US Tomahawks target Syrian airbase illegally...

by Original Quill Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:10 am

First topic message reminder :

The New York Times wrote:Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, HELENE COOPER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
APRIL 6, 2017

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday night that the United States had carried out a missile strike in Syria on Thursday night in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack this week that killed more than 80 civilians.

A senior military official said that 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles had hit Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The missiles were aimed at Syrian fighter jets and other infrastructure but did not target anything that may have had chemical weapons.

He said that no Russian planes were at the airfield and that the cruise missiles did not target any Russian facilities.

The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime. “With a lot of Tomahawks flying, we didn’t want to hit any Russian planes,” he said.

The cruise missiles struck the airfield beginning around 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday and the strikes continued for three to four minutes.

According to one military official, the Tomahawks were launched from two Navy warships.

The official said that the cruise missile strike was at the more limited end of the military options presented to President Trump Thursday by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The cruise missile strike, the official said, was intended to send a message to Mr. Assad about the American intention to use military force if he continues to use chemical weapons.

It was the first time that the White House had ordered military action against forces loyal to Mr. Assad.

The speed with which the Trump administration responded — and remarks earlier in the day by American officials who said that options were still being considered — appeared intended to maximize the element of surprise and sharply contrasted with the methodical scrutiny of the use of force by the Obama administration.

It was Mr. Trump’s first order to the military for the use of force — other operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq had been carried out under authorization delegated to his commanders — and appeared intended to send a message to North Korea, Iran and other potential adversaries that the new commander in chief was prepared to act, and sometimes on short notice.

The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at his estate in Mar-a-Lago in Florida, sending an unmistakably aggressive message about Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the military power at his disposal.

Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.

Unlike Mr. Obama, who weighed — and ultimately rejected — the use of a similar strike at targets after Syria used chemical weapons in 2013, Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.

Two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, praised the strike in a statement and called for Mr. Trump to go further and to “take Assad’s air force — which is responsible not just for the latest chemical weapons attack, but countless atrocities against the Syrian people —completely out of the fight.”

Only Congress has the power to authorize war, under Article I of the Constitution. There has been no declaration of war against the Assad regime. Yet we just bombed their military base and perhaps killed a few Russians in the mix.

Stay tuned.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:00 pm

Syrian isis/rebels are good at propaganda... they also don't care about the local people as they use them as human Shields... threatening them with death if they try to escape...

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:44 pm

Operations have allegedly resumed at the base which the US targeted, so that did a lot of good.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/

by Original Quill Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:47 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Operations have allegedly resumed at the base which the US targeted, so that did a lot of good.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/

As expected. This was a faux raid, staged to make minority-president Trump look presidential. Later, Trump and Putin will kiss and make up.

The plan is that the sugar-high Trump receives in his popularity will permit him the latitude to lift the sanctions on Russia. Russia then will be free to sell its oil on the open market. Russia gets the boost in it's economy, and Trump gets to cash in his 19.5% share in Rosneft Oil, the Russian petroleum company, which he was paid to become a Russian agent.

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm reading all kinds of conspiracy theories about the alleged attack - interesting stuff.

Is it possible that if it is sarin, it didn't come from a Syrian plane or the building which was attacked? How much would be needed to affect that many people out in the open?

Also, why are the rescuers not affected by it? Some of them are touching people who have been exposed to the substance with bare hands.

Sarin itself reacts easily with water and so it breaks down when it meets rain, moisture in the air or sweat. The agent's fragility in water led hospital staff in Syria to uses hoses to drench rooms where they received victims after chemical attacks. For the same reason, sarin does not hang around for long in the environment, or in people. Laboratories can test for the substance, but more often will find breakdown products. The first substance sarin degrades into is isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), which is generally regarded as proof positive for sarin. But IMPA itself breaks down, into methylphosphonic acid (MPA). Finding MPA in blood or urine is not a smoking gun for sarin: it can come from other organophosphates. Knowing which one matters.

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

There have been other chemical incidents where assad has quickly been blamed but were down to the isis/rebels...

It is much more likely that the Syrian govt forces hit a rebel arms dump and some chemicals were released as a result...

Assad already has superior military force and is winning... and has the hostile eyes of many other nations on him, ready to condemn him for any wrong move... so why would he be using chemical weapons...!?

It doesn't make sense!

Even experts who say it is too early to confirm sarin use say the deaths have all the hallmarks of a chemical weapons attack, delivered through airstrikes. “It is possible it’s sarin but also possible it could be something else, or a mix of things. We mustn’t fall into the trap of thinking that [only] one substance was used, when it could have been more than one,” said Richard Guthrie, a British chemical weapons expert.

Also

Syria’s military has “categorically denied” responsibility for the attack. Russia, which is heavily backing the Assad government, said a Syrian government airstrike had hit a “terrorist warehouse” holding “toxic substances”. That claim does not fit with facts on the ground, for several reasons. An airstrike on a weapons depot with high explosives would have destroyed much of the sarin immediately, and distributed any that survived over a much smaller area. “The pattern of casualties isn’t right for the distribution of materials that you would get if you had a location with toxic materials breached by an airstrike. It’s more consistent with canisters that have distributed [chemical weapons] over a wider population,” Guthrie said.
While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos.
Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos.

“If they have [sarin], it would be in minute quantities, maybe a kilo or so,” said De Bretton Gordon. The high numbers of woman and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot, he added.
Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.
So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:43 pm

Michael Savage (whoever he is) has said that the gas attack was a false flag operation, and that the gas was not sarin, but phosgene.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/michael-savage-turns-trump-says-syrian-gas-attack-was-false-flag-operation

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Michael Savage (whoever he is) has said that the gas attack was a false flag operation, and that the gas was not sarin, but phosgene.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/michael-savage-turns-trump-says-syrian-gas-attack-was-false-flag-operation

Well that shows he has not got a clue about sarin then

He claims anyone exposed to sarin would be dead within 15 minutes.

How come there was over 500 wounded mainly by the chemical attacks?

You see conspiracy loons make bold statements, when as posted earlier

Anyway, he premise then is that the rescuers are specially trained in how to deal with chemical attacks.

Are they?

Its laughable how some people come up with such bullshit

Sarin itself reacts easily with water and so it breaks down when it meets rain, moisture in the air or sweat. The agent's fragility in water led hospital staff in Syria to uses hoses to drench rooms where they received victims after chemical attacks. For the same reason, sarin does not hang around for long in the environment, or in people.

by Original Quill Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Michael Savage (whoever he is) has said that the gas attack was a false flag operation, and that the gas was not sarin, but phosgene.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/michael-savage-turns-trump-says-syrian-gas-attack-was-false-flag-operation

Michael Alan Weiner, better known by his professional name Michael Savage, is an American radio host, author, activist, nutritionist, and conservative political commentator.

On this issue, Savage says:

Michael Savage wrote:“Who got to you, Mr. President? Who is whispering in your ear and could have made you make this dramatic of a change towards Russia in just three days?”

Savage believes it’s “the generals.” He believes Trump gave them “great power in his administration, and they are using it to their advantage just like in World War I.”

But Savage misinterprets this. Trump called American generals "rubbish" during the campaign, so I doubt that they have any influence on him today. There is only one person on the horizon that Trump has never criticized, and indeed, for whom he has expressed "great respect". That is Putin.

Substitute Putin for "the generals" and you are on the right track. This is a show, aimed at enhancing Trump's image in the world community. Both Putin and Trump are in on it. The plan is, once Trump has higher ratings, he can lift Russian sanctions and free Putin's (and his) oil.

by Andy Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:19 pm

It seems Trump blew a mum and her 6 innocent kids to smithereens.
More collateral damage?

And how many more will there be?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/08/activists-civilians-among-21-killed-in-us-led-syria-strikes.html

by Original Quill Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:42 pm

Killin' babies is what conservatives do for fun.

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:Killin' babies is what conservatives do for fun.

You mean like Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Pol Pot etc did to attempt to normalize killing babies?

So based on your methodology, to lefties , its very normal and acceptable to murder babies?

Is that your belief that this is the case, or are you proving how completely compatible you are. To hateful, racist conservatives by your stereotypes?

by Original Quill Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:42 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Killin' babies is what conservatives do for fun.

You mean like Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Pol Pot etc did to attempt to normalize killing babies?

So based on your methodology, to lefties , its very normal and acceptable to murder babies?

Is that your belief that this is the case, or are you proving how completely compatible you are. To hateful, racist conservatives by your stereotypes?

Those are despots, neither lefties nor righties. They know what they are doing and fully embrace it.

When I state the conclusions that conservatives draw out, I am speaking of their unintended consequences. Conservatives love wars. It's kinda like the old western films...good guys doing good, bad guys being punished. They think they are reliving the drama of it all. They have no idea what they really are doing.

Conservatives still believe that horseshit. They go into another person's country, shoot the place up, and somehow convince themselves they are doing something good. The bad guys are the ones who shoot back, no matter that they are defending their own homeland. Only they are clever...they hide behind things. So our guys find innocent beings to kill...helpless babies, school children, mothers with children, hospitals, churches and mosques...anything and shoot the shit outta it. And they carry on the belief that they are playing the role of the cowboy on the white horse.

That's what conservatives do. It's what conservatives stand for. They believe the myth, and can't wait to get back into the cowboy drama.

It's like that dentist hunter, who perceived himself Big Bwana, killing the bad guy, Cecil the lion. It's all a crazy drama, going on, only in their own minds.

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:48 pm

So you have decided they are despots and not lefties, even though they were lefties in political thinking. So leftism has no connection to hate here, because Quill ha excused any leftism hate off his view to embrace his form of leftism;.

I know, I laughed as I wrote this, how absurd Quill can be.

Now I see Ben as part regressive, yet majority liberal in thinking.
Is this the base standard for Liberalism?

No and I doubt he would even believe he was.

The point is you are basing standards on an ever changing political belief.

Its not even reason, but primary school immaturity hate language you write Quill.

by Original Quill Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:01 pm

Thorin wrote:So you have decided they are despots and not lefties, even though they were lefties in political thinking. So leftism has no connection to hate here, because Quill ha excused any leftism hate off his view to embrace his form of leftism;.

I know, I laughed as I wrote this, how absurd Quill can be.

Now I see Ben as part regressive, yet majority liberal in thinking.
Is the base standard for Liberalism?

No and I doubt he would even believe he was.

The point is you are basing standards on an ever changing political belief.

Its not even reason, but primary school immaturity hate language you write Quill.

You're just dreaming your own dream. Anybody can say anything, and most often they do. Look, Hitler fantasized he was a socialist...only, like so many, he didn't even understand what the the term means.

So you can't depend upon what a despot espouses. Don't forget, despots can be dumb people too. Where do you think the dumb ones went?

Too bad you didn't get accepted onto the doctoral plateau...that's where you learn to stop reading others, and start thinking for yourself.

by Guest Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So you have decided they are despots and not lefties, even though they were lefties in political thinking. So leftism has no connection to hate here, because Quill ha excused any leftism hate off his view to embrace his form of leftism;.

I know, I laughed as I wrote this, how absurd Quill can be.

Now I see Ben as part regressive, yet majority liberal in thinking.
Is the base standard for Liberalism?

No and I doubt he would even believe he was.

The point is you are basing standards on an ever changing political belief.

Its not even reason, but primary school immaturity hate language you write Quill.

You're just dreaming your own dream. Anybody can say anything, and most often they do. Look, Hitler fantasized he was a socialist...only, like so many, he didn't even understand what the the term means.

So you can't depend upon what a despot espouses. Don't forget, despots can be dumb people too. Where do you think the dumb ones went?

Too bad you didn't get accepted onto the doctoral plateau...that's where you learn to stop reading others, and start thinking for yourself.

You are attempting to do what Hitler did.

Convince a nation to fear a people based on their beliefs.

In this case, it was Jews or Judaism

You though want to spread fear of Republicanism, which has many different political levels.

So I am thinking for myself, how is your hate, any different from those racist and xenophobic?

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:49 am

CNBC wrote:Russia is already subtly signaling how it will react to the airstrike in Syria

Jacob Pramuk | @jacobpramuk
Friday, 7 Apr 2017

The U.S. launched a major missile strike Thursday night on a Syrian air base following a chemical attack blamed on Syria that killed dozens, including children, earlier in the week. Fake President Trump pinned those deaths on Syrian President Bashar Assad, a leader Moscow has supported during a yearslong, seemingly intractable Syrian civil war. The Syrian government has denied using chemical weapons.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called the strike an "egregious and obvious violation of international law," while Moscow suspended an agreement aimed to prevent U.S. fighter jets from coming into conflict with Russian planes. Russia signaled that the attack could worsen relations between Washington and Moscow.

Still, actions from both Russia and the United States suggest the two countries don't want tension between them to increase any further, said Olga Oliker, senior advisor and director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan research organization.

"I don't think they want escalation. I think they want to deter escalation," Oliker said.

She noted that the U.S. warned Russia about the strike before it came, limiting its potential damage. Russia may have been able to use air defense systems at the base, where it has equipment, and decided not to, Oliker added.

Russia also took steps to publicly "diminish the effects of the strike," she said. For example, the U.S. said that all but one of the 59 missiles launched hit their targets, but Russia's Defense Ministry said only 23 of the missiles reached the base.

The Defense Ministry also released drone video purportedly showing minimal damage at the base, which could be read as an attempt to minimize its effectiveness — and by extension, an attempt to reduce Russia's need to retaliate in some way.

The U.S. and Russia have previously talked about cooperating in the Middle East on things like fighting the Islamic State terror group, which has a presence in Syria. Oliker said Moscow "likes the idea of being on the same side of the United States in Syria" and any clashes between the countries threaten a "key area of cooperation."

Of course, any actual cooperation may hinge on Russia's support of Assad. In an apparent reversal from the Trump administration's previous position, both Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled Thursday that they want to remove Assad from power.

Tillerson also urged Russia to "consider carefully" its support for Assad.

But it could "take a long time to wean the Russians from Assad," Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told CNBC on Friday.

Tillerson is scheduled to visit Moscow next week.

Everything is shaping up just perfectly for the lovers to reconnect. Not too angry. Not too belligerent. Minimize the harm. Russians stay calm.

The show was a success on this side. The minority-President is receiving kudos, even though it was illegal and nothing was accomplished. Trump still has no foreign policy agenda, but no matter...people have short attention spans. Russia is placating on their side and with Syria. See? Rapprochement.

Now, as a show of everyone's good will, Russia will forgive the US and/if the US will lift sanctions on Rosneft Oil. A faux quid pro quo staged, and the script is complete.

We, the taxpayers, paid the bill for the show, Putin and Trump make the profits on the oil.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:33 am

Just in, MSNBC reports that the Trump administration has announced that it has no plans for a follow-up against Syria. It was a one and off...

Well, so much for anything permanent going on. It was a good show while it lasted. Lots of fireworks. Lots of potholes.

Now, get outta way so that we can make this deal.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:23 am

Artillery with out a charge to follow, is an open statement of impotence. If Trump doesn't know this, at least the military, you hope, would tell him. Yet, the administration is signaling that nothing further is expected.

It looks like someone else is in charge of this show. Perhaps someone in another country?

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:29 am

by Tommy Monk Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:01 pm

It is said that these missiles killed 14 people... 9 of whom were civilians...

by Guest Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

It is said that these missiles killed 14 people... 9 of whom were civilians...

Was Assad using human shields at an air base?

Would not be surprised that he did.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:51 pm

Trump now claims the reason he didn't take out the runway of the Shayrat airbase is because runways are too easily repaired.

So, the question arises, what did Trump do? The runway is in tact, and the planes are up and flying. They're dropping bombs on the same town that was gassed. Please tell me Trump didn't just land $100-million worth of tomahawks in a nearby cornfield.

BTW, the cost of that raid amounted to what it would cost to fix the Flint, Michigan water system. I repeat...what was accomplished?

by bbeljefe Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:41 pm

If it had been "legal" then it would totes be cool and brown babies wouldn't be dead.

Because when statists write words on paper, everything is moral and just.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:28 pm

bbeljefe wrote:If it had been "legal" then it would totes be cool and brown babies wouldn't be dead.

Because when statists write words on paper, everything is moral and just.

I hear your point, and I agree, bb. We should have a good time discussing corporatist power and how they do it.

But as a separate matter, it still wasn't legal by their own standards. War is a power that is left to Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

Article II does not permit a president to take matters in his own hands, unless US interests are threatened. The Republicans point to the 500 or so military trainers in Syria, helping in another conflict. The fact that it is a different conflict makes Article II powers irrelevant. When you attack a sovereign military, with whom you've had no prior conflict, you are starting a war. Only Congress can do that.

by bbeljefe Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:31 pm

I couldn't possibly care less about any of that.

I stand firmly against the initiation of force against all individuals regardless of who has written words on paper and who thinks those words on paper mean fuck all.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 7:40 pm

bbeljefe wrote:I couldn't possibly care less about any of that.

I stand firmly against the initiation of force against all individuals regardless of who has written words on paper and who thinks those words on paper mean fuck all.

Fine. Others, however, do care about those issues.

Just because you are outside the system doesn't mean there aren't people who wish to take on the arguments within the system (even as they agree with your premise).

by bbeljefe Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:05 pm

No doubt. I mean, just because I don't participate in theft doesn't mean there aren't others who do participate in it.

And just because I don't participate in honor killings of young women who leave their homes not properly covered and chaperoned by a male family member doesn't mean others don't participate in such activities.

