UK, France and US join in military strikes on Syria that feel good

Once again we are gong to bomb Syria in response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people. Trump announces that it will be an open-ended commitment. A new war?  To what end?  Last year, in April, we proved that deterrence does not work.  We bombed cornfields beside an airstrip, as a warning.  No result.  They did it again last Saturday, April 7th.

Clearly, deterrence doesn't work.  The military realizes this.  So, this can only be punitive...and Trump says it's "open-ended".  Let's think about this: WE ARE GOING TO WAR, POSSIBLY FOR THE NEXT 15-YEARS, NO DOUBT COMMITTING ANOTHER $17-TRILLION, TO PUNISH BAD GUYS, WHO WON'T BE PUNISHED.  Does that make sense? Russians warn of potential for retaliation; Syria positions its assets close to Russians.

No deterrence.  No punishment.  What can this be all about?  Perhaps EGO's?  Like masturbation...it just feels good!  

BTW, it's clearly illegal.  It's in clear violation of Art. I of the US Constitution.  More impeachment material??

Hmmm. So far, the alliance has bombed sites which are allegedly producing or storing chemical agents. Although I don't suppose that will actually stop any more chemical attacks, or reports of chemical attacks, it won't lead to WW3.

If they go for Assad and his military set up, that will merely prolong the war there as it will encourage the rebels and make Putin even more determined.

Open Letter




Dear Chief Superintendent Rob Jones,

I sincerely hope this finds you well. My name is Richie Allen and I am a journalist based in Manchester. I was wondering if you were aware (you may not be) that as a matter of international law, the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of another State is illegal?International law dictates that force may only be used for the purposes of self defence and within the confines of necessity and proportionality. This prohibition on use of force is one of the norms that lawyers call 'jus cogens' (peremptory norms) and has been codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. International law also prohibits States from acquiring territory through aggression or recognising such acquisitions made by other States. Please don't take my word for it Superintendent, ask any professor of law or international law for help. You are after all surrounded by universities there.

I'm writing to you as a matter of urgency sir, because shortly before 9.30 AM this morning a woman appeared on my television screen. Incredibly, she admitted to an assembly of national and international journalists that she had in fact broken the very laws I outlined above. This staggered me as I am not used to seeing those who perpetrate crimes openly admitting them, let alone in front of a TV audience of millions! In short sir, I would like to report this crime and hope that you treat the matter with some urgency because amazingly, having just admitted her crime, she intimated that she intended to do it again! I am referring of course to the Prime Minister Theresa May who admitted this morning that she instructed the RAF to launch airstrikes against the sovereign state of Syria, a country which has neither attacked, nor threatened to attack the UK. Superintendent, I hardly need to emphasise the seriousness of this flagrant violation of international law and the implications of it for domestic security. I request that you open an immediate investigation, note my allegation that a crime has been committed and furnish me with a crime number as soon as possible.

Sincere Regards,

Richie Allen

Syria air strikes: Were they legal?

The justifications put forward by the US, UK and France for the air strikes in Syria have focused on the need to maintain the international prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, to degrade President Assad's chemical weapons arsenal and to deter further chemical attacks against civilians in Syria.

Prime Minister Theresa May argued that the UK has always stood up for the defence of global rules and standards in the national interest of the UK and of the organised international community as a whole.

Legally, this position returns the world to the era before the advent of the UN Charter. The Charter allows states to use force in self-defence and, arguably, for the protection of populations threatened by extermination at the hands of their own government. The use of force for broader purposes of maintaining international security is also possible. However, such action is subject to the requirement of a mandate from the UN Security Council.

This arrangement tries to balance the need of states to preserve their security in the face of an actual or imminent attack through self-defence when strictly necessary with the need to ensure that force cannot be used as a routine tool of international politics. Hence, international law since 1945 precludes military strikes in retaliation - to teach other states a lesson, as it were - or by way of reprisal. Reprisals are acts that are in principle unlawful, but they can be excused because they aim to force a state back into compliance with its international obligations.

Hence, in 1981 Israel was condemned by the UN Security Council when it attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. Israel had argued that it might contribute to the production of weapons of mass destruction in the future. A US attack against an alleged chemical weapons facility in Sudan in 1998 in response to US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania was also criticised.

In this instance, the three states mounting the air strikes have taken it upon themselves to force Syria into compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria joined the Convention in 2013 as part of the diplomatic settlement that followed the failure of the UK, and the US, to go through with threatened air attacks after gruesome chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta. The Convention prohibits the production, possession and use of chemical weapons. No fewer than 192 states have signed.

Syria was also subjected to additional duties contained in mandatory Security Council resolution 2118, reinforcing these obligations and providing for the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile. In an impressive example of international co-operation, also involving Russia, this was largely achieved a year later, by September 2014.

