Serious Syria

[thesecondbest]

So as you probably all know, Trump just authorized missile attacks on Syria in response to the recent gas attack which is believed to have been done by the Syrian government. Thought this is important enough news to get a thread.

So far it seems like the corporate establishment (i.e. McCain on the right and CNN on the left) is cheering on the strikes while the populist members (the Pauls on the right and Tulsi Gabbard on the left) are against it. Thoughts?

 

[Melons-N-Soda]

I find it laughable that Trump believed in the gas attack narrative despite it coming from a lot of the same individuals as the BS that got us into the Iraq war. At this point, it feels like you can manipulate anyone into believing bullshit by showing sad pictures. (Because a lot of the evidence to "prove" that Assad did it is just posting pictures with no context whatsoever) I could fake a bigfoot attack and make the "victims" look like they have immense pain and it'd be convincing to these people.

At this point, the only people who support Trump are neocon warhawks like John McCain. The alt-right basically dumped him outright when he made this decision, and a lot of left wing activists are still calling out Trump for this reckless action. All of the major liberal politicians are in support of this though (Trudeau, Erdogan, whoever runs Saudi Arabia). Maybe because they have a hate boner of Assad. I dunno. A lot of these people said going to war over 'WMD's was a mistake before so I dunno why they're supporting a similar cause now.

Sure, lets attack a secular government over an attack that could've been easily faked so we can defend a two-faced apartheid state that tortures Palestinians, rebels who will only benefit Islamists, and lying warmongerers. Trump is fucked. And this just shows that the US needs to flat out abandon Israel and neocons if it were to ever make progress.

 

[Cresselia~~]

I find it laughable that Trump believed in the gas attack narrative despite it coming from a lot of the same individuals as the BS that got us into the Iraq war. At this point, it feels like you can manipulate anyone into believing bullshit by showing sad pictures. (Because a lot of the evidence to "prove" that Assad did it is just posting pictures with no context whatsoever) I could fake a bigfoot attack and make the "victims" look like they have immense pain and it'd be convincing to these people.

At this point, the only people who support Trump are neocon warhawks like John McCain. The alt-right basically dumped him outright when he made this decision, and a lot of left wing activists are still calling out Trump for this reckless action. All of the major liberal politicians are in support of this though (Trudeau, Erdogan, whoever runs Saudi Arabia). Maybe because they have a hate boner of Assad. I dunno. A lot of these people said going to war over 'WMD's was a mistake before so I dunno why they're supporting a similar cause now.

Sure, lets attack a secular government over an attack that could've been easily faked so we can defend a two-faced apartheid state that tortures Palestinians, rebels who will only benefit Islamists, and lying warmongerers. Trump is fucked. And this just shows that the US needs to flat out abandon Israel and neocons if it were to ever make progress.

Wikipedia says that only Assad has the power to launch an air gas attack though.
And it is not the first time he did something ruthless.
People in his country rebel for a reason.
Bad governments exist, and they are way worse than Trump.

Besides, Trump has way more access to private news that won't be broadcasted towards us commoners.

We as commoners have no way to tell which news source is real unless we personally know some spies.

 

[magicin]

Pretty scary for me.
Hopefully nothing comes of this.

 

[Heracr055]

Apparently the airbase that was the target of the missile attack was repaired, and within 24 hours Assad had planes take off from there to attack more rebels.
So all Trump's machismo act did was destroy some planes, embolden Assad's resolve and provoke Russia into sending a craft within range of the ship that fired the volley.
Anyone calling the Trump strike a victory last night/today looks like a fool now.

 

[BenTheDemon]

Odd how Assad forfeited his chemical weapons in the past, and just as his side is about to win the Syrian Civil War, he allegedly gases his citizens.

I think this amounts to "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."

I really hate to say it, but when Americans vote for Republicans, war is what we get. Donald Trump is the last person you want to lead the United States when World War 3 could possibly break out. As much as I think he's terrible on domestic issues, those can be amended in 4 years. War cannot be, and Trump is 100% unqualified to make these kind of decisions.

 

[Acklow]

We as commoners have no way to tell which news source is real unless we personally know some spies.

Did someone say spies?

