Intel Professionals: Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation

[revelarts]

Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation<time class="published" datetime="2017-04-11" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;">April 11, 2017</time>

<footer class="entry-footer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(104, 104, 104); font-family: Montserrat, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.6153846154; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Posted on <time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2017-04-11T06:26:10+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">April 11, 2017</time> (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/04/11/intel-professionals-trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation/)</footer>Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.

4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?

5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the US Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria’s CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the UN inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The UN inspectors’ findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia’s leaders cannot be overstated.

6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said: “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.”

Détente Nipped in the Bud

7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.

8 – With Moscow’s cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. US Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.

9 – On Sept. 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented: “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, “after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned, “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

11 – On Oct. 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses “will not have time to identify the origin” of the aircraft.

12 – On Oct. 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results,” and complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.” Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from “growing trust” to “absolute mistrust.” To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.

14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.

15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.
A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.
We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)


Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

[Gunny]

How many broken records you think we need on this? Not to mention .... go ask mama for your meds. It's for OUR sanity.

[Drummond]

Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation

<time class="published" datetime="2017-04-11" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;">April 11, 2017</time>
<footer class="entry-footer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(104, 104, 104); font-family: Montserrat, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.6153846154; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Posted on <time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2017-04-11T06:26:10+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">April 11, 2017</time> (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/04/11/intel-professionals-trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation/)</footer>Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.

4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?

5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the US Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria’s CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the UN inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The UN inspectors’ findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia’s leaders cannot be overstated.

6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said: “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.”

Détente Nipped in the Bud

7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.

8 – With Moscow’s cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. US Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.

9 – On Sept. 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented: “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, “after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned, “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

11 – On Oct. 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses “will not have time to identify the origin” of the aircraft.

12 – On Oct. 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results,” and complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.” Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from “growing trust” to “absolute mistrust.” To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.

14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.

15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.
A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.
We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)


Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat





There's a limit to how much you can turn the other cheek, when the aggressor involved will increasingly see that as weakness.

Obama set his 'red line'. When it was breached, he did .. nothing.

Now, Trump has been tested. He's proven to be made of sterner stuff than his predecessor, something Assad no doubt didn't believe.

He now knows better, of course.

However .. he does have Russia on his side, so clearly thinks he can wait all of this out, before trying another atrocity.

Talk such as the above, ultimately, ENCOURAGES an aggressor. I say: once a red line is drawn, its violation has to be acted upon.

America, certainly from a British point of view, was 'late' in getting involved in WWII ... by 1940 the UK was fighting for its survival. We did what had to be done, WHEN it had to be done. Imagine a Third Reich that had never been seriously challenged .. what world would we live in now ?

Assad's Syria is part of the wider Arab world. Weakness shown in that part of the world WILL be turned into propaganda material for the so-called 'extremists' in the area, and this WILL rebound on the West.

That's quite apart from the fact that Iraq's gassing of the Kurds, now Assad's gassing of a part of his own territory where the guilty AND the innocent alike were killed or suffered .. are atrocities which the civilised world should never tolerate.

I can't speak (.. meritoriously ..) for Russia. But we are supposed to be better than that !!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation<time class="published" datetime="2017-04-11" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;">April 11, 2017</time>

<footer class="entry-footer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(104, 104, 104); font-family: Montserrat, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.6153846154; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Posted on <time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2017-04-11T06:26:10+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">April 11, 2017</time> (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/04/11/intel-professionals-trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation/)</footer>Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?

1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.

2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.

4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?

5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the US Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria’s CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the UN inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The UN inspectors’ findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia’s leaders cannot be overstated.

6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said: “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.”

Détente Nipped in the Bud

7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.

8 – With Moscow’s cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. US Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.

9 – On Sept. 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented: “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, “after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”

10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned, “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”

11 – On Oct. 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses “will not have time to identify the origin” of the aircraft.

12 – On Oct. 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results,” and complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.” Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”

13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from “growing trust” to “absolute mistrust.” To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.

14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.

15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.
A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.
We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos)


Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat







7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.


