy has been a failure for decades.

Most truthful comment ever made on this site.

 

[woolfe9998]

My, have things changed. Your hypocrisy, though, has been rather consistent.


Here is another fun one:

Bingo, DSF's dishonest hypocrisy perfectly mirrors Trump's. Aren't search engines a great thing?

 

[cytg111]

I am still sceptical about this whole ordeal.
Suppose its part of a larger propaganda campaign, this time around to sell the idea that Trump and Putin in no way or circumstance is BFF's..
backchannels,
a: how are we gonna solve this?
b: bomb something in syria and we will act super pissed about it, mkay?
a: Okay lets do it, tomahawks away...
Russia knew these hawks were coming and Russia could have shot them out of the air NO problem.. but they didnt, why?
One angle is that, shooting down US missiles (whereever they may be travelling) in it self is an escalation of conflict and that Putin simply lacks the balls to do so.
Another theory is that this is all and act, however you want to call it, to sell to the public at large and the backchannel russia collusion continues.
I am hoping for number one. Scare Russia into submission, to play nice with all the other children, join NATO(eventually EU, or REU, i dont care) and we all get onto the business of uniting this planet.. yea thats it.(!!)

 

[woolfe9998]

I am still sceptical about this whole ordeal.
Suppose its part of a larger propaganda campaign, this time around to sell the idea that Trump and Putin in no way or circumstance is BFF's..
backchannels,
a: how are we gonna solve this?
b: bomb something in syria and we will act super pissed about it, mkay?
a: Okay lets do it, tomahawks away...
Russia knew these hawks were coming and Russia could have shot them out of the air NO problem.. but they didnt, why?
One angle is that, shooting down US missiles (whereever they may be travelling) in it self is an escalation of conflict and that Putin simply lacks the balls to do so.
Another theory is that this is all and act, however you want to call it, to sell to the public at large and the backchannel russia collusion continues.
I am hoping for number one. Scare Russia into submission, to play nice with all the other children, join NATO(eventually EU, or REU, i dont care) and we all get onto the business of uniting this planet.. yea thats it.(!!)

I would offer the following to bolster this theory:

1. Russian personnel were apparently at the airbase at the time the chemical attack was launched, meaning they may well have known about it.
2. The Russians were warned and hence took no casualties in the attack.
3. The damage to Russia's ally Syria was minor.
4. The Russian response was rather tepid, boilerplate condemnation. Their Foreign Minister said this was a setback in US-Russia relations but not anything we can't get past.

That said, I doubt it was arranged ahead of time. It's just that with this administration, it's hard to rule out pretty much anything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Bingo, DSF's dishonest hypocrisy perfectly mirrors Trump's. Aren't search engines a great thing?

I would love to respond, but you must be quoting someone I have on ignore...I have no clue as to what you're referring to.

 

[brycejones]

I would love to respond, but you must be quoting someone I have on ignore...I have no clue as to what you're referring to.

Well thank god you are in your safe space so you can keep playing the "who me?" game.

 

[Pulsar]

What is being suggested is that they were conventional bombs and the target itself was a chem weapon storage for the rebels.

Edit: Not saying that's valid. Just what I believe someone in the Russian ministry hinted at initially.

No, that's NOT what he said. He said Turkey or Isis could have done it. And that's just ludicrous.

But as for your point - that's what I've read as well. But several intelligence agencies (non-us) have stated that the efficacy of a 'chemical' attack isn't high when you use explosives and combustibles to spread the toxins. It destroys them in large part due to the heat and disperses them due to the force of the explosion.

Occam's razor here folks. Syria has done this before.

 

[Pulsar]

I would offer the following to bolster this theory:

1. Russian personnel were apparently at the airbase at the time the chemical attack was launched, meaning they may well have known about it.
2. The Russians were warned and hence took no casualties in the attack.
3. The damage to Russia's ally Syria was minor.
4. The Russian response was rather tepid, boilerplate condemnation. Their Foreign Minister said this was a setback in US-Russia relations but not anything we can't get past.

That said, I doubt it was arranged ahead of time. It's just that with this administration, it's hard to rule out pretty much anything.

Both sides see Syria as a useful tool. We called Russia and let them know what we were doing ahead of time, and I'm certain that their reaction was like this:

"Come on guys. Seriously? Well if you have to."

They really don't give a shit about the Syrian government, their people, or their armed forces. This was a non-event to the Russians.

 

[Pulsar]

Not everything in an explosion is burned. The concussive force could easily rupture and thus disperse chemical agents stored on site.
You act like explosions are 100% thorough and pure burning. I am not convinced that a ground source is impossible.

When Saddam used chemical weapons, thousands died. Because truly air dispersed chemical weapons exterminate entire cities / towns / locations. It targets everyone and kills most. The Syrian incident appears amateur by comparison. Which is consistent with incidental / minor release from a ground location.

Saddam's attacks were 14 separate bombings over long periods of time using multiple different chemical weapons.

 

[woolfe9998]

I would love to respond, but you must be quoting someone I have on ignore...I have no clue as to what you're referring to.

I'm sure you know who I was quoting, since you can see it in my post. Putting someone on ignore doesn't erase other people's quoting that person, which is why I never bother to put people on ignore. I'm pretty sure you could also open up ivwshane's post by clicking on it, assuming it works the same way it did under the old forum software.

It's kind of irrelevant who posted it anyway. It isn't his commentary that matters. It's the fact that he quoted you saying one thing years ago when we had one POTUS, and something totally opposite today. You seem to have changed your position in precisely the same manner as Trump. I guess great "minds" think alike.

 

[brycejones]

I'm sure you know who I was quoting, since you can see it in my post. Putting someone on ignore doesn't erase other people's quoting that person, which is why I never bother to put people on ignore. I'm pretty sure you could also open up ivwshane's post by clicking on it, assuming it works the same way it did under the old forum software.

It's kind of irrelevant who posted it anyway. It isn't his commentary that matters. It's the fact that he quoted you saying one thing years ago when we had one POTUS, and something totally opposite today. You seem to have changed your position in precisely the same manner as Trump. I guess great "minds" think alike.

It's different now. Ignore hides it completely.