-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
US jets bomb 'pro-regime' forces in Syria
- Thread starter Kurr
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
This is perfect timing.
There was absolutely nothing worth watching this weekend..... til now.
It ought to make people forget about David Hogg for a day or two, at least.
Pray nobody does anything dumb that escalates this to dangerous levels.
Hal Turner discussed the impending attacks on his radio show on April 11 (two days prior).
Listen here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/.../Hal_Turner_Radio_Show-WBCQ-April-11-2018.mp3
Listen here: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/.../Hal_Turner_Radio_Show-WBCQ-April-11-2018.mp3
War with Russia.
Unfortunately, only escalation to dangerous levels is going to stop the cabal of criminals currently at the helm of the countries of the western world from continuing to run amok ad infinitum.
EDIT: Why America is in the crapper...comments from all three lines (Rep, Dem and Ind) are less than awe inspiring: https://www.c-span.org/video/?444077-1/president-trump-makes-announcement-syria&live
Last edited:
Here we go folks, attack the moderates, assist ISIS and the radicals.
What is the US even thinking?
Not attacking at all is in our national security interests. Attacking just harms the only people in the middle east besides us who are actually successfully wiping out radicals.
Not to mention, just as last time, the US backed ISIS rebels are the ones who did the gas attack.
Isn't it funny how immediately after they set off the chemical weapons, they filled the craters with concrete to hide the evidence?
What is the US even thinking?
Not attacking at all is in our national security interests. Attacking just harms the only people in the middle east besides us who are actually successfully wiping out radicals.
Not to mention, just as last time, the US backed ISIS rebels are the ones who did the gas attack.
Isn't it funny how immediately after they set off the chemical weapons, they filled the craters with concrete to hide the evidence?
Last edited:
Chemical weapons are horrific, period, dot, end of statement. Back in the day I was trained to operate in this type of environment. I joke that I spent at least one enlistment at MOPP-2 or higher. When you hear your sweat gurgling out of the exhaust valve of your mask you realize this is very serious business. I am confident I could've survived such a conflict, but I am so thankful I never had to do so. Condition Black was the term for the period after an attack when chemicals could be present. If we didn't go into Condition Yellow in 30-45 minutes we all knew it would be a long time before we came out of the gas mask. One of the ways of signaling chemicals were present was banging metal on metal. The thought of hearing that sound terrifies me to this day. The use of chemical weapons against civilians is something that should lead to the gallows for those responsible.
I go back to my original problem with this: NO consistency. According to our US Ambassador Nicky Haley to the UN this is the 50TH TIME the Syrian regime has gassed its own people! https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ec2595f1c03a
WTF? Why wait until now? Why didn't we attack on the 2nd attack? Or the 3rd? Or the 10th? Or the 25th? Or the 40th? We're only doing this because it made the front page and the public got their noses rubbed in it by the "chase the drama" media.
It's not like our government intelligence didn't know about all these other uses of banned weapons. We knew... and we did nothing.
Now Miguel makes the point that this isn't in our national security interest. That these aren't American citizens. That it is the Syrian peoples' responsibility to respond. And this is a valid issue.
I think it is also argued on the other side that this is a violation of international law, that it is far too evil to allow to go unpunished. Both sides have good points to make. By Miguel's logic where do we stop? What if they just line up a thousand Syrians and shoot them. Is that tolerable or do we go in then? What if, instead of chlorine gas, they are lined up by the hundreds and fried with flame throwers? Where do we stop?
Where does it begin, and why? Where does it end?
The debate of getting involved or not should be had. We should as a nation and a people agree on when to interfere and when not to.
But we haven't, and we don't. We have American citizens still suffering in Puerto Rico right now due to a horrifically corrupt system that allowed its infrastructure and its economy to be devastated by hurricane and bad management. We owe them FAR more than we do the Syrians. Yet we do little. They're not on the front page. No front page = no sympathy from America.
If only we had a consistent, uniformly understood set of parameters that everyone around the world knew? If only we as American citizens understood that when X happened our countries response would be Y. It would make for a far better world if we weren't so damned capricious.
Regards,
Doug
PS - Maybe Puerto Rico could get really lucky and get a little kid stuck in a bad sewer pipe and almost die, or die from food poisoning because their house had no working utility and they couldn't cook. That way the "chase the drama" media would cover it, put it on the front page, and get sympathy. And from sympathy money and reform would follow. If only...
WTF? Why wait until now? Why didn't we attack on the 2nd attack? Or the 3rd? Or the 10th? Or the 25th? Or the 40th? We're only doing this because it made the front page and the public got their noses rubbed in it by the "chase the drama" media.
It's not like our government intelligence didn't know about all these other uses of banned weapons. We knew... and we did nothing.
Now Miguel makes the point that this isn't in our national security interest. That these aren't American citizens. That it is the Syrian peoples' responsibility to respond. And this is a valid issue.
I think it is also argued on the other side that this is a violation of international law, that it is far too evil to allow to go unpunished. Both sides have good points to make. By Miguel's logic where do we stop? What if they just line up a thousand Syrians and shoot them. Is that tolerable or do we go in then? What if, instead of chlorine gas, they are lined up by the hundreds and fried with flame throwers? Where do we stop?
