It's not so much about proxy wars that concerns me as the tactics of war being employed. Are war crimes now being used as a weapon of war to provoke action?
We are part of this. Our reaction to what the media tell us / shape the stories around these atrocities will put pressure (or not) on the government to take certain action (or not), if not immediately then perhaps in future, and the government will be mindful of that.
Our government has come out in support of the strike, which superficially seems reasonable (this war crime needs a response). But have we been played? What are the consequences? How much of this is Trump taking advantage of a situation (see my previous post)? There are no immediately obvious answers to me...
No expert in these matters, is this a reasonable conclusion re use of gloves?
[img] 
[/img]
The only reasonable conclusion is to assume everything you read / see on Twitter is total rubbish.
Unless Justin Rainmondo is an expert in chemical weapons, and given he's posting on twitter, i suspect not, then i don;t think you can read anything into what he (or anyone else on twitter) says.
I'd like to think the world's security forces would have spotted a giveaway as obvious as that, so I'm guessing it's inconclusive.
I'm assuming the Militants can't make Sarin, so if they've got some they must nicked it from Assad somehow at some time
pretty sure by the time a sample has gotten back to the DSTL they will be able to tell when how and who made it.
Of course the Russians would claim lots of the US missiles missed there intended targets, as they were rather touchy that the ones that they fired crashed all over the place....
Just part of the great propaganda game...
Regarding the use of poison gas as a weapon, I spent a lot of time talking to an WW1 veteran and of all the horrors he talked about being gasses was clearly far more distressing.
Whilst all forms of killing are abhorrent this is a particularly cruel and vile method to which there can be no justification.
I'd like to think the world's security forces would have spotted a giveaway as obvious as that, so I'm guessing it's inconclusive.
That's the tricky part of the duality we live in... on the one hand, you have PR firms with fabricated stories coaching people to have maximum emotional impact as in the Kuwaiti Nariyah testimony, or of course the Weapons of mass destruction report... so time and again, they've been duped too, or complicit.
It's a dirty game, there's no doubt
I'd like to think the world's security forces would have spotted a giveaway as obvious as that,
what like Saddams WMDs ?
the dossier and WMD gets trotted out each time
Just because they once lied does not mean they are lying this time
Its also actually happened and therefore can be more thoroughly tested
We all know there are smoke and mirrors and we all knwo which posters are consistent in seeing conspiracies everywhere. Discussing this issue with them is pointless as EVERYTHING is a conspiracy
Makes you think eh
Just because they once lied does not mean they are lying this time
It's not the lying it's the believing your own [s]lies[/s] bad intelligence, how ****ing long did they spend searching the length and breadth of Iraqi looking for the WMDs ?
[b]Discussing this issue with them is pointless [/b]
So what happened to the chemical weapons ISIS seized in Iraq?
Were they the same ones supplied by the UK and US?
the dossier and WMD gets trotted out each timeJust because they once lied does not mean they are lying this time
Its also actually happened and therefore can be more thoroughly tested
We all know there are smoke and mirrors and we all knwo which posters are consistent in seeing conspiracies everywhere. Discussing this issue with them is pointless as EVERYTHING is a conspiracy
Makes you think eh
+100
Jhj: you say you're not an expert and that you don't know if the conclusion in that tweet is reasonable. But you've already retweeted it?
As above, who is Justin Raimondo?
Is that photo of victims of the chemical attack? Do the rescuers have gloves that they could use? Are gloves necessary? Does sarin hang around or evaporate away and pose less of a threat after a few hours?
I don't know, btw, but if you'd gone to the effort of faking a chemical attack you think you'd try to look the part.
No expert in these matters, is this a reasonable conclusion re use of gloves?
What do you expect them to do, leave the children to die whilst they pop over to the local glove shop, perhaps catch a latte on the way over ?
You are obviously capable of typing, could you try a *little* bit of thinking _before_ you show off your skills.
let's look at what Chilcot concluded
An ingrained belief in the intelligence community that Iraq had retained some chemical and biological weapons. It concluded in September 2002 that “Iraq was producing chemical and biological agents and that there were development programmes for longer-range missiles capable of delivering them”. It was wrong.
The intelligence agencies had a serious blind spot. “At no stage was the proposition that Iraq might no longer have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by either JIC or the policy community.”