Russian veto
However, since then, there have been some 40 recorded instances of alleged chemical weapons use in Syria. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has the ability to dispatch fact-finding missions to determine whether such weapons have actually been used.

A special joint mechanism was set up by the OPCW and the Security Council with a mandate to assign responsibility for such uses. However, after the mechanism pointed the finger at the Assad government last year, Russia vetoed its renewal.

An attempt to establish a new mechanism empowered to determine responsibility for the latest use of chemical weapons in Douma failed this week, again due to a Russian veto in the Security Council. Russia's own proposed investigatory mechanism, which was opposed by the Western states and others, would have lacked that power.


The three states intervening in Syria now argue that there was no prospect of obtaining a mandate from the Council to confront chemical weapons use by Syria. In striking Syria, they claim to have fulfilled an international public order function of defending the credibility of the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons in general terms, and enforcing Syria's obligations in particular.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43766556

I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack. 

Or now the west have the capability of jamming their systems, thus rendering the S-400 defense system redundent. If that is the case and based on Israel committing a similar strike recently. Then the Russians, will be very worried their state of the art system, is basically useless to countering attacks. I have a feeling this more than anything could be the case, as why is Russia so silent after this. They showed nerves after the attack by Israel on the Syrian facility and maybe its Israel leading the charge here in being able to thwart the S-400 system. Who knows and I guess we may never find out.

If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

Moscow interested in US cooperation

Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said Moscow had been in touch with the US, UK and France, the RIA news agency reported.

Mr Ryabkov also said in an interview with the Kommersant newspaper that Moscow was interested in cooperation with Washington over Syria.

https://news.sky.com/story/live-us-uk-and-france-launch-strikes-on-syria-11329799

Hence when you call a bullies bluff, they as seen above generally back down.

For idiots like Corbyn, who think like Neville Chamberlain, that they can thwart a world war through appeasement. It shows that idiot has never learnt from history. Where such views led to a world war, because they did nothing to stand up to Hitler until it was too late. A show of force and action has seen Russia under Putin look all mouth and no trousers. He will lose face badly in Russia over this and it proves yet again, most of their threats are bluffs.

Lets hope now, Russia is serious in wanting to work together to not only end the civil war, but also bring Assad before a criminal war crimes tribunal.

Has Theresa May's 'grave' risk in Syria paid off?

The Prime Minister described the decision to send the UK's Armed Forces into conflict as the "gravest" a leader can make.

She will be relieved this morning that the risk appears to have paid off. After six days of planning and soul searching, she gave the order for British jets to fly in a coalition alongside US and French partners. The choice of targets was limited but deliberate. There had been speculation the US might opt for a wave of airstrikes over a series of nights targeting airfields, ammunition stores and aircraft.

In the end, only three chemical weapons facilities were hit - the coalition hopes this will be seen as proportionate by the international community and acceptable to the Kremlin. The calculation was that Russia might not be able to sit on its hands if waves of airstrikes came over night after night.

There were no Russian casualties according to Moscow, and the feared S-400 missile battery at Latakia air base on Syria's west coast stayed silent.

Whether that was a deliberate decision by Putin to avoid a dangerous escalation, or as a result of coalition jamming technology, we might never know. The Pentagon said this was a "one-time hit" and the briefing I'm receiving from the UK end concurs with that. Unless President Assad retaliates in some form, I don't expect further airstrikes tonight.

It's all a very different outcome to the one we were predicting when Donald Trump tweeted that there would be a "big price to pay" and warned Russia that missiles would be coming "nice, and new and smart".

https://news.sky.com/story/has-theresa-mays-grave-risk-in-syria-paid-off-11330033

Didge wrote:I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack. 

Or now the west have the capability of jamming their systems, thus rendering the S-400 defense system redundent. If that is the case and based on Israel committing a similar strike recently. Then the Russians, will be very worried their state of the art system, is basically useless to countering attacks. I have a feeling this more than anything could be the case, as why is Russia so silent after this. They showed nerves after the attack by Israel on the Syrian facility and maybe its Israel leading the charge here in being able to thwart the S-400 system. Who knows and I guess we may never find out.

If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

The Russians had no need to respond or use their vaunted S-400 defense system.  Nothing happened last night.  What the US, Britain and France did, in the words of General Kenneth F. McKenzie, in a press briefing this morning, was bomb 3 buildings and a parking deck.  The president gave many warnings in advance of what was coming.  You can bet the buildings were evacuated and cars were removed from the parking structure by the time the aircraft were launched.

So, this was all a show.  Last year, the US attack on Shayrat Airbase resulted in bombing a cornfield adjacent to the airbase tarmac--we now call it Cornfield 1.0.  Last night's raids by British, French and US aircraft on three buildings and a parking garage will be known as Cornfield 2.0.  It accomplished nothing except an attempt to rehabilitate Trump's reputation--which, incidentally, failed.  Pundits here are already discussing it with suppressed chuckles.

Think of how much money was wasted in a fireworks show last night, and how far that amount of money could go in an efficient healthcare system.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack. 

Or now the west have the capability of jamming their systems, thus rendering the S-400 defense system redundent. If that is the case and based on Israel committing a similar strike recently. Then the Russians, will be very worried their state of the art system, is basically useless to countering attacks. I have a feeling this more than anything could be the case, as why is Russia so silent after this. They showed nerves after the attack by Israel on the Syrian facility and maybe its Israel leading the charge here in being able to thwart the S-400 system. Who knows and I guess we may never find out.

If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

The Russians had no need to respond or use their vaunted S-400 defense system.  Nothing happened last night.  What the US, Britain and France did, in the words of General Kenneth F. McKenzie, in a press briefing this morning, was bomb 3 buildings and a parking deck.  The president gave many warnings in advance of what was coming.  You can bet the buildings were evacuated and cars were removed from the parking structure by the time the aircraft were launched.

So, this was all a show.  Last year, the US attack on Shayrat Airbase resulted in bombing a cornfield adjacent to the airbase tarmac--we now call it Cornfield 1.0.  Last night's raids by British, French and US aircraft on three buildings and a parking garage will be known as Cornfield 2.0.  It accomplished nothing except an attempt to rehabilitate Trump's reputation--which, incidentally, failed.  Pundits here are already discussing it with suppressed chuckles.

Think of how much money was wasted in a fireworks show last night, and how far that amount of money could go in an efficient healthcare system.

#
Come again?

Nothing happened?

How about how wrong you were Quill in that nothing did happen?

Must bust your balls, that actually Trump has more balls than Obama

You know what

As much as Trump is unhinged, thank fuck he acted here against Putin, because Obama was emphatically a pussy

Didge wrote:How about how wrong you were Quill in that nothing did happen?

Must bust your balls, that actually Trump has more balls than Obama

You know what

As much as Trump is unhinged, thank fuck he acted here against Putin, because Obama was emphatically a pussy

Didge, come to your senses.  Trump didn't act against Putin.  He did Putin's bidding.  He chose empty, concrete targets.  He forewarned Putin and Assad by several days that the attacks were coming, allowing them to vacate the buildings and any personnel.  It wasn't retaliation, it was urban renewal.

Plus, it was all a prearranged show.  If those buildings, as alleged, did have chemical weapons in them, exploding them would have been a bigger disaster for the surrounding population than what Assad did.  They were empty shells and everyone was made aware of it.  The Pentagon knew that and would hardly have risked bombing them if they actually housed chemicals.  It was collusion, all over again.

Plus, from the US view, it was illegal.  It wasn't authorized by Congress.  It was not pursuant to the 2001 declaration of war.  And it was not done to protect any US troops in the area to the west.

It was all a harmless fireworks display.  Notice, once again, it's a one-and-done act?  What happened?  Trump had promised "sustaining" action.  Nice show guys, now let's get back to the serious business of testing new military toys.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:How about how wrong you were Quill in that nothing did happen?

Must bust your balls, that actually Trump has more balls than Obama

You know what

As much as Trump is unhinged, thank fuck he acted here against Putin, because Obama was emphatically a pussy

Didge, come to your senses.  Trump didn't act against Putin.  He did Putin's bidding.  He chose empty, concrete targets.  He forewarned Putin and Assad by several days that the attacks were coming, allowing them to vacate the buildings and any personnel.  It wasn't retaliation, it was urban renewal.

Didge wrote:No he has more balls than you know and as seen all you cretins were wrong about him. Even Putin got it wrong and backed the wrong horse in Trump. For Once a President stood up to the Russians and they backed down.

Plus, it was all a prearranged show.  If those buildings, as alleged, did have chemical weapons in them, exploding them would have been a bigger disaster for the surrounding population than what Assad did.  They were empty shells and everyone was made aware of it.  The Pentagon knew that and would hardly have risked bombing them if they actually housed chemicals.  It was collusion, all over again.

Didge wrote:Really? Yeah sure,of course Quill, yeah right Quill, 3 bags full Quill
You all came out with so much crap and as seen Russia is under Putin is all bluff
You went on so much at the s-400 system and what did tha do Quill
Seriously you are as bad as that idiot mouthpice for Putin Tommy
That quisling is such a traitor, he will buy into any crap

Plus, from the US view, it was illegal.  It wasn't authorized by Congress.  It was not pursuant to the 2001 declaration of war.  And it was not done to protect any US troops in the area to the west.

Didge wrote:Wrong and as seen, there is a justifcation legally for the attacks, when Russia has made a veto on just about every single investigation

It was all a harmless fireworks display.  Notice, once again, it's a one-and-done act?  What happened?  Trump had promised "sustaining" action.  Nice show guys, now let's get back to the serious business of testing new military toys.

You are a harmless socialist idiot behind a keyboard, that cannot even have the ability to praise Trump, for doing the right thing aand calling Putins bluff

No go back and answer my points

I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack.

Or now the west have the capability of jamming their systems, thus rendering the S-400 defense system redundent. If that is the case and based on Israel committing a similar strike recently. Then the Russians, will be very worried their state of the art system, is basically useless to countering attacks. I have a feeling this more than anything could be the case, as why is Russia so silent after this. They showed nerves after the attack by Israel on the Syrian facility and maybe its Israel leading the charge here in being able to thwart the S-400 system. Who knows and I guess we may never find out.

If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

Trump didn't act against Putin, he apparently bombed some storage facilities and/or chemical weapon factories in Syria.

Raggamuffin wrote:Trump didn't act against Putin, he apparently bombed some storage facilities and/or chemical weapon factories in Syria.

Rssia threated to hit back on such attacks

Thus Trump, May and Macron called his bluff

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Trump didn't act against Putin, he apparently bombed some storage facilities and/or chemical weapon factories in Syria.

Rssia threated to hit back on such attacks

Thus Trump, May and Macron called his bluff

What did Putin actually say?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Rssia threated to hit back on such attacks

Thus Trump, May and Macron called his bluff

What did Putin actually say?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Didge wrote:I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack.

The Russians were laying low, because they knew Trump was picking creampuff targets and would give Putin a heads-up.  I don’t call in the French and British on this, because the US picked the targets and clearly orchestrated the whole thing.  Trump had the Pentagon select soft targets and then announced them ahead of time, forewarning Putin and Assad.  I told you it was collusion after all.

Didge wrote:If the Russians did not counter the attack. Knowing they could have, with the system. Then to me, Putin is playing a high stake poker game, which has now called his bluff. His hand has been shown and he did nothing. His economy is ten times smaller than the US and he knows, he can never compete with the US military budget. It will never go down the road of a nuke war. Russia, through the appeasement of Obama, became bolder and thought they could do as they please. Now this has been firmly placed into check by this attack and I appluad France, Britain and America for standing up to Putin and Assad, by targeting such chemical facilities.

Putin didn’t need to bother with his S-400 air defense system because he knew the fix was in.

Didge wrote:People need to remember where such appeasement of Hitler led the world into and why I believe, this was a bold step to say no more.

Its seems Putin is all mouth and will continue to resort to devious tactics, like the attempted assassination and interferring with elections. Putin seriously did not predict for someone so unhinged in Trump (who he clearly helped get elected), to then turn on him. Who to garner popularity, will stop at nothing to do so. He thought he had Trump in his pocket. He clearly was wrong.

Putin is the former head of the KGB.  With the breakdown of the Soviet system, and a bunch of drunks in charge, he clawed his way to the top.  Having no visions or ideals, he decided to turn Russia into an organized crime enterprise.

Using his skills in manipulation, he has become an organized crime capo—no other way to put it.  He has managed to recruit and elevate one of his soldiers, Donald Trump, to a caporegime, or captain, and place him in the highest of places.  With such successes, you can hardly call Putin feckless.

Putin is the ringmaster of all of this.  He is the original archetect, and he knows he would never be threatened by Trump.  Hence, he didn’t even turn on his fearsome S-400 air defense system.  Trump had the Pentagon offer soft targets, he organized the raid and telegraphed which targets they were, and Putin and Assad simply removed all personnel, if the targets were not empty already.

You don’t pick targets that will do more harm to your side than the other guys.  If these buildings were at all related to the chemicals, you can bet that the US made sure they were empty—how would it look if we, in the very act of protesting chemical weapons, were to blow up a chemical storage or manufacturing facility, killing even more civilians??  Ask yourself: how did we accomplish removing the chemicals and personnel without collusion?

That’s why Trump was being so loud about it. He was signaling not only Putin, but Assad, what was coming, and when it was coming.  You’re missing some of the most obvious clues.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I will say one thing. Clearly either the Russians did not react to the multiple attacks with their S-400 defense system and like I proved. Their show of force and counter threats is a bluff game. Which if yes, they then backed down to an actually counter the attack.

The Russians were laying low, because they knew Trump was picking creampuff targets and would give a headsup.  I don’t call in the French and British on this, because the US picked the targets.  Trump had the Pentagon select soft targets and then announced them ahead of time, forewarning Putin and Assad.  I mentioned it was collusion after all.

Didge wrote:Hearsay

Again the British and French acted, as the French had evidence
The reality is, you cannot stomach the fact, that Trump for once did the right thing here and targeted chemical wepaons facilities. He is still very much unhinged and an idiot. Its something that even Putin could not predict and to his cost. He thought he could control Trump and he simple cannot. Its worrying that Trump is more unpredictable as Putin, but here, he actually did the right thing

He stood up to Putin. Who is to say whether his S-400 worked or not. What is clear, is that Putin did not and has not backed up their threats. I never thought they would. As

Putin didn’t need to bother with his S-400 air defense system because he knew the fix was in.

