meazza Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 You're a man of many contradictions. On one hand, you're quick to defend arab/muslim culture. On the other, you're happy when people who don't want to bomb arabs/muslims are unhappy. Yeah that's my issue with the alt-right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Well, CNN's now reporting that they WERE informed, but at the military level according to the coordination plans in-theater. They're also reporting that the Pentagon has - and is going to share - the radar tracks of the planes taking off from the al-Shayrat and bombing Idlib province, and the IR signatures of the bombs going off. That would be pretty solid intelligence... Already seeing people saying "He didn't need to tell the Russians, Putin gave him permission before hand." sure. never mind those guys behind the curtain over there planting chemical weapons for the bombing intelligence knew was coming. So let me get this straight. Assad was on the verge of victory and decided to use chemical weapons because he thought Trump would do nothing about it? That's what we're buying? So after four years of not using them he decided to use them now? Smells fishy to me. distractions... distractions.... sometimes one needs to ask what the other hand is doing.... Edited April 7, 2017 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 You're a man of many contradictions. On one hand, you're quick to defend arab/muslim culture. On the other, you're happy when people who don't want to bomb arabs/muslims are unhappy. That's not contradictory. He hates idiots. sure. never mind those guys behind the curtain over there planting chemical weapons for the bombing intelligence knew was coming. distractions... distractions.... sometimes one needs to ask what the other hand is doing.... You know this all traces back to Michael Bloomberg somehow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 for a different perspective... you know, outside of the US MainStreamMedia propaganda machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIB186gutnw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) Here we go with the name calling. I'll let it go. You simply can't compare the two situations. If Syria did indeed gas their people in 2013 they most likely dud it out of desperation. They were on the ropes back then. I'm not condoning it, just stating the obvious. This week's attack was under far different circumstances. Assad was on the cusp of victory. i dont think saying youre naive is name calling. you said something akin to 'unless assad is running out of ammo this doesnt make sense.' you are putting all your focus on tactical battlefield issues and completely ignoring the political advantages, which is indeed naive assad is a dictator. he wins by remaining brutal enough to scare the fk out of anybody who challenges him. he also wins by making his allies happy, who help him stay in power via their own wilingness to engage in ruthless brutality and suppressing any dissonance whatever he loses as the result of one missile strike against him is minimal. what he gains is all the power and influence being brutal and ruthless give him. and he got to test how far he can push things under dons watch. its almost all upside for him and as long as he doesnt do it again in the relatively near future there is very little downside its an old formula. anyone who ignores it is indeed naive Edited April 7, 2017 by Meathead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) i dont think saying youre naive is name calling. you said something akin to 'unless assad is running out of ammo this doesnt make sense.' you are putting all your focus on tactical battlefield issues and completely ignoring the political advantages, which is indeed naive assad is a dictator. he wins by remaining brutal enough to scare the fk out of anybody who challenges him. he also wins by making his allies happy, who help him stay in power via their own wilingness to engage in ruthless brutality and suppressing any dissonance whatever he loses as the result of one missile strike against him is minimal. what he gains is all the power and influence being brutal and ruthless give him. and he got to test how far he can push things under dons watch. its almost all upside for him and as long as he doesnt do it again in the relatively near future there is very little downside its an old formula. anyone who ignores it is indeed naive the flaw in your logic, Meathead is that Assad is on the verge of winning the civil war within his state. and if that is so, why in the world would he risk everything at this stage for a reputation that he already has? the sum total of the parts just don't add up to what is being portrayed. question everything... do not accept the party line Edited April 7, 2017 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 the flaw in your logic, Meathead is that Assad is on the verge of winning the civil war within his state. and if that is so, why in the world would he risk everything at this stage for a reputation that he already has? the sum total of the parts just don't add up to what is being portrayed. question everything... do not accept the party line Speaking of logic, if he had this brutal reputation why did they try to overthrow him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 the flaw in your logic, Meathead is that Assad is on the verge of winning the civil war within his state. and if that is so, why in the world would he risk everything at this stage for a reputation that he already has? the sum total of the parts just don't add up to what is being portrayed. question everything... do not accept the party line That's kind of where I'm at. The timing is weird. I guess one way to look at it is the US really has nothing to lose here. Big show of force, low collateral damage risk, doesn't piss off the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Dumbass gonna dumbass. More seriously, it's not unheard of for mistakes to be made. I can think of a couple of examples of chemical munitions being accidentally distributed in place of conventional...and that's just the documented ones I know about. the old "I thought this was just a regular weapon, oops my bad" situation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 (edited) the flaw in your logic, Meathead is that Assad is on the verge of winning the civil war within his state. and if that is so, why in the world would he risk everything at this stage for a reputation that he already has? the sum total of the parts just don't add up to what is being portrayed. a fair caveat. however, he also has to rule over his fractured country once the dust settles. he also has to continue to partner with states that dont really give two craps about his using chemical weapons. there is some risk for him but its still got more potential to help him hold power long term even this response by don was relatively feeble. reports are that the airstrip, most of the warplanes, and even the parking lots were left intact. it was obviously mostly a symbolic gesture. im not sure how much dissuasive force this missile attack actually delivers. assad remains mostly unscathed unless of course the world coalesced around this issue and seriously decided to push him out. but so far we have abjectly decided not to do that, very weakly in fact. so for now he appears pretty safe to bolster his reputation as he prepares to rule his post-civil war country with as iron a fist as possible Speaking of logic, if he had this brutal reputation why did they try to overthrow him? really? thats exactly why they tried. well that, and the fact that middle eastern muslims seem to like warring as much as we like pro sports to me it seemed obvious that gassing the last remaining resistance to his power was an blindingly overt power play on his part to punish and terrorize those who stand against him, present and future Edited April 7, 2017 by Meathead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The real question here, which I'm truly surprised has not been brought up is, has anyone discussed with the Native American community their feelings regarding the use of the word Tomahawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 The real question here, which I'm truly surprised has not been brought up is, has anyone discussed with the Native American community their feelings regarding the use of the word Tomahawk. We're they fired from Apache helipcopters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 While some may say that they were fired from Comanche Helicopters rumor has it that they came from two giant war party canoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 We're they fired from Apache helipcopters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 Speaking of logic, if he had this brutal reputation why did they try to overthrow him? see my previous post on there being no central bank in Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 "That's the second biggest arrow I've ever seen." I've been waiting for six years to throw in obscure Get Smart reference............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 see my previous post on there being no central bank in Syria. Ah so the point is to overthrow Assad to build a central bank? That's the master plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 "That's the second biggest arrow I've ever seen." I've been waiting for six years to throw in obscure Get Smart reference............... You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2017 Share Posted April 7, 2017 the old "I thought this was just a regular weapon, oops my bad" situation.... The armorers who handle them don't necessarily know the difference. Particularly in militaries likr Syria's, that don't have a strong backbone of NCOs. "Green stripes, blue stripes, just put bomb on plane." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted April 8, 2017 Share Posted April 8, 2017 http://www.timesofisrael.com/some-trump-supporters-turn-on-president-over-us-st The alt-right is unhappy. Awesome. Yeah. They're going nuts. Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Roger Stone, Alex Jones, etc.. (the usual characters) are blaming Kushner and Ivanka for overriding Bannon. It's amazing once the weight of being presidents hits you and you start to view the world in a different light. I remember radial leftists turning on Obama his first few years of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts