|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 07 2017 18:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 18:41 opisska wrote:On April 07 2017 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote: Crazy how much Trump suddenly cares about syrian civilians fate after having made it so clear that those people were all terrorists and that the US shouldn't grant asylum to a single one of them.
Coherence please.
Meanwhile according to the Kremlin, Assad only used conventional weapons but they hit a terrorist hangard full of chemical weapon to which i answer, hey, Vlad, fuck you. The attack was supposedly sarin, right? Sarin can't be released "by accident", or by hitting a hangar, it is stored as components and only mixed on release, because it's too corrosive. Maybe some would accidentally mix on exploding a hangar, but not a large scale gas leak. I don't think technical details are necessary to figure out that the Kremlin is just lying, for a change. But that it wouldn't even be technically possible makes it even more infuriating. Who believes this sheiss? Russians spewing badly prepared trash misinformation is nothing new. Their troops were on "vacation" in Eastern Ukraine (including tanks), and the MH17 was downed by Ukranian airforce planes that absolutely nobody saw except the Russians.
|
On April 07 2017 14:04 BigFan wrote: What I'm saying is that I find it extremely hard to believe that Assad would gas his own people. This comment I stumbled onto on facebook is the kind of response people should really have: "And now our country has launched missles into Syria...at Damascus, specifically. I want to believe that the information we received regarding it being Assad's regime doing the chemical attack is accurate. I want to believe this is not a false flag operation by rebel forces and our ops teams to push the removal of Assad.
I'm so conflicted on what to believe anymore. Everyone in power is the bad guy at this point. It makes no rational sense why Assad would chem bomb his own people when he is in the middle of a fight with ISIL. He is struggling against ISIL, why would he jeopardize his alliances and fragile cooperation with other countries by bombing innocents?
And now our military is launching 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base.
I hope the intel they got was rock solid and completely provable, or we just went hip deep into a very ugly war." I mean, Isn't Assad bombing his own people for years on end? He bombed them so much he ran out of bombs and had to drop oil barrels stuffed with explosives which obviously don't have a smart targeting system to minimize civilian deaths.
http://world.time.com/2014/01/13/syrias-deadly-barrel-bombs-assad-regime-uses-devastating-makeshift-weapon/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/02/barrel-bombs-assad-weapons-terror-150225053916146.html
Al Jazeera: Simply, what are barrel bombs and what do they do?
Riad Kahwaji: Barrel bombs are old crude weapons that have no tactical value. They are pure weapons of terror aimed at causing maximum destruction in civilian areas with the objective of inflicting severe damage to property and killing civilians. They are cheap and could be built domestically by loading hundreds of kilogrammes of gunpowder and other explosive material inside big barrel-shaped canisters.
Soldiers on board helicopters light the fuse of the barrel bomb before they drop them on the intended targets. The size of damage caused is meant to implant fear in the hearts of the civilian population in order to get them to turn against the rebels.
Would it be smart for Assad to use chem weapons? No not really. Is he capable of it? I think yes.
Don't get me wrong ever since Iraq it's logical to have healthy scepticism of what the Pentagon says. And this administration is even worse with truths. But if anyone used that stuff Assad is the most likely imo.
If just bombing the shit out of an airfield in response is a good reaction, well that's a different matter. It seems more like a political move than an effective military move. Especially if it's true that the runway is still intact.
|
On April 07 2017 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 17:31 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 16:31 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 16:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 16:23 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 14:04 BigFan wrote: What I'm saying is that I find it extremely hard to believe that Assad would gas his own people. This comment I stumbled onto on facebook is the kind of response people should really have: "And now our country has launched missles into Syria...at Damascus, specifically. I want to believe that the information we received regarding it being Assad's regime doing the chemical attack is accurate. I want to believe this is not a false flag operation by rebel forces and our ops teams to push the removal of Assad.
I'm so conflicted on what to believe anymore. Everyone in power is the bad guy at this point. It makes no rational sense why Assad would chem bomb his own people when he is in the middle of a fight with ISIL. He is struggling against ISIL, why would he jeopardize his alliances and fragile cooperation with other countries by bombing innocents?
And now our military is launching 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base.