A report by MI6 on WMDs “should have been shown to the relevant weapons experts in the Ministry of Defence’s intelligence staff, some of whom expressed scepticism about Saddam having WMDs.
who needs to be played when assumption is already the mother of all **** ups!
Does sarin hang around or evaporate away and pose less of a threat after a few hours?
no it will remain on clothes and in water however in a third world country where the actual chance of a full on hazardous chemical shower being rolled along (i dont think they have much in the way of basic hospital care do they?) from memory though it will contained in water rather than be able to breathed in.
Syria isn't (well, wasn't) a third world country. It was quite a prosperous place until the civil war.
But no, it looks like a fire hose being used in the background.
the dossier and WMD gets trotted out each timeJust because they once lied does not mean they are lying this time
Go to any high street bookshop and buy a book on the CIA or any other Western (and Israeli) intelligence agency and you can read, with clarity, that they have continuously lied, time and time again, for decades.
And will continue to lie, may I add, because that is their modus operandi, to deceive and obfuscate the truth, in order to facilitate the enactment of a specific geopolitical goal or goals. No conspiracy, its all there in declassified documents.
Jhj: you say you're not an expert and that you don't know if the conclusion in that tweet is reasonable. But you've already retweeted it?
I haven't retweeted it, but I posted the image here to see what folks thoughts were...
Well impressed by your ability to ask reasonable and probing questions:
As above, who is Justin Raimondo?
Is that photo of victims of the chemical attack? Do the rescuers have gloves that they could use? Are gloves necessary? Does sarin hang around or evaporate away and pose less of a threat after a few hours?
Like I say, I'm no expert on Chemical Weapons, however, I can tell you that Justin Raimondo is an editor at [url=Antiwar.com]Antiwar.com[/url]
I don't know, btw, but if you'd gone to the effort of faking a chemical attack you think you'd try to look the part.
My thoughts exactly, though this is also an entirely reasonable perspective:
What do you expect them to do, leave the children to die whilst they pop over to the local glove shop, perhaps catch a latte on the way over ?
The problem arises in that almost all modern wars have been started under false pretences, so to avoid a recurring cycle of bullshit, massive civilian casualties and long term escalation of conflict which only serves to create a more dangerous environment for us all, whilst profiting a small minority of individuals who have sufficient economic and political sway to turn the media in their favour, we all need to start asking more questions.
[i]What do you expect them to do, leave the children to die whilst they pop over to the local glove shop, perhaps catch a latte on the way over ?[/i]
The problem arises in that almost all modern wars have been started under false pretences, so to avoid a recurring cycle of bullshit, massive civilian casualties and long term escalation of conflict which only serves to create a more dangerous environment for us all, whilst profiting a small minority of individuals who have sufficient economic and political sway to turn the media in their favour, we all need to start asking more questions.
You could have a TRY at answering the question you were asked and have quoted.
I've answered it...
I thought the advice (to first responders in general) is to assess the situation before rendering help, if you endanger yourself by helping one person and are incapacitated how many people that you could have helped may die?
Would they react rationally, emotionally or in the middle of a civil war they might just be dead bodies that they have no idea of the method of death.
True, sitting here it's all useless supposition
Yeh comparisons to the Iraq /WMD secanrio is not helpful.
The images and video evidence of chemical weapons being used in Syria is all over the Internet.
As to who is responsible, well that's a can of worms but it is happening, I don't think there's any reasonable doubt about that 🙁
Apparently a terrorist lorry crash into a crowd in Stockholm being reported from some Swedish friends on Facebook, guess another lone wolf suicide run..
True, sitting here it's all useless supposition
Therein lies the problem... all the MPs, the Media Editors, the Army Generals, the Prime Ministers, the Presidents etc are acting on remote intelligence provided to them from afar, in a world of propaganda, corporate influence and a weapons industry with a massive interest in keeping conflict going.
Unless there's a paradigm shift and everyone groups together and addresses the root cause of conflict for profit, the same cycle will repeat and escalate, sewing hatred deeper into the fabric of society and giving rise to more and more incidents which put civilian populations the world over in peril.
Interesting to see Ann Coulter, Jeremy Corbyn and Katie Hopkins taking a similar view of Trump's action... (From the BBC link on p2)
Someone should do a chemical attack on Hopkins. I reckon we could get UN backing for that.
I haven't retweeted it, but I posted the image here to see what folks thoughts were.