GOOD NEWS FOR TERRORISTS!!! And just why would we rush to do that???
Trump made a mistake, plain and simple..
Still nobody has presented evidence that Assad forces used chem attack..
being that conjecture and convenient lies by parties interested in deposing Assad and causing a major rift between Trump and Putin
seems to be the far more likely reality, IMHO..
I ASK AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE DAMN RUSH!!?????????
I plant my lance firmly in the ground on this one..
Show us reliable, concrete proof of guilt ... nobody has yet.... hmmmmmmm-Tyr

[Drummond]

GOOD NEWS FOR TERRORISTS!!! And just why would we rush to do that???
Trump made a mistake, plain and simple..
Still nobody has presented evidence that Assad forces used chem attack..
being that conjecture and convenient lies by parties interested in deposing Assad and causing a major rift between Trump and Putin
seems to be the far more likely reality, IMHO..
I ASK AGAIN, WHAT WAS THE DAMN RUSH!!?????????
I plant my lance firmly in the ground on this one..
Show us reliable, concrete proof of guilt ... nobody has yet.... hmmmmmmm-Tyr

Tyr, granted, the 'proof' that Assad is responsible isn't absolutely confirmed. Another possibility (though I'm inclined to doubt it) is that Russia launched that chemical attack itself.

... the fact is, though, that SOMEBODY did.

See this ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/w...pgtype=article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-account-syria-chemical-attack.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article)


There is no independent evidence that a chemical weapons facility existed in that area. Several witnesses who described the early morning attack said a second airstrike hit a clinic treating victims.

Also, if a chemical weapons facility had been hit, the resulting explosion would most likely have caused the chemical to burn up, international weapons experts say. And a nerve agent like sarin is not likely to be stored in its active form in such a facility, and its components would need to be mixed to be lethal.
I've already posted on this, repeatedly .. our British experts agree with the above assessment. An airstrike which merely bombed any storage facility, destroying it, would've ALSO destroyed whatever Sarin was stored there. Therefore, nobody would've suffered the symptoms, nobody would've died, from DESTROYED Sarin !

But, we know that deaths and injuries came out of Sarin poisoning (symptoms displayed were uniformly consistent with Sarin). The chemical was there, it was active, it did what it was designed to do. The only way of explaining that is to accept that a WMD attack was launched from the air.

Tyr, you know me. I've no sympathy for terrorists .. I'm happy to see them as ripe for extermination, as the subhuman savages they are. Nonetheless .. this attack was indiscriminate, in that it was equally effective against guilty and innocent alike.

The same - the VERY same - can be said for another form of attack ... a TERRORIST one. Terrorists kill and maim, and they do not conduct a census beforehand to find out who'll be in the target area. They just attack.

This is also what Assad did.

What world leaders, past and present, do we look upon with disgust, because of their treatment of their own people, and others ? Do we say that Hitler should've been left alone ? Does Stalin deserve immunity from a harsh historical indictment of his atrocities ? Pol Pot, Mao, and other such monsters, likewise ? How about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds ?

So why does ASSAD get a free pass, all of a sudden ? And where will the line ultimately be drawn, when we say 'thus far, and no further' ?

What happens if we reach the point, morally speaking, where we can no longer credibly draw ANY such line ?

[aboutime]

rev. Why on Earth do you bother coming here to always spout the negatives, and the unspoken hatred you seem to have for anything Trump, or the Republicans.

Negative news is like a Frown....it always takes more muscles to frown, than Smile with GOOD news for a change.???

You'd really be in trouble, and totally miserable if you couldn't bring BAD, NEGATIVES here.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, granted, the 'proof' that Assad is responsible isn't absolutely confirmed. Another possibility (though I'm inclined to doubt it) is that Russia launched that chemical attack itself.

... the fact is, though, that SOMEBODY did.

See this ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/w...pgtype=article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/russia-account-syria-chemical-attack.html?action=click&contentCollection=Middle%20East&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article)


I've already posted on this, repeatedly .. our British experts agree with the above assessment. An airstrike which merely bombed any storage facility, destroying it, would've ALSO destroyed whatever Sarin was stored there. Therefore, nobody would've suffered the symptoms, nobody would've died, from DESTROYED Sarin !

But, we know that deaths and injuries came out of Sarin poisoning (symptoms displayed were uniformly consistent with Sarin). The chemical was there, it was active, it did what it was designed to do. The only way of explaining that is to accept that a WMD attack was launched from the air.

Tyr, you know me. I've no sympathy for terrorists .. I'm happy to see them as ripe for extermination, as the subhuman savages they are. Nonetheless .. this attack was indiscriminate, in that it was equally effective against guilty and innocent alike.

The same - the VERY same - can be said for another form of attack ... a TERRORIST one. Terrorists kill and maim, and they do not conduct a census beforehand to find out who'll be in the target area. They just attack.

This is also what Assad did.

What world leaders, past and present, do we look upon with disgust, because of their treatment of their own people, and others ? Do we say that Hitler should've been left alone ? Does Stalin deserve immunity from a harsh historical indictment of his atrocities ? Pol Pot, Mao, and other such monsters, likewise ? How about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds ?