I hope the intel they got was rock solid and completely provable, or we just went hip deep into a very ugly war." They are not struggling against isis actually they have been having some significant wins against them. The majority of the fighting is done against the other rebel factions. Which is essentially the argument I'm hearing from a lot of middle eastern progressives. That it's not clear that whatever happened isn't an attempt by the "rebels' aka ISIL to get the US to do what they can't. If I know the US, We slowly and sloppily oust Assad, arm some shell government, then the radicals come in 6 months- 1year later and take all the stuff we left the "government" to defend itself and then we work out a deal to sell weapons to the next country that might get destabilized as a result. Let me stop you right there, we are not talking about isis here regarding the supposed "false-flag" the town where that happened was controlled by other rebel factions. You have to make that distinction if you want to have a serious conversation about this topics. We are talking about FSA factions and the recently formed HTS (Hayat THarir Al-Sham) coalition aka Al-Nusra. Isis may try to exploit this as well but right now we are talking about different rebel factions. Yeah, you're right it's Al-Nusra which splintered off of Al Qaeda last year. They are apparently the more moderate rebels as they aren't really about the chopping off hands types of punishments, but still are pushing for an Islamic emirate in Syria. Hardly friendlies or to be automatically trusted but not ISIL. Which if I understand correctly is 30k people in Syria. If we were talking about the most moderate factions i would say it's safe to presume the western backed SDF / YPG are the ones you are looking for. Not most, just more moderate than the worst factions there. After refreshing myself on the status there there are even more than I remember with different problems. Problem with SDF/YPG are Kurdish relations with Turkey iirc, so while they are the "most moderate" they're slightly more inflammatory for us than they seem because of the stress they put on our relationship with Turkey?
No one cares about what Turkey thinks right now. Expect the united states to keep arming the Kurds and the SDF with more heavy weapons.
6 MiG-23 aircraft destroyed in US strike on Syrian airfield, runway undamaged – Russian MoD
https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/
|
On April 07 2017 19:40 ImFromPortugal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 18:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 17:31 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 16:31 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 16:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 16:23 ImFromPortugal wrote:On April 07 2017 14:04 BigFan wrote: What I'm saying is that I find it extremely hard to believe that Assad would gas his own people. This comment I stumbled onto on facebook is the kind of response people should really have: "And now our country has launched missles into Syria...at Damascus, specifically. I want to believe that the information we received regarding it being Assad's regime doing the chemical attack is accurate. I want to believe this is not a false flag operation by rebel forces and our ops teams to push the removal of Assad.
I'm so conflicted on what to believe anymore. Everyone in power is the bad guy at this point. It makes no rational sense why Assad would chem bomb his own people when he is in the middle of a fight with ISIL. He is struggling against ISIL, why would he jeopardize his alliances and fragile cooperation with other countries by bombing innocents?
And now our military is launching 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base.
I hope the intel they got was rock solid and completely provable, or we just went hip deep into a very ugly war." They are not struggling against isis actually they have been having some significant wins against them. The majority of the fighting is done against the other rebel factions. Which is essentially the argument I'm hearing from a lot of middle eastern progressives. That it's not clear that whatever happened isn't an attempt by the "rebels' aka ISIL to get the US to do what they can't. If I know the US, We slowly and sloppily oust Assad, arm some shell government, then the radicals come in 6 months- 1year later and take all the stuff we left the "government" to defend itself and then we work out a deal to sell weapons to the next country that might get destabilized as a result. Let me stop you right there, we are not talking about isis here regarding the supposed "false-flag" the town where that happened was controlled by other rebel factions. You have to make that distinction if you want to have a serious conversation about this topics. We are talking about FSA factions and the recently formed HTS (Hayat THarir Al-Sham) coalition aka Al-Nusra. Isis may try to exploit this as well but right now we are talking about different rebel factions. Yeah, you're right it's Al-Nusra which splintered off of Al Qaeda last year. They are apparently the more moderate rebels as they aren't really about the chopping off hands types of punishments, but still are pushing for an Islamic emirate in Syria. Hardly friendlies or to be automatically trusted but not ISIL. Which if I understand correctly is 30k people in Syria. https://twitter.com/AP/status/850259221597659138 If we were talking about the most moderate factions i would say it's safe to presume the western backed SDF / YPG are the ones you are looking for. Not most, just more moderate than the worst factions there. After refreshing myself on the status there there are even more than I remember with different problems. Problem with SDF/YPG are Kurdish relations with Turkey iirc, so while they are the "most moderate" they're slightly more inflammatory for us than they seem because of the stress they put on our relationship with Turkey? No one cares about what Turkey thinks right now. Expect the united states to keep arming the Kurds and the SDF with more heavy weapons. 6 MiG-23 aircraft destroyed in US strike on Syrian airfield, runway undamaged – Russian MoD https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/ Judging by the video, tomahawks can destroy a hanger with a direct hit, but i guess the aircraft are useless if supporting infrastructure is destroyed. Also interesting is that it looks like whatever hit the runway was pretty much ineffectual.