 

[Rugi]

I find it laughable that Trump believed in the gas attack narrative despite it coming from a lot of the same individuals as the BS that got us into the Iraq war. At this point, it feels like you can manipulate anyone into believing bullshit by showing sad pictures. (Because a lot of the evidence to "prove" that Assad did it is just posting pictures with no context whatsoever) I could fake a bigfoot attack and make the "victims" look like they have immense pain and it'd be convincing to these people.

At this point, the only people who support Trump are neocon warhawks like John McCain. The alt-right basically dumped him outright when he made this decision, and a lot of left wing activists are still calling out Trump for this reckless action. All of the major liberal politicians are in support of this though (Trudeau, Erdogan, whoever runs Saudi Arabia). Maybe because they have a hate boner of Assad. I dunno. A lot of these people said going to war over 'WMD's was a mistake before so I dunno why they're supporting a similar cause now.

Sure, lets attack a secular government over an attack that could've been easily faked so we can defend a two-faced apartheid state that tortures Palestinians, rebels who will only benefit Islamists, and lying warmongerers. Trump is fucked. And this just shows that the US needs to flat out abandon Israel and neocons if it were to ever make progress.

What? Sheathe the tin hat for a second there friend. Even if you're right about this gas attack being faked on a such a large scale (which would be crazy) other dangerous chemical weapon attacks have been done in Syria before. The knowledge of usage of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war is well documented so that isn't the part you should specifically be worrying about.

What Trump did is undoubtedly psychotic and a little... abrupt... But all things considered the missiles were aimed at a Syrian airfield instead of any civilian locations which is always a good sign that some thought went into this. As Cress said we don't know what kind of info Trump has access to and considering who we know Trump to be he did this in a remarkably organised and professional attitude.

The kind of suffering that goes in Syria is the sort of thing that merits intervention. Maybe not like this but it definitely calls for somebody to stand up and do something.

What I find more curious about the attacks is that Trump after promising to improve U.S relations with Russia proceeded to immediately do something that Russia would undoubtedly hate.

You also have to remember that different politicians have different reasons for supporting the attacks of course Erdogan supports intervention in Syria he's the country next to it for god's sake.

As for the part about Israel first: Israel is not an apartheid. Second: The motivation behind this attack was probably not to defend Israel

For just a fun little final note this attack was vehemently opposed by North Korea and Russia. Both of which are true paragons of international justice.

 

[Melons-N-Soda]

stuff

What you said is actually quite interesting, though I still disagree with the notion that Israel isn't apartheid.

Notably, the existence and extremely awkward handling of the border fence, and the fact that Palestinians that lived (or whose relatives lived) in the area Israel occupies before the state was created have dozens of permits governing their lives there, while Jews have virtually none (at least in terms of moving). The latter part makes it different than just a straight-up border, like what Trump planned during his campaign.

Not to mention, it proclaims itself as a 'Jewish state' and has various systems that privilege Jews more than anyone else. Other than maybe Voter ID and Affirmative Action (and even then those don't even count in my opinion), where did the US government do similar actions past Jim Crow? Not much as far as I'm aware.

I know I keep bringing up the US, but its likely the best comparison to Israel, and even then, the US treats Native Americans far better than Israel treats Palestinians.

Zionism is basically the same thing that groups like ISIS/DAESH want to do and the same thing that white nationalists want to do: Creating a state meant exclusively for one group of people whilst treating those outside that group like trash in order to get that goal.

(Here's where I got a lot of that by the way if you're curious)

Granted, a lot of the claims that this attack was at least partially Zionist influenced mainly come from the fact that major people who happen to be Zionist Jews are supporting this and similar future actions. You can probably tell how reliable that claim it just by reading that previous sentence.

Now, will that out of my chest, speaking of white nationalists:

They recently started a Twitter hashtag campaign about wanting to kick Jared Kushner (a huge supporter of toppling Assad) out of the White House, and also due to conflicts between him and Stephen Bannon (who greatly opposes toppling Assad). It reached 75K tweets last time I checked, and while it didn't do much, there will be a meeting between Bannon and Kushner discussing this problem.

An anti-war protest is also going on right now not just in the US, but also in the UK. The one is the US is being counter-protested by Antifa.

 

[Jellicent]

Not to mention, it proclaims itself as a 'Jewish state' and has various systems that privilege Jews more than anyone else. Other than maybe Voter ID and Affirmative Action (and even then those don't even count in my opinion), where did the US government do similar actions past Jim Crow? Not much as far as I'm aware.

Slavery? It's kind of hard to ignore that one... Modern systemic issues like gerrymandering, the school-to-prison pipelines (the prison / justice system as a whole, really), etc. are symptomatic of the racially tense and biased atmosphere of the US. There's also stuff like Japanese internment camps, the trail of tears, etc. that shows the issues haven't just been limited to African Americans. And that's just on our home turf; we're a rather brutal empire.

I know I keep bringing up the US, but its likely the best comparison to Israel, and even then, the US treats Native Americans far better than Israel treats Palestinians.

That's true enough today, though it's not like the US is winning any awards in that department at the moment. To be fair, there really aren't that many Native Americans left... Because we nearly eradicated an entire race of people that once totally populated this nation. Between the wars, disease, forced migration, and genocide, we came pretty close to wiping them out. There were a few decades mid-20th century where we forced assimilation on various tribes, too. Hell, over 40% of the Native American nations that do reside in the US are tucked away in Alaska, which is a relatively new acquisition for us.

I really hate to say it, but when Americans vote for Republicans, war is what we get. Donald Trump is the last person you want to lead the United States when World War 3 could possibly break out. As much as I think he's terrible on domestic issues, those can be amended in 4 years. War cannot be, and Trump is 100% unqualified to make these kind of decisions.

Hillary suggested on a televised interview that Trump carry out the exact attack he did hours before he did it, so it's not like the Democratic candidate would've played things differently. Obama was the first president to spend a full two terms in wartime, and he micro-managed those war efforts to an alarming degree. He dropped over 26,000 bombs in seven different countries last year alone, with unclear civilian death counts. The closest precedent to what Trump did is what Bill did with Kosovo, though that was at least backed by NATO and he specifically said it shouldn't be used as a precedent.

I'm not suggesting the Republican track record is any cleaner, only that military aggression is generally bipartisan when it comes to presidents. Granted, Trump isn't a normal Republican, and certainly not a normal president. He's unstable and delusional, so I do agree he's unfit to lead us in war (or any capacity, really).

 

[macle]

dropping 80$ million dollars worth of bombs and doing basically no damage sure showed Assad

 

[Grey Knight]

dropping 80$ million dollars worth of bombs and doing basically no damage sure showed Assad

not to mention only half of those missiles actually hit their target.

 

[mertyville]

Well, if Trump wants "Nobel Peace Prize", he needs to be more aggressive with his attacks. Obama threw each hour 3 bombs for 2 years.

 

[Jasper]

Those of you focusing on the material damage (or lack thereof) of this attack are missing its point. If the US wanted to inflict maximum damage, they would not have alerted the Russians (who inevitably alerted the Syrians) stationed at the base that they were about launch the missiles. However, not doing so would have killed Russian soldiers, and likely catalyzed a crisis between the US and Russia. Not even Trump was deranged enough to incite this over Assad's gas attack; globally speaking, it was a relatively small (albeit tragic) violation of human rights.

Therefore, the US acted within the bounds of not starting a global conflict by sending a symbolic message. To Assad and Russia, this fusillade affirmed that Trump will not hesitate to intervene militarily in the Syrian conflict, despite his alleged coziness with Putin's regime. Perhaps more importantly, it conveyed the same readiness to China regarding the South China Sea dispute. Critically, Trump was meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping when the missiles were fired, and Trump informed him personally that he had just ordered this action. Trump could not have asked for a more direct channel to relate his tacit "back off" message to China. Above all, this was an instance of a new world leader, perceived as a wild card by most major powers, asserting his country's strength, and willingness to defend its interests, on the global, geopolitical stage.

 

[lula_preso]

Today U.S dropped a hugeass bomb in Afghanistan.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...S-tunnels-War-Non-Nuclear-assault-Afghanistan

 

[DreamPrince]

Today U.S dropped a hugeass bomb in Afghanistan.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...S-tunnels-War-Non-Nuclear-assault-Afghanistan

This is pretty stupid. Bombing a tunnel isn't going to stop ISIS, on the contrary, in fact, it'll only tighten relationships between ISIS and America, and they'll hate us even more. Hasn't anyone learned from history that a treaty and diplomacy are key for peace? Not bombs. Trump's main issue as president is this: He's a business man. He treats politics like a business. He thinks like a business man: Republicans wanted a tough talking president? Trump fit the bill perfectly. He convinced people that he cared about people through his tough talk about fighting ISIS and jobs. In reality, he took these positions not because he genuinely cared about the situation, but just because he fit the bill perfectly. He doesn't even truly care about parties, issues, or statements. To him, there just things in the way of a deal. Because once again, he's a business man not a president.