Didge wrote:What?


Is that why he never followed through with his threats?

Putin is the former head of the KGB.  With the breakdown of the Soviet system, and a bunch of drunks in charge, he clawed his way to the top.  Having no visions or ideals, he decided to turn Russia into an organized crime enterprise.

I know Putin is a criminal, hence my point

The point you continually miss, is his game of bluff was called and now we see that he is backing down

This never happened with Obama, because he appeased him

Now we see Putin's creation, turn against him. Its Putin's biggest mistake so far

So its you missing the point here entirely

Didge wrote:The point you continually miss, is his game of bluff was called and now we see that he is backing down

Putin's bluff was not even in play.  Putin owns Donald Trump and he knew there was no threat.  The game was collusion, and Putin knew he had blunted the threat before it was born.

The biggest problem, shared by both Putin and Trump, was how to put on a good show and convince the people of the world that there was real animosity between them, and the fireworks were real as well.

Politics is about appearances.  The biggest threat to Trump right now is that he appears too cozy with Russia and Putin.  The threat to Putin is that he won't win in Syria and gain a path for his oil to the Mediterranean.

So, stage the animosity...make Trump look like he's tough on Russia--and btw, meaner than Obama--while Russia quietly wins in Syria and gets the oil ports.  Putin is an artist at these games...it's what he has done all his life.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The point you continually miss, is his game of bluff was called and now we see that he is backing down

Putin's bluff was not even in play.  Putin owns Donald Trump and he knew there was no threat.  The game was collusion, and Putin knew he had blunted the threat before it was born.

If he owns him, how did he not stop him carrying out these attacks or have him stop Britain or France?

You need to see past your hate for a minute here

Trump is unhinged and an idiot. That is undeniable, Putin helped elect him and thought he could control him, but did not factor in the massive ego that Trump has. Its what is making him turn on Putin and now use this to capitalize on showing himself in a good light to the West.

Putin is all bluff and bluster. I mean the very fact he did not counter this attack or the recent one with Israel, shows he is all mouth and no trousers.

Many of the alt-right, see Putin, as some modern Richard the Lionheart, when in reality, he is more like Richard II.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Putin's bluff was not even in play.  Putin owns Donald Trump and he knew there was no threat.  The game was collusion, and Putin knew he had blunted the threat before it was born.

If he owns him, how did he not stop him carrying out these attacks or have him stop Britain or France?

The attacks were a stage show.  Putin has owned Trump by kompromat, since 2010, when he bought up Trump's debt to Deutsche Bank.  The pee-films are a humorous sideshow, by which Putin leverages Trump's own wife.  Putin wanted the attacks...they would create the appearance that there was animosity, thus blunting the argument that Trump was too cozy with the Russians.

Didge wrote:You need to see past your hate for a minute here

Trump is unhinged and an idiot. That is undeniable, Putin helped elect him and thought he could control him, but did not factor in the massive ego that Trump has. Its what is making him turn on Putin and now use this to capitalize on showing himself in a good light to the West.

You think Trump is turning on Putin?  That's what Putin wants you to think.  He needs to discredit the appearance that Trump is doing his bidding.  Then Congress will ease up on Trump and give him greater leeway to play with the sanctions generally.  When no one is looking, Trump will loosen the restrictions on Russian oil and certain oligarchs crucial to setting up markets.

Didge wrote:Putin is all bluff and bluster. I mean the very fact he did not counter this attack or the recent one with Israel, shows he is all mouth and no trousers.

Many of the alt-right, see Putin, as some modern Richard the Lionheart, when in reality, he is more like Richard II.

Keep thinking that Putin is weak.  That's what he wants the world to think.  It makes him appear more vulnerable and bolsters Trump's power.  Then, Trump, who is still in his pocket, will be given the license to relax sanctions, and bingo!

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

If he owns him, how did he not stop him carrying out these attacks or have him stop Britain or France?

The attacks were a stage show.  Putin has owned Trump by kompromat, since 2010, when he bought up Trump's debt to Deutsche Bank.  The pee-films are a humorous sideshow, by which Putin leverages Trump's own wife.  Putin wanted the attacks...they would create the appearance that there was animosity, thus blunting the argument that Trump was too cozy with the Russians.

Didge wrote:The above is so ridiculous, its borders on conspiracy bullshit

So now according to Peter Pan (aka Quill). Putin ordered Trump to strike Syria and then do nothing, to ensure he himself looked an idiot and lost face.

Come again?

On what fantasy creeation you have invented, does that even make any sense?

You think Trump is turning on Putin?  That's what Putin wants you to think.  He needs to discredit the appearance that Trump is doing his bidding.  Then Congress will ease up on Trump and give him greater leeway to play with the sanctions generally.  When no one is looking, Trump will loosen the restrictions on Russian oil and certain oligarchs crucial to setting up markets.

Didge wrote:Yes i do think he is turning on Putin, for one simple reason. Trump thinks he is untouchable. It is what happens to those who are created and let off the leash to run amuck.

Keep thinking that Putin is weak.  That's what he wants the world to think.  It makes him appear more vulnerable and bolsters Trump's power.  Then, Trump, who is still in his pocket, will be given the license to relax sanctions, and bingo!

Never claimed Putin is weak, just all mouth and no trousers. What I find ironic, is how Obama, made for Putin to think he could control the world. This shows Obama, was an appeaser and yet at the same time. It allowed Putin to think he could control the world through manipulation. By ensuring he elected Trump.

Its now backfired on him

Didge wrote:Never claimed Putin is weak, just all mouth and no trousers. What I find ironic, is how Obama, made for Putin to think he could control the world. This shows Obama, was an appeaser and yet at the same time. It allowed Putin to think he could control the world through manipulation. By ensuring he elected Trump.

Its now backfired on him

Obama kept Putin at arms length.  Putin didn't have him like he has Trump.

Here's the backstory: Trump was being sued by Deutsche Bank for $645-million that he had guaranteed for the building of Trump Tower Chicago.  Someone from the Moscow branch-privileged client division of Deutsche Bank bought Trump's debenture and we think we know who that was.  Deutsche Bank released Trump from all debt and dismissed the lawsuit completely in 2010.  Ever since then Trump has been kissing Putin's ass.

Obama had no dealings with Putin because Putin couldn't get to him.  There was only mutual antipathy.  Indeed, it may be because of Obama that Putin hatched the idea of cultivating Trump.

The collusion began long ago, and fixing the election was only the latest gambit.  Putin recognized he had to get inside the US, and exploiting the Republican predilection for divisiveness was the key.  Trump was his tool...and by god it worked.  You've watched the rest of the story right before your very eyes.

Trump is his puppet.  Interpret all things with that in mind...it's the key.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Never claimed Putin is weak, just all mouth and no trousers. What I find ironic, is how Obama, made for Putin to think he could control the world. This shows Obama, was an appeaser and yet at the same time. It allowed Putin to think he could control the world through manipulation. By ensuring he elected Trump.

Its now backfired on him

Obama kept Putin at arms length.  Putin didn't have him like he has Trump.

.

To claim that shows how deluded you really are and failing to understand how we are at the mess point we are in

Its because of Obama's appeasement to how we are at the point we are now in

If he had of acted when he could of, Assad would not even be around to deal with

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What did Putin actually say?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

You don't know what he actually said then.

Why would Putin need to stop the US or anyone else blowing up some chemical storage buildings? It's not threatening him or his forces, or the Syrian forces. It's not going to alter the course of the war. Even if chemicals were destroyed, I doubt he would care anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

You don't know what he actually said then.

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't know what he actually said then.

Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear

Your whole argument is based on what he said, and you don't know what he actually said.

I think that Quill won this debate.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Round and round the garden, like a teddy bear

Your whole argument is based on what he said, and you don't know what he actually said.

I think that Quill won this debate.

Jack and Jill Went up the hill. To fetch a pail of water.

If U.S. attacks Syria, Russia threatens to shoot down missiles, target launch sites

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/if-u-s-attacks-syria-russia-threatens-to-shoot-down-missiles-target-launch-sites

Yes, but what did Putin actually say?

Raggamuffin wrote:Yes, but what did Putin actually say?

Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star

I'm a little confused about this. If Missiles hit Chemical production sites would that not release the Chemicals into the air?

I'm also confused about a video showing children being doused with water , they were not crying before hand. Ifyou douse a child with cold water they will cry. A man shoved something in a childs mouth, she was not crying before ! Children were being roughly treated, not surprised they were crying ! I have doubts.

nicko wrote:I'm also confused about a video showing children being doused with water , they were not crying before hand.   Ifyou douse a child with cold water they will cry.  A man shoved something in a childs mouth, she was not crying before !  Children were being roughly treated, not surprised they were crying ! I have doubts.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/emergency/chemical_terrorism/chlorine_general.htm

nicko wrote:I'm a little confused about this. If Missiles hit Chemical production sites would that not release the Chemicals into the air?

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19804988/how-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons/

nicko wrote:I'm also confused about a video showing children being doused with water , they were not crying before hand.   Ifyou douse a child with cold water they will cry.  A man shoved something in a childs mouth, she was not crying before !  Children were being roughly treated, not surprised they were crying ! I have doubts.