Runway looks intact, which is a bit surprising. You would think that at least a couple missiles would be tasked to blow holes and take it out for a few days at least.
|
The Russian collusion/Trump-Putin alliance keeps getting more complicated.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 07 2017 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 18:49 ahswtini wrote:On April 07 2017 18:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 07 2017 18:36 ahswtini wrote:On April 07 2017 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote: Crazy how much Trump suddenly cares about syrian civilians fate after having made it so clear that those people were all terrorists and that the US shouldn't grant asylum to a single one of them.
Coherence please. mcmasters and mattis presented the plan to him, he saw an opportunity to deflect from trouble at home and boost his ratings, and signed off on it. So much for those who complained about a lack of plan and coherent vision for Syria from the previous administration. What's the idea here? Bomb the bad hombres without giving a thought about the consequences? Sounds like fun. what consequences? the russians were warned, and they obviously have to sound annoyed by it, but that's as far as it'll go. But there's a large contingent from Hillary to McCain that want MORE attacks against Syria asap. The crowd has gathered and won't be satisfied until they see some blood.
I'm going to write this down as a provocative gesture from our FP hawks who don't particularly seem to know or care about the diplomatic consequences of their actions. Which Trump signed off on because he's Trump.
Also, as posted above, this is a perfect justification for Russia to add any additional hardware they want in the area without making a scene. Which was the most likely thing they would do.
|
Nah. Trump got to play on his strong-man-image to rally support from his fading supporters, and Putin got to legitimately increase Russian presence in Syria. Win-win, really.
I don't see this escalating much, if you're worried about a US / Russia confrontation. More than anything, it feels like a smoke screen to distract from domestic issues in the US. Also, boosting support for the regime by acting against a foreign enemy is the first trick in the book when times are tough.
|
On April 07 2017 21:45 plated.rawr wrote:Nah. Trump got to play on his strong-man-image to rally support from his fading supporters, and Putin got to legitimately increase Russian presence in Syria. Win-win, really. I don't see this escalating much, if you're worried about a US / Russia confrontation. More than anything, it feels like a smoke screen to distract from domestic issues in the US. Also, boosting support for the regime by acting against a foreign enemy is the first trick in the book. I think this is a pretty good take; the WWIII talk seems rather misguided all things considered. The focus should instead be on the fact that this all happened so soon after Bannon was removed from the NSC.
|
"One day the great [World] War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the [Middle East]." - Otto von Bismarck (edited for no particular reason)
|
I'm curious how this plays with Trump's base, who may not be keen on foreign adventures when they haven't passed Obamacare repeal or done anything for the "folks back home".
|
I think we can thank the heavens for Mattis and McMaster in the Trump era.
|
Many of Trump's biggest twitter zealots, including that Prison Planet schmuck and Milo, have expressed strong dissatisfaction thus far.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 07 2017 22:29 Doodsmack wrote: I think we can thank the heavens for Mattis and McMaster in the Trump era. Not sure how you mean that. They're competent military personnel but also hawks who probably made this happen.
|
Possible vehicle terror attack in Stockholm.
|
Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law, failed to note two meetings with Russian officials, as well as other conversations with foreign officials, on his application for a security clearance, the New York Times reported on Thursday.
The federal government requires those applying for a security clearance to list all contacts with foreign officials over the past seven years. As has been previously reported, Kushner met with Sergey N. Gorkov, the chief of a Russian state-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, in December. He also met with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Trump Tower that same month.
Jamie Gorelick, Kushner's lawyer, told the New York Times that the omissions were an error. She said that the day after the forms were turned in, the FBI was informed that Kushner would provide additional information.