Where does it begin, and why? Where does it end?
The debate of getting involved or not should be had. We should as a nation and a people agree on when to interfere and when not to.
But we haven't, and we don't. We have American citizens still suffering in Puerto Rico right now due to a horrifically corrupt system that allowed its infrastructure and its economy to be devastated by hurricane and bad management. We owe them FAR more than we do the Syrians. Yet we do little. They're not on the front page. No front page = no sympathy from America.
If only we had a consistent, uniformly understood set of parameters that everyone around the world knew? If only we as American citizens understood that when X happened our countries response would be Y. It would make for a far better world if we weren't so damned capricious.
Regards,
Doug
PS - Maybe Puerto Rico could get really lucky and get a little kid stuck in a bad sewer pipe and almost die, or die from food poisoning because their house had no working utility and they couldn't cook. That way the "chase the drama" media would cover it, put it on the front page, and get sympathy. And from sympathy money and reform would follow. If only...
Ya know, I always wondered why chemical weapons are banned. the idea of a "humane" war seems like an oxymoron. I makes sense, at least to me, to make war as horrible as possible so that people would give serious consideration before engaging in it. If you are an aggressor, and invade my home nation, why am I breaking the "rules of war," if I gas the **** out of your troops? For instance, in retrospect, if Saddam had gassed American soldiers what difference would it have ultimately made? Would they have hung him twice?
So yesterday Trump wasn’t responding because he works for Russia. Now today he is doing a wag the dog. There is no pleasing these people. I have been worried for a while that Trump would allow himself to be goaded into a war with Russia just to prove the leftists wrong.
I don't know if he has the Russians in mind or not, but it took him 8 days to respond to the attack, and he telegraphed it. I doubt any of the military minds will tell you that's an ideal situation to go into. Our military response was to bomb the labs and facilities that created the weapons, with the purposeful intent to avoid Russian assets. Call me crazy, but if I was Assad, and I get a few days notice of an pending attack, and maybe I have a slight idea that the US would avoid Russia assets.... I might think it a smart idea to move my high value material closer to the Russians.
And what good is it to destroy the facilities to create the chemical weapons? Chemical weapons are, as extremely easy to make. You could make some pretty nasty stuff in your garage. The delivery methods: Artillery pieces, Aircraft, missiles? Those are harder to replace... and odds are those items were parked at some safe base, with Ivan an Sacha playing Tetris nearby.
[video=youtube;NmCCQxVBfyM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmCCQxVBfyM&list=RDNmCCQxVBfyM&t=15[/video]
Before US got involved in that region, our government should had a much clearer long term plan and goal. Yes, we got involved to eliminate ISIS, but then what? Now things are too complicated and bombing few targets won't change anything. Russia and the Syria are smart evils and know this. At this point, US is caught in very awkward position and have only few options that looks bad no matter what we choose.
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,955
- 113
So why is it that we didn't find any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq?
Maybe because while we were gearing up and announcing that we were coming in, a nonstop convoy of trucks were escaping to Syria.
Coincidence?
Because most of what we were sold as the reason to invade Iraq never existed, the intelligence that said they did was wrong. All the biological mobile labs Powell's speech claimed existed was never found, no evidence they ever existed was found, and they don't match up to what is currently being used in Syria. Powell himself, and many others, have since admitted the intelligence was flawed and the mobile labs never existed.
Ballistic missiles with biological agents is a far cry from what is happening in Syria. It's like someone getting hit with a sling shot and using that as proof the slingers have a .50 cal.
Iraq was already known to have a small stockpile of chemical warheads for ballistic missiles. Inspectors had located them prior to the invasion and suspected there were more they hadn't found. Some chemical mortars were also located. No high tech ballistic missile/biological program was uncovered.
What Syria is using is mostly chlorine gas and some Sarin. Chlorine gas is extremely easy to make, so no real need to smuggle out of Iraq and hold on to it for decades. It's possible Sarin was smuggled out of Iraq, they were known to have it in the early 90's. The most obvious source of Sarin would be Russia.
As far as involvement with Syria, man, I have no idea what we're trying to accomplish there. At least with Iraq there was a mission. An evolving and creeping mission, but a mission and one that, arguably, will be favorable long term. What are we trying to do in Syria? What's the end game? Lob a few missiles in and pat ourselves on the back for protecting innocent people in some ineffective showboat? Escalate to a war where we have no really good options as to who's the "good guy" but try to check Russian (holy crap, I almost said Soviet...) influence? Straddle the fence of sort-a-but-not-really intervening on behalf of our allies in the region? I'm sure the decision makers have more info than the public, but I can't see how this isn't a giant quagmire not worth getting involved in. Shore up Turkey and Jordan, contain the mess as best you can, and let it burn itself out.
Oh wow,that was a dumb question. "She said crippled, you said set back for years, which is right?" The Marine 3-Star probably wanted to tell that guy to buy a ******* thesaurus.
Totally agree. Very insightful.
But but but, this time it's different.