Hi, nicko

putin has many interests in syria and also has military bases I think (not sure). You are right though. To have bombed a chemical factory would have caused untold damage. (They gave plenty of warning and made sure they hit empty targets) The kids were fine. No one got injured and people were out dancing in the streets of Damascas and waving syrian flags when the sun came up

As quill has rightly said, this is just a little charade between them all to give to the rest of the world

why? I'm not entirely sure

https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/sarin/basics/facts.asp

gelico wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm also confused about a video showing children being doused with water , they were not crying before hand.   Ifyou douse a child with cold water they will cry.  A man shoved something in a childs mouth, she was not crying before !  Children were being roughly treated, not surprised they were crying ! I have doubts.

Hi, nicko

putin has many interests in syria and also has military bases I think (not sure).  You are right though.  To have bombed a chemical factory would have caused untold damage.  (They gave plenty of warning and made sure they hit empty targets)  The kids were fine.  No one got injured and people were out dancing in the streets of Damascas and waving syrian flags when the sun came up

As quill has rightly said,  this is just a little charade between them all to give to the rest of the world

why?  I'm not entirely sure

Wow, the mouthpiece of Putin speaks again

They destroyed 3 chemical weapons facilities

Thank goodness nobody was hurt, but the facilities have been taken out

This reduces the capabilities of Assad using tuch weapons

For you to call it a charade, shows you have not a fucking clue

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


Hi, nicko

putin has many interests in syria and also has military bases I think (not sure).  You are right though.  To have bombed a chemical factory would have caused untold damage.  (They gave plenty of warning and made sure they hit empty targets)  The kids were fine.  No one got injured and people were out dancing in the streets of Damascas and waving syrian flags when the sun came up

As quill has rightly said,  this is just a little charade between them all to give to the rest of the world

why?  I'm not entirely sure

Wow, the mouthpiece of Putin speaks again

They destroyed 3 chemical weapons facilities

Thank goodness nobody was hurt, but the facilities have been taken out

This reduces the capabilities of Assad using tuch weapons

For you to call it a charade, shows you have not a fucking clue

You should change your name to "Thread Killer". In thread after thread you try to brow beat people and insult them.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow, the mouthpiece of Putin speaks again

They destroyed 3 chemical weapons facilities

Thank goodness nobody was hurt, but the facilities have been taken out

This reduces the capabilities of Assad using tuch weapons

For you to call it a charade, shows you have not a fucking clue

You should change your name to "Thread Killer".    In thread after thread you try to brow beat people and insult them.    

you gonna start him off all over again?

he's funny when he loses it

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wow, the mouthpiece of Putin speaks again

They destroyed 3 chemical weapons facilities

Thank goodness nobody was hurt, but the facilities have been taken out

This reduces the capabilities of Assad using tuch weapons

For you to call it a charade, shows you have not a fucking clue

You should change your name to "Thread Killer".    In thread after thread you try to brow beat people and insult them.    

Hilarious, claiming I am thread killing by continuing a spat

Dont you look a fuckwit

nicko wrote:I'm a little confused about this. If Missiles hit Chemical production sites would that not release the Chemicals into the air?

You are right, nicko. This is one of the most crucial points. If the coalition (US, Britain and France) was trying to punish, retaliate or discourage use of chemicals, why would they want to, effectively, release chemicals themselves? Bombing any facility associated with the chemicals would release the chemicals, further killing and maiming the children. I can't imagine the Pentagon would ever authorize or allow that.

I have a feeling that identifying such facilities was another of Trump's lies. Trump is sensitive to the claim that his last strike was ineffective and feckless (and that he wanted to kiss Putin's ass). To say he bombed the chemical facilities themselves allowed him to claim that it was an escalation and indeed this strategy was more direct: instead of cornfields, he struck at the heart of the evil.

Trump wouldn't bat an eyelash at killing children himself, so he wouldn't be sensitive to this very flaw in his argument: targeting such facilities would result in killing children. Consequently, the WH being short-staffed, he put it out that he went directly after the more offensive targets. But others, particularly in the Pentagon, would be highly sensitive to the criticisms of collateral damage (children)--people in the Pentagon have been answering such charges for years--so they would never proffer chemicals as targets.

I think you just identified the flaw.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I'm a little confused about this. If Missiles hit Chemical production sites would that not release the Chemicals into the air?

You are right, nicko.  This is one of the most crucial points.  If the coalition (US, Britain and France) was trying to punish, retaliate or discourage use of chemicals, why would they want to, effectively, release chemicals themselves?  Bombing any facility associated with the chemicals would release the chemicals, further killing and maiming the children.  I can't imagine the Pentagon would ever authorize or allow that.