So why does ASSAD get a free pass, all of a sudden ? And where will the line ultimately be drawn, when we say 'thus far, and no further' ?

What happens if we reach the point, morally speaking, where we can no longer credibly draw ANY such line ?
I have not maintained that it was an airstrike upon a facility that caused those deaths. I have stated it was a deliberate false flag attack , that clearly only profited one party= the muslim terrorists attackers=ISIS...
NOT ONE THING ABOUT THIS ATTACK SHOWS HOW IT WOULD PROFIT ASSAD OR HIS MILITARY FORCES.
Think back to the repeated pattern of false flag attacks staged by the muslim slime, blaming Israel.
This is what they often do to garner international support my friend..
I'd bet a C-note against a twenty spot this is such a CLEVER AND NOW HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL STAGED EVENT..
SURE THEY USED REAL GAS, BUT ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT ISIS- took much territory and facilities not just in Syria but in other areas of conflict.
This shows all the earmarks of such a staged event
Why would Assad used chem attack against civilian and but not the ISIS forces?
Sorry but to me too damn much does not add up to it being Assad..
His forces were winning big, so why suddenly do this and get world condemnation and sanctions leveled against him?
I do not buy it , which is why I have never been scammed in my life, a long life once around very many criminal minded people.-Tyr

[revelarts]

2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8c2MOjbiY

rebels used gas not Assad.

the U.S Gov't say one thing and investigations on theses issues regularly find another story.

aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile chem factories, WMDS!!!
incubator babies!!!
Fool me once.... fool me twice

[jimnyc]

I just spent about 45 mins or so on that website, some good reading there. My only issue would be - why would I expect them to have better intel on things, than those that are currently working in those agencies? They all appear to be from former agencies and all seem reasonable, and the letters I all read were mostly reasonable. But it's always easy to question things after the fact and be a monday morning QB. And while these folks look like they seriously know what they're talking about - it doesn't mean necessarily that those currently employed are seeing something different with their intel.

With Syria, there was 2013, and of course this past month. With the recent one, I would LOVE for our agencies to come 100% clean and give bonafide proof to all of us, of what they know and saw that merited action. But we know they won't for security reasons. But there ARE times that I would like to see things, even if redacted portions of video or radio or whatever, that lays things to rest.

[jimnyc]

2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-8c2MOjbiY

rebels used gas not Assad.

the U.S Gov't say one thing and investigations on theses issues regularly find another story.

aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile chem factories, WMDS!!!
incubator babies!!!
Fool me once.... fool me twice

Oh, I just realized that this was in reference to 2013.... Either one, but more so the recent, I don't think folks speaking is enough proof, even if they have 200 years of experience. For things like this, I think there needs to be solid proof. Now, that doesn't always mean that such proof/intel gets to be broadcast on the nightly news. But I think it should in instances.

[revelarts]

I just spent about 45 mins or so on that website, some good reading there. My only issue would be - why would I expect them to have better intel on things, than those that are currently working in those agencies? They all appear to be from former agencies and all seem reasonable, and the letters I all read were mostly reasonable. But it's always easy to question things after the fact and be a monday morning QB. And while these folks look like they seriously know what they're talking about - it doesn't mean necessarily that those currently employed are seeing something different with their intel.



Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation

<time class="published" datetime="2017-04-11" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word;">April 11, 2017</time>
<footer class="entry-footer" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; color: rgb(104, 104, 104); font-family: Montserrat, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif; font-size: 0.8125rem; line-height: 1.6153846154; margin-bottom: 1.5em;">Two dozen ex-U.S. intelligence officials urge President Trump to rethink his claims blaming the Syrian government for the chemical deaths in Idlib and to pull back from his dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Posted on <time class="entry-date published updated" datetime="2017-04-11T06:26:10+00:00" style="box-sizing: inherit;">April 11, 2017 (https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/04/11/intel-professionals-trump-should-rethink-syria-escalation/)</time>....</footer>2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.

..
15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.

No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.



They ARE talking to people currently employed on the ground in Syria are seeing something different... FROM WHAT social media and the MSM is saying.

So at best, exactly like with Iraq, you have 2 groups WITHEN the current gov't that have different sets of analysis AT THIS POINT early on in the gathering of intel.

They aren't Guessing based on what they did years ago. They are TODAY in contact with people working in the various branches of gov't. And just like REPORTERS have inside contacts and get leaks these vets have FRIENDS and people that used to work FOR THEM that TODAY tell them what's up if they ask.