I should mind my own business.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:47 pm

bbeljefe wrote:No doubt. I mean, just because I don't participate in theft doesn't mean there aren't others who do participate in it.

And just because I don't participate in honor killings of young women who leave their homes not properly covered and chaperoned by a male family member doesn't mean others don't participate in such activities.

I should mind my own business.

I'm not saying that at all. But you say: "I couldn't possibly care less about any of that." You are censoring others by faint criticism of things that you don't care about.

As I see it, these arguments all line up side-by-side, and they all point in the same direction. You champion one of them; I champion all of them. If you want to make a point that openly criticizes any one of them, by all means, do...but do so openly.

by bbeljefe Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:50 pm

I haven't censored anyone. Matter of fact, I couldn't censor anyone here if I wanted to.

Which I do not.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:02 pm

bbeljefe wrote:I haven't censored anyone. Matter of fact, I couldn't censor anyone here if I wanted to.

Which I do not.

It's an expression...by faint praise...or in this case, faint criticism.

by bbeljefe Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:31 pm

What is it that you think is the purpose of this forum and others like it?

Just wondering.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 10, 2017 3:29 am

bbeljefe wrote:What is it that you think is the purpose of this forum and others like it?

Just wondering.

NewsFix was created to be a place where people of different backgrounds and beliefs can debate current events and have fun.

The Rules follow, in the upper left-hand corner of the home page.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:27 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

It is said that these missiles killed 14 people... 9 of whom were civilians...

Just like the babies that Trump was lamenting when he ordered the strike.

There's a lesson in this: if you are trying to vindicate the killing of babies, why do you go in and kill more babies?? WTF do you think you are accomplishing? Does he think this is about equalizing the score?

Nothing you do will help the babies if you bring firearms. Going in with guns, you're not going to do anything positive. You are just going in to create more misery. Guns and tanks only kill. Warm puppies are what children like.

by Guest Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:36 am

bbeljefe wrote:I couldn't possibly care less about any of that.

I stand firmly against the initiation of force against all individuals regardless of who has written words on paper and who thinks those words on paper mean fuck all.

So you are against self defense of people fighting for their lives when attacked using force, as its written on paper in laws.

Interesting to know

by bbeljefe Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:08 am

Self defense is a right, regardless whether or not some people decided to scribble on paper that it's allowed.

Rights cannot be given. They can only be denied or defended.

by Guest Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:14 am

bbeljefe wrote:Self defense is a right, regardless whether or not some people decided to scribble on paper that it's allowed.

Rights cannot be given. They can only be denied or defended.

Self defense is a concept, that has been made into a right through laws written on paper.

You then contradict and say rights cannot be given after claiming a concept is a right, in self defense.

by bbeljefe Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:32 am

Rights are concepts. Self defense is action.

When we describe certain actions, we refer to them as rights in order to indicate that the actor is justified in the action he is taking.

There is no contradiction in any of that. It's basic philosophical reasoning from first principles. Specifically, property rights. And since your body is your property, you have the right to defend it from any attacker.

There is no need of others to write that down or even agree with it. It's the foundation of the claim made in the Declaration of Independence that all men have unalienable rights.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:45 pm

bbeljefe wrote:Rights are concepts. Self defense is action.

When we describe certain actions, we refer to them as rights in order to indicate that the actor is justified in the action he is taking.

There is no contradiction in any of that. It's basic philosophical reasoning from first principles. Specifically, property rights. And since your body is your property, you have the right to defend it from any attacker.

There is no need of others to write that down or even agree with it. It's the foundation of the claim made in the Declaration of Independence that all men have unalienable rights.

Didn't you just write this down:

bb wrote:we refer to them as rights in order to indicate that the actor is justified in the action he is taking...there is no contradiction in any of that. It's basic philosophical reasoning from first principles. Specifically, property rights. And since your body is your property, you have the right to defend it from any attacker.

All rights are fundamentally property rights? That takes a little invention, or "writing down" on your part, doesn't it? Since when is such a mundane thing as property the source of right?

In the 17th-century it was popular to hold a belief in natural law, or universal moral truths that are grounded in human nature. One of the problems with that was the naturalistic fallacy, which is to say, why is nature to be accorded such reverence? We change nature every day, from mines to factories. Meh...no big deal.

Or John Locke, who said rights were "life, liberty and the pursuit of private property," only he meant by property the fruits of our hands, not possessions. Locke was really speaking of Labor...that which we make with our efforts of changing what we find in nature, which we call property. The French spoke of property as oeuvres, or works.

