Jump to content

US attack Syrian air-base with 59 cruise missiles

Recommended Posts

Peter Ford on the BBC news just now made perfect sense. We don't know if A) the Syrian regime did use CW's, or B) they used conventional weapons and hit a rebel held CW supply (as the Russians suggest).

 

Not seen evidence either way, and doubt we ever will. As we all know (remember the WMD's held by Iraq?) we can't always trust our intelligence community, they either get it wrong (unlikely imo) or lie in order to pursue an agenda...

 

Also, given the US response, are we likely to false flag operations designed to draw the US / western alliance in to a war against the Syrian regime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wheel is turning, and we are back to the good old days of stand off between the USA and Russia.

The world will be a lot safer with those two wiping the floor up, by proxy, with the puppets in the ME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very worrying. It seems more about confrontation with the Russians than helping Syrians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say this is the first thing Trump has done I agree with. Assuming it was Assad`s forces which undertook the chemical attack. Everyone seems to be saying that they did, including a British Journalist on site, so it seems cut and dried. But I can`t help wondering (as the Russians said) what has he got to gain by such an attack ? Particularly when he`s winning anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say this is the first thing Trump has done I agree with. Assuming it was Assad`s forces which undertook the chemical attack. Everyone seems to be saying that they did, including a British Journalist on site, so it seems cut and dried. But I can`t help wondering (as the Russians said) what has he got to gain by such an attack ? Particularly when he`s winning anyway.

 

Assad didn't launch the chemical weapons, you are actually approving of a false flag operation to help the terrorists disguised as so called rebels to overthrow Assad.

Why would Assad use chemicals when he is winning the war?

An investigation has not been completed and Assad is already found to be the culprit?

The Syrian version that they bombed a rebel area where they were storing chemical weapons sounds more plausible.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2017 at 09:24 ----------

 

One should maybe ask such questions as:

 

1) In the light of Assad winning the war against ISIS using conventional military equipment, why should he then decide to use chemical weapons against civilians? What is the advantage when knowing what the US will do as a result?

 

2) Who gains from this action? Answer the terrorists, who as we know are financially backed by the UK, US and Qatari governments, who actually fund the so called NGO the "White Helmets" who are affiliated and work with ISIS and the rest of the terrorist groups. These groups have been exposed by independent British reporter Venessa Beeley and Canadian reporter Eva Bartlett.

 

3) It proves that like Obama and Bush, President Trump is following the same Pentagon agenda and is not acting rationally but EMOTIONALLY as the facts of the incident have not been independently verified. Trump has now demonstrated he can be manipulated, and is in effect as helpless as Obama, and Bush against the agenda of particular interests that have shaped the Middle East to the disaster it now is.

 

4) It proves that facts are no longer necessary if one can manipulate populations emotionally. The media play the usual role of the drumbeat for war, more war, more Yemen, More Libya, More Afghanistan, More Iraq, destroying countries, populations because we can, and we all know that war, and the munitions trade is the most profitable industry yet created. War is about profit.

 

So now the pathway is clear, if incidents can be manufactured without investigation or proof as Iraq proved, then its clear that Iran, and Russia might also be targeted soon. It is a violation and against International Law for the US to bomb Syria, Invade Syria through putting troops in the country.

 

The media manipulates populations to make war an acceptable inevitability regardless of real facts or evidence, as accusations repeated become facts in themselves.

 

Meanwhile the infrastructure and social cohesion of the UK and US continue is downward spiral while the money is diverted to the security and military establishments.

 

How many people are killed through terrorists attacks as opposed to road deaths, pharmaceutical prescription drug deaths, the suicides as a result of benefit cuts, and so on?

 

What should the media be focused on, what is needed in the UK or the perpetual drumbeat for war?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Assad and Putin don't like it,it has to be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Assad and Putin don't like it,it has to be a good thing.

 

It just shows the US up for the hipocrite Isis rebel backing warmongers they are....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to say this is the first thing Trump has done I agree with. Assuming it was Assad`s forces which undertook the chemical attack. Everyone seems to be saying that they did, including a British Journalist on site, so it seems cut and dried. But I can`t help wondering (as the Russians said) what has he got to gain by such an attack ? Particularly when he`s winning anyway.

 

Remember when everyone was saying Sadam had a stockpile of WMDs?

 

Now, of course, just because we were being lied to then, it doesn't automatically mean we are being lied to now, but it is a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just shows the US up for the hipocrite Isis rebel backing warmongers they are....

 

Assad targets innocent people as much as ISIS does,both are as bad as each other.Putin uses him as a puppet,purely for power in the region,he is another who is not in the slightest bothered about innocents being targeted as long as he is shown to have power in the area,over and above America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Ford on the BBC news just now made perfect sense. We don't know if A) the Syrian regime did use CW's, or B) they used conventional weapons and hit a rebel held CW supply (as the Russians suggest).

 

If that's the same Peter Ford that I heard on the Radio 4 feed he sounded more like a fringe lunatic conspiracy theorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't get it... I read a couple of years ago that each cruise missile costs 1million pounds per launch.. that's 59million pounds, what for. the mind boggles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's the same Peter Ford that I heard on the Radio 4 feed he sounded more like a fringe lunatic conspiracy theorist.

 

First I'd heard of him on the BBC news this morning (about 8:20 am), so can't comment on any views he's expressed elsewhere.

 

What he said made a lot of sense, he wasn't automatically assuming that the US version of events re: Assad's use of CWs was true; does that make him a conspiracy theorist? If so, I'm one too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.