"During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity," Kushner said in a statement to the FBI, according to Gorelick. "I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts."
Kushner did not list any names in the statement, per the New York Times.
Kushner has an interim security clearance right now, aides to Kushner told the New York Times.
Source
|
If this Stockholm terrorist is a refugee...it's not gonna be good.
|
On April 07 2017 22:52 Doodsmack wrote: If this Stockholm terrorist is a refugee...it's not gonna be good.
Last time i checked, the nationalistic party in Sweden was growing. It is enough for the terrorist to be muslim to trigger another growth.
|
I believe egotism, corruption, and lying also played a part as well. Also notice the fact she is comparing herself to a historical figure/martyr. This is why you lost lady.
In her first interview since losing the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton said misogyny had played a role in her election loss.
Clinton “spends a lot of time wrestling” with the fact that 53% of white women voted for Trump and the impact of her gender on her loss, she said at the Women in the World summit.
“Certainly misogyny played a role,” she said.
In a wide-ranging interview, Clinton also called for US intervention in Syria, spoke about how being an ambitious woman had turned her into “Typhoid Mary”, and called for a bipartisan investigation into Russian interference in the election.
Clinton called on politicians on both sides to “start acting like patriotic Americans” by investigating Russian involvement in the election.
“What was done to us was an act of aggression and it was carried out by a foreign power under the control of someone who has a deep desire to dominate Europe and to send us into a tailspin,” Clinton said at the Women in the World summit. “What Putin wanted to do was sow distrust and confusion as well as influence our election.”
The former secretary of state explained that she believed Russian’s interference was “the weaponization of information” in the form of “a thousand agents, bots and trolls” and that an independent, non-partisan investigation was needed.
“I’m hopeful Congress will pull together and realize because of the success the Kremlin feels it had, they’re not going to go away,” she said.
The New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof, who conducted the interview in front of thousands at a Lincoln Center theater, asked if Syria policy had been the biggest mistake of the Obama administration.
Clinton reiterated that in 2012, she and the then CIA director, David Petraeus, had devised a plan to arm rebels, but it was rejected.
“I thought we should have done more at that point,” she said.
She noted that most of the civilian deaths came because of airstrikes and argued that more could still be done to stop Assad’s airforce and protect civilians.
“I really believe we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them,” said Clinton.
As for what comes next, Clinton is working on a book that delves into why she failed to win the election.
Research shows that for men, success and ambition are correlated, while for women it’s the opposite, noted Clinton. She pointed out that when she left the state department, she had a high 65% approval rating.
“It was a job I was asked to do by a man,” said Clinton, noting that public opinion changed when she declared her interest in running for the highest office in the land.
“By the time they finished with me, I was Typhoid Mary,” said Clinton.
Mary Mallon, the first person in the US with typhoid, was quarantined and kept alone for decades.
“Poor Mary, she didn’t deserve it either, when you go back and look at the history,” said Clinton.
Clinton also took some digs at the man who took the job she had sought.
When talking about Vladimir Putin’s attempts to destabilize the US, she pointed out that he did not like strong women, “although he did shake hands with me”, a clear reference to Donald Trump’s refusal to shake Angela Merkel’s hand during a White House meeting.
The crowd, which gave Clinton a standing ovation when she appeared, laughed and cheered.
She also dryly quipped that she found Trump’s failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act “somewhat gratifying”.
Source
|
United States42021 Posts
It was a very close election. You could argue if she was a better candidate she wouldn't have lost, but it's not wrong to say that if people were less sexist, or if Emailghazi hadn't been spun out of control, or if Russia hadn't intervened, or if the DNC hadn't been illegally hacked for political gain, she would have won.
Obviously there are a bunch more "if"s like if she'd run a better campaign or if she'd not pissed off the left of the party so much which are her responsibility. But her point isn't wrong. You really don't need much sexism to tip the balance one way or the other in Michigan, the state was won by a margin of 11,837 votes. Unless someone wants to argue that there is literally no sexism you can't really deny the point. You can argue that she would have won in spite of it had she not sucked, but you can't really argue that it didn't matter.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It truly baffles me, is it possible to be quite so tone-deaf?
We didn't want you for president. We still don't want you for president. Stop making public appearances and go do something else.
|
|
|
|