[Balu]

(To Special attention of the half-educated-experts of this board - Look how REAL rescuers MUST look like in chemical, biological and radioactive contaminated areas and compare it with the pictures from Idlib)

Putin says chemical weapons incident in Syria’s Idlib could be a provocation

Russian Politics & Diplomacy (http://tass.com/politics)
April 12, 12:38 UTC+3
The Russian president has urged the West to check information about the chemical attack thoroughly


https://phototass4.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170412/1166055.jpg
© AP Photo

MOSCOW, April 12. /TASS/. Syrian warplanes’ strike on a terrorists’ underground production facility storing chemical agents or simply "an orchestrated event" and a provocation are among the main versions of the chemical incident in the Syrian province of Idlib, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
The versions

"Several versions are possible in this regard. I consider the two of them as the basic versions," Putin said in an interview with Mir interstate television channel.
Read also
https://cdn2.tass.ru/width/333_3412a45b/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170412/1166009.jpg (http://tass.com/world/940823)

No evidence of chemical weapons use by Syrian troops — Putin (http://tass.com/world/940823)

According to the president, the first version is that "the Syrian aircraft hit an underground workshop [of terrorists] for the production of chemical warfare agents."
"This is quite possible because militants used them extensively and no one disputes that, including, by the way, their use in Iraq against the international coalition and the Iraqi army," Putin said, noting to mention that this was registered "but no one is trying to notice this and there is no one there who is causing an uproar on this issue, although all have agreed that the militants used chemical agents."
"This means that they possess them and, considering that they [chemical agents] are present there, then why can they not be present in Syria? This is one and the same gang," the Russian president said.
"And the second version is that this is simply an orchestrated event, that is, a provocation. This was done on purpose to cause an uproar and create pre-requisites, a pretext for exerting additional pressure on the legitimate Syrian authorities," Putin said.
Read also
https://phototass1.cdnvideo.ru/width/333_3412a45b/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170411/1165980.jpg (http://tass.com/defense/940748)
Russia’s General Staff believes Syrian army has no reasons to use chemical weapons (http://tass.com/defense/940748)



"Without a check, we do not consider it possible to take any steps aimed against official Syrian authorities," Putin said.
As Putin said, he already presumed earlier that the incident in Idlib was a provocation "but I didn’t say by whom it was organized as several versions are possible."
"But this event has to be thoroughly investigated to give a final answer. There is no other way out. And this is what we are proposing to do," the Russian president said.
Thorough investigation

As the Russian president said, enormous work was previously done on the initiative of Russia and the United States to liquidate chemical weapons possessed by the Syrian authorities.
"And they fulfilled all their work and all of their obligations, as far as we know. And this was confirmed by the relevant specialized organization in the UN. And if any doubts have emerged, this check can be carried out," Putin said.
Read also
https://phototass4.cdnvideo.ru/width/333_3412a45b/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170412/1166019.jpg (http://tass.com/world/940822)

UN Security Council to vote on West's draft Syria resolution Wednesday (http://tass.com/world/940822)

It is not difficult to carry out this check "with the help of modern equipment, modern systems of analysis and analyzers," the Russian president said.
If some of the official Syrian authorities used them, then powder remainder could not but be left on military hardware and on the territory, Putin said. "Modern equipment will surely record it."
"It is so simple to come to that aerodrome, on which strikes were delivered [by the United States] and from which aircraft allegedly took off with chemical weapons, and check everything there. If our partners are telling us that some civilians came under the Syrian aviation’s strike [in the province of Idlib], then let these civilians admit UN observers, international organizations to the places of these attacks and everything needs to be checked there," the Russian president said.

More:
http://tass.com/politics/940875

[Gunny]

I'm laughing at that sporty Russian MOPP gear. For real? A can of Raid will screw that junk up. :laugh:

[Drummond]

I have not maintained that it was an airstrike upon a facility that caused those deaths. I have stated it was a deliberate false flag attack , that clearly only profited one party= the muslim terrorists attackers=ISIS...
NOT ONE THING ABOUT THIS ATTACK SHOWS HOW IT WOULD PROFIT ASSAD OR HIS MILITARY FORCES.
Think back to the repeated pattern of false flag attacks staged by the muslim slime, blaming Israel.
This is what they often do to garner international support my friend..
I'd bet a C-note against a twenty spot this is such a CLEVER AND NOW HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL STAGED EVENT..
SURE THEY USED REAL GAS, BUT ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT ISIS- took much territory and facilities not just in Syria but in other areas of conflict.
This shows all the earmarks of such a staged event
Why would Assad used chem attack against civilian and but not the ISIS forces?
Sorry but to me too damn much does not add up to it being Assad..
His forces were winning big, so why suddenly do this and get world condemnation and sanctions leveled against him?
I do not buy it , which is why I have never been scammed in my life, a long life once around very many criminal minded people.-Tyr

Well ... Assad might've come to the conclusion that Trump would be as unwilling to act as Obama was. He might be of the opinion, maybe advised by Russia, that America 'talks big' but is unlikely to follow through. He's discovered otherwise, of course.