 

[Pretzels]

it'll only tighten relationships between ISIS and America

I think the "relationship" between the USA and ISIS is pretty much set in stone at this point.....

 

[freezai]

The bombing is not an issue, unless you think peaceful dialogue and cupcakes are going to deal with war mongering terrorist groups. To defeat ISIS you are unfortunately going to have to bring out some guns, that's just the nature of the beast. What is the issue, however, is the apparent lack of political strategy behind the bombing. We have been bombing bad guys for the past 16 years and we are going to do it for another n years too unless we have a plan for how to install a working government that the people are satisfied with. We've been launching these "successful" military campaigns for a while, but once the USA leaves the region the bugs come creeping back in the next iteration of Taliban or ISIS or whatever they want to call themselves. This is due to a lack of a) popular support for the installed leadership and b) a lack of a plan for "What happens next." Hopefully, Trump has a strategy/plan for what to do next, otherwise we are going to rinse and repeat what we've been doing since 9/11.

 

[Pretzels]

The problem with the middle east is that no amount of bombing/foreign intervention will fill/solve the endless power vacuum that's been there for the better part of 70 years.

But right now its basically the only course of action the United States has, short of stationing troops there for an undetermined amount of time.

Its a problem with no answer that every president this half century has dealt with and unfortunately every president for the next half century will likely have to deal with.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Is it ok to talk about the nuclear bomb testing in North Korea in this thread?
Because USA is highly likely to bomb North Korea next.

North Korea plans to test their nuclear bomb tomorrow, because they are having a festival tomorrow.

I normally hate intervention, even if it's Syria...
But I have absolutely no complains if Trump bombs North Korea. It's probably one of the very few countries worth bombing/ punishing.

 

[dwarfstar]

But I have absolutely no complains if Trump bombs North Korea. It's probably one of the very few countries worth bombing/ punishing.

What? Their government deserves to be brought down, I'm not arguing that, but odds are the majority of the damage and the casualties to be to civilians, not to the state. There's not an acceptable level of collateral damage there justified by the state's worthiness of punishment. Aside from which, the responsibility for overthrowing a government in any case barring a literal genocide must fall on its own subjects if that's going to be a successful liberatory action, since foreign interlopers will be doing their best to shape the situation to THEIR advantage at the expense of the masses. This goes for North Korea or Assad's Syria or any other oppressive state — we can support a revolution without advocating for imperialist intervention.)

 

[Nix_Hex]

I want to see Kim's limbs fly as much as any sane person, but the collateral would be much bigger than just NK's citizens. Kim can swiftly decide to chuck a nuke on Seoul, one of the biggest cities in the entire world and a stone's throw away from NK. Don't have time to say much else, but people seem to forget that there are more factors at play here than just "bomb North Korea."

Also I'm 100% behind this being the Syria/Isis/North Korea/Russia thread.

 

[Pretzels]

Fat Kimmy's options are limited by the fact that he has no actual allies except for China (and i'm not even sure you can call them an ally) and any military strike he makes against a foreign nation basically guarantees his destruction.

But then again hes been treated like a demigod all his life and most likely has never faced a single repercussion from any of his actions so he might just nuke Japan or South Korea just for the fuck of it.

 

[Steel With It]

But I have absolutely no complains if Trump bombs North Korea. It's probably one of the very few countries worth bombing/ punishing.

Given that Kim and Trump are the only two "Leaders" in the world who aren't just unafraid of total nuclear armageddon but are actively itching for it... That's the stupidest fucking thing I've read in a long time, and I've read a lot of stupid fucking things.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Given that Kim and Trump are the only two "Le? aders" in the world who aren't just unafraid of total nuclear armageddon but are actively itching for it... That's the stupidest fucking thing I've read in a long time, and I've read a lot of stupid fucking things.

So condescending. Much belittling. Very amaze.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mochel/us-and-them-in-politics-w_b_10564822.html
http://www.popsci.com/article/scien...emists-think-they-are-right-and-you-are-wrong