Apologies, i had assumed it was a screenshot ?from your Twitter, the green arrow means a retweet.
Will several Tomahawks improve the public opinion for President Trump? 😛
(side note: Does that mean the entire USA (including political opponents) will now acknowledge President Trump as their best President to rule USA for full term easy or perhaps even two terms? )
yes now he has bombed syria no american objects to him as POTUS and they all want him to serve for ever and ever as he is the best.
You bring nothing to the table but idiocy STILL
You really don't get it do you? 😆
Have you not seen the correlation between all the recent Presidents riding high with good public opinion if they sent several Tomahawks around for "goodwill" gesture. 😆
Guess President Trump will be here full two terms then. 😛
You bring nothing to the table but idiocy STILL
This is the same president you were very excited about because he would stay out of foreign conflicts chewkw?
It's difficult to ignore the fact that it was in all probability a false flag operation, organised by rebels or Mossad and designed to trick a less than competent narcissist into aiding the rebel effort and keep the pot boiling just as there were signs it was beginning to cool. Interesting reports of a renewed Isis 'push' now emanating from Russian media sources. Is there ever going to be an end to their suffering?
Junkyard - lazarus
You bring nothing to the table but idiocy STILL
O c'mon ... 😛
GrahamS - Member
This is the same president you were very excited about because he would stay out of foreign conflicts chewkw?
Yes, in order to win public opinion.
Yes, in order to win public opinion.
So now you're saying his public opinion will be up because he has taken military action? Which is it?
graemecsl - Member
It's difficult to ignore the fact that it was in all probability a false flag operation, organised by rebels or Mossad and designed to trick a less than competent narcissist into aiding the rebel effort and keep the pot boiling just as there were signs it was beginning to cool. Interesting reports of a renewed Isis 'push' now emanating from Russian media sources. Is there ever going to be an end to their suffering?
Yes, but please don't say that here because you are trying to establish logic.
If you look at the BBC clips ... three plume of smoke with the third one smaller ... the question is if first two bombs are the same pay load why is the third one smaller? According to the news the 3rd one is the one carrying the chemical. Bear in mind UN whatever has already taken away all their chemical weapons ...
Now, the "invisible hands" are trying to escalate the problem by dividing US and Russia (restoring relationship) and to get them fight each other.
Therefore, for all those who wish to see escalation your wish might come through if these three superpowers are going into full scale war. Bear in mind China is also in the background so try to mess with them if you wish ...
If the shite hit the fan big time you will not only see middle east turmoil but the entire world goes up in flame. Naturally, this means population reduction hence the Darwin rules set in ... Congratulation if that is the case.
Remember I told you so.
slowoldman - Member
Yes, in order to win public opinion.
So now you're saying his public opinion will be up because he has taken military action? Which is it?
Tomahawk - improves public opinions. Yes.
Military action or foot on group Not good because of own casualty.
Rule of thumb - Tomahawk for good Presidency opinions.
See Clinton and Obama - Public opinion (former more so while latter used some) high due to Tomahawk.
See Bush x 2 - Public opinion turn on them later on due to foot on ground.
So you're saying now that staying out of foreign conflicts wasn't a way of winning public opinion? I'm confused now.
slowoldman - Member
So you're saying now that staying out of foreign conflicts wasn't a way of winning public opinion? I'm confused now.
Let me explain.
My view has not changed. i.e. staying out of foreign conflicts for greater good as not all interventions will generate greater good.
Public opinion on the other hand is different. You have to bear in mind President Trump still need to "satisfy" his political opponents so by sending a few Tomahawks around as goodwill gesture he wins ... Home and abroad.
President Trump political opponents are now in trouble (at home) as they cannot, anymore, disagree with President Trump's action. 😆
Next move please (political opponents of President Trump) ... 😆
Oh nearly forgot to answer your question ... Yes, staying out is still a winning formula. Tomahawk is merely a communication gesture between two superpowers. Both are winning at home and abroad.
It's difficult to ignore the fact that it was in all probability a false flag operation, organised by rebels or Mossad and designed to trick a less than competent narcissist into aiding the rebel effort and keep the pot boiling just as there were signs it was beginning to cool.
But surely thats the essentially the Russian line - whoever it was, it wasn't Assad, as they are pro-Assad.
So why on earth is Trump doing the opposite of what the Russians want? I thought he was supposed to be cosying up to them, what with him being a Russian agent and all that?