Proving you have no understanding of chemical weapons

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19804988/how-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons/

So how about you educate yourself on this first before making false and fake news on this website?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are right, nicko.  This is one of the most crucial points.  If the coalition (US, Britain and France) was trying to punish, retaliate or discourage use of chemicals, why would they want to, effectively, release chemicals themselves?  Bombing any facility associated with the chemicals would release the chemicals, further killing and maiming the children.  I can't imagine the Pentagon would ever authorize or allow that.

Proving you have no understanding of chemical weapons

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19804988/how-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons/

So how about you educate yourself on this first before making false and fake news on this website?

Yes, I read your article before I wrote the above, as it seemed to go the very heart of the question. Unfortunately, it concludes:

Popular Mechanics wrote:Even these agent defeat weapons are not a silver bullet for destroying chemical weapons. In fact, it may take many strikes to get the job done. But if they can help prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians, it’s an option worth taking seriously.

Many strikes! Did you get that? How many strikes has the coalition made in this effort? Only one. It appears that they were not worried about chemicals, because they knew they were just bombing empty concrete buildings.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Proving you have no understanding of chemical weapons

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19804988/how-to-destroy-syrias-chemical-weapons/

So how about you educate yourself on this first before making false and fake news on this website?

Yes, I read your article before I wrote the above, as it seemed to go the very heart of the question.  Unfortunately, it concludes:

Popular Mechanics wrote:Even these agent defeat weapons are not a silver bullet for destroying chemical weapons. In fact, it may take many strikes to get the job done. But if they can help prevent the deaths of more innocent civilians, it’s an option worth taking seriously.

Many strikes!  Did you get that?  How many strikes has the coalition made in this effort?  Only one.  It appears that they were not worried about chemicals, because they knew they were just bombing empty concrete buildings.

I got that very much, but did you miss all the other evidence or just cherry pick that one sentence?

Also on top of that, has there been any chemical fallout since the attack to back your bullshit?

No

It was multiple missiles, 85 in total. It appears they were worried and why there has been zero casulties

Anything else Putin?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/43772061/syria-air-strikes-why-now-and-will-they-work

Warship Ruse and New Stealth Missiles: How the U.S. and Allies Attacked Syria.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-14/warship-ruse-and-new-stealth-missiles-how-they-attacked-syria

I told you Quill, never to place faith in the S-400

The west seriously has rendered this redundent

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I read your article before I wrote the above, as it seemed to go the very heart of the question.  Unfortunately, it concludes:



Many strikes!  Did you get that?  How many strikes has the coalition made in this effort?  Only one.  It appears that they were not worried about chemicals, because they knew they were just bombing empty concrete buildings.

I got that very much, but did you miss all the other evidence or just cherry pick that one sentence?

Also on top of that, has there been any chemical fallout since the attack to back your bullshit?

No

It was multiple missiles, 85 in total. It appears they were worried and why there has been zero casulties

Anything else Putin?

Didge, there's no claim by the WH that they even used nerve agent-defeat bombs.  It's an article in Popular Mechanics.  If they used nerve agent-defeat bombs, wouldn't the White House and Pentagon want to advertise that?  Yet, it didn't occur to them to be concerned.

Once again, they appear not even to be cognizant of the issue.  If they have such little concern, that fact alone shows they knew there was nothing to be concerned about!

I repeat, if they were bombing empty concrete buildings, they might be sloppy and forget about the issue...especially in this chaotic White House.  All indications are they were not taking any precautions, and that in turn suggests that they had nothing to be concerned about because they were not bombing chemical weapons facilities.

Your raising the issue via an article in Popular Mechanics notwithstanding.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I got that very much, but did you miss all the other evidence or just cherry pick that one sentence?

Also on top of that, has there been any chemical fallout since the attack to back your bullshit?

No

It was multiple missiles, 85 in total. It appears they were worried and why there has been zero casulties

Anything else Putin?

Didge, there's no claim by the WH that they even used nerve agent-defeat bombs.  It's an article in Popular Mechanics.  If they used nerve agent-defeat bombs, wouldn't the White House and Pentagon want to advertise that?  Yet, it didn't occur to them to be concerned.

Once again, they appear not even to be cognizant of the issue.  If they have such little concern, that fact alone shows they knew there was nothing to be concerned about!

I repeat, if they were bombing empty concrete buildings, they might be sloppy and forget about the issue...especially in this chaotic White House.  All indications are they were not taking any precautions, and that in turn suggests that they had nothing to be concerned about because they were not bombing chemical weapons facilities.

Your raising the issue via an article in Popular Mechanics notwithstanding.

Simple question

Where is the casulties from 85 missiles?

To then claim they did not use certain weapons, when you have no idea, reeks of desperation on your part, as again, how many casulaties?

You simple are spouting horseshit and now defending the line of Putin

Who do you support?

Your own nation, even under Trump or Putin?

Its time you picked sides, as at least Trump is doing something that Obama, never did

It took over 100 missiles to bomb three buildings? That doesn't sound very efficient.