Of course, Karl Marx picked up on that thought, and observed that we no longer make things with a single pair of hands, but with collective hands, so socialism is the proper basis of rights. Do you really want to go there?

Thomas Jefferson gives us a different slant: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, , that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” Locke, without the philosophical debate. Property is only a derivative notion, subsumed under happiness. We don't know what happiness is, but you'll know it when you feel it. It's clear that Jefferson didn't mean bank accounts and expensive cars.

It's a bit off topic, but someday I'd like to hear your justification for holding up property as the basis of rights. It's more likely that power is the basis of rights.

by Guest Mon Apr 10, 2017 5:44 pm

bbeljefe wrote:Rights are concepts. Self defense is action.

When we describe certain actions, we refer to them as rights in order to indicate that the actor is justified in the action he is taking.

There is no contradiction in any of that. It's basic philosophical reasoning from first principles. Specifically, property rights. And since your body is your property, you have the right to defend it from any attacker.

There is no need of others to write that down or even agree with it. It's the foundation of the claim made in the Declaration of Independence that all men have unalienable rights.

So you are basically arguing off concepts to be rights.

So you are contradicting yourself.

Self defense is only an action after the defense has been performed, but "self Defense" is still a concept and comes in many different forms.

So again your belief that nothing needs to be written down means the views you hold or others will be based of your own concept of this belief.

You then have no rights, as nothing can protect you as binding.

by Raggamuffin Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:49 pm

It's been pretty much confirmed that sarin was used in Syria.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/11/turkey-says-sarin-gas-was-used-at-syria-chemical-attack

However, there's still no real proof that Assad was responsible. Tillerson has pretty much implied that ISIS and other terrorists are capable of using chemical weapons, and I assume that includes sarin.

"We do not want the regime's uncontrolled stockpile of chemical weapons to fall into the hands of Isis [so-called Islamic State] or other terrorist groups who could and want to attack the United States or our allies," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39565700

by Original Quill Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:46 pm

I’ve given this thread a bump because sometimes Trump lies take time to play out. Sanctions have been placed upon Russia for invading Ukraine, and these sanctions stand in the way of giving Russia a substantial income. Trump has allegedly received 19.5% of Rosneft Oil, the national Russian Oil company, in a massive charade to run for president, and upon winning, lift the sanctions on Russia. Setting up this transaction has attracted attention.

This has led to a widespread awareness that Trump and Putin are too cozy, and the suspicion that the Trump campaign committed treason in colluding with Russia to throw the presidential election. The FBI has announced that it has an open espionage investigation into ties between Russia and the Trump campaign structure. Both the House and Senate have started investigations into the matter. Round one to the suspicious guys.

Consequently, the challenge for the Trumpsters is to create the appearance that there is discord between Trump and the Russians. Hence the empty gesture of a tomahawk missile drop on Russian backed Syria, somewhere in a cornfield next to an airfield. It was a totally useless show, leading to speculation that it was theatrics for alternative concerns. Look at us…we hate Russians!

A manufactured dispute with North Korea had a similar appearance of rising tensions with Russia. Proof that it was insincere was seen in the fact that a carrier strike force that was supposed to be attending to the problem, was seen on a fluff cruise in the Java Sea, heading south to western Australia, and away from the trouble.

Now, both Trump and his boss, Putin, have announced that the US and Russia are at the lowest level of relations since the cold war. They don’t seem to have any issue. They just have a concern that we understand that Trump and Putin are no longer buddies. What…perhaps to lay the groundwork for saying we need to repair things??

Now, into the back door comes Exxon/Mobil, hat in hand, pleading for the right to pump oil in the Rosneft Oil field in the Kara Sea. Preparation meets opportunity. Who needs to lift sanctions when you can just ask for an exception? But, is Exxon/Mobile pleading poverty? Is their stock dropping? What exactly is at stake that we should alter our geopolitical stance on national muggings?

There are no lowered relations between Russia and the US. The discord is no more focused than the Tomahawk Missiles that landed in the empty lot next door to the Shayrat airfield. The tensions are no hotter than the balmy winds in the Java Sea as the Carl Vinson casually responds to the ‘emergency’ off N. Korea. These theatrics are intended to make you think relations between the US and Russia are bad. That way, someone might come up with the idea that this would be a good time to lift sanctions, as…oh, I don’t know, perhaps a good-will gesture to improve things?

by Sponsored content