What Assad believed to be true of the area .. do we even know ? Maybe an intelligence report told him that terrorists were in that area. The very targeting of a facility there would suggest it ! Again, though, maybe he's relying on Russian reports. Again, how to know ?

Here's what I'd like to know, and as yet, Balu hasn't seen fit to credibly answer. WHY did Russia and Syria act to stop the Resolution which would've facilitated an investigation into what really happened ?

See ... http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58744-More-Chemical-Weapon-Use-In-Syria&p=863200#post863200

... and ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58744-More-Chemical-Weapon-Use-In-Syria&p=862681#post862681

[Balu]

Here's what I'd like to know, and as yet, Balu hasn't seen fit to credibly answer. WHY did Russia and Syria act to stop the Resolution which would've facilitated an investigation into what really happened ?


Have you read the FULL text of the draft of the resolution you try to speak about and refer to?
If you have, please, copy-past the FULL text of it HERE, then we'll discuss it OBJECT-IVELY, point-by-point, without bla-bla.

[Drummond]

Have you read the FULL text of the draft of the resolution you try to speak about and refer to?
If you have, please, copy-past the FULL text of it HERE, then we'll discuss it OBJECT-IVELY, point-by-point, without bla-bla.

I've a better idea.

As I've ALREADY asked you to do, will you explain Russia's and Syria's rush to stymie that Resolution ? Because, you see, regardless of whatever wording YOU are unhappy with, the investigators would've been charged with the responsibility of getting to the TRUTH.

Perhaps you just don't like the truth of the fragility of Sarin, that it can't survive an explosion as an active chemical ... 'yet did', if we believe YOUR side's account ??

If you're dedicated to the truth, you shouldn't be running away from a chance at learning it. BUT SO FAR, YOU HAVE.

[Balu]

I've a better idea.

As I've ALREADY asked you to do, will you explain Russia's and Syria's rush to stymie that Resolution ? Because, you see, regardless of whatever wording YOU are unhappy with, the investigators would've been charged with the responsibility of getting to the TRUTH.

Perhaps you just don't like the truth of the fragility of Sarin, that it can't survive an explosion as an active chemical ... 'yet did', if we believe YOUR side's account ??

If you're dedicated to the truth, you shouldn't be running away from a chance at learning it. BUT SO FAR, YOU HAVE.
I know why. But to avoid word against word 'bla-bla' I offered you to give the FULL text od the resolution draft YOU referred to, basing on which it will be possible to conduct any SUBSTANTIVE talks. Only THIS way and no any other - document on the table. Its content will be a subject fo all WHY-s and BECAUSE.
THIS is the only proper approach for those who doesn't want to waist his time in a manner partly described in my signature.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well ... Assad might've come to the conclusion that Trump would be as unwilling to act as Obama was. He might be of the opinion, maybe advised by Russia, that America 'talks big' but is unlikely to follow through. He's discovered otherwise, of course.

What Assad believed to be true of the area .. do we even know ? Maybe an intelligence report told him that terrorists were in that area. The very targeting of a facility there would suggest it ! Again, though, maybe he's relying on Russian reports. Again, how to know ?

Here's what I'd like to know, and as yet, Balu hasn't seen fit to credibly answer. WHY did Russia and Syria act to stop the Resolution which would've facilitated an investigation into what really happened ?

See ... http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58744-More-Chemical-Weapon-Use-In-Syria&p=863200#post863200

... and ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?58744-More-Chemical-Weapon-Use-In-Syria&p=862681#post862681

MY FRIEND, I NOTE FAR TOO MANY -- ""MAYBE'S""- AND NOT ENOUGH REAL, CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOR AMERICA TO HAVE TAKEN THE ACTION THAT IT DID.
I CRITICIZE TRUMP, WHO I SUPPORT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT HE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE AND BELIEVED LIES TOLD TO HIM BY CERTAIN MORONS OR APPEASERS THAT WANT ISIS TO WIN IN SYRIA.. He had best get to the bottom of the TRUE loyalties of some of his Advisers, IMHO!!!!!!!

WE DISAGREE, THAT IS FINE-- AS IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHICH OF US IS CORRECT.

Too many unknowns for me to agree that such a quick and serious response was the correct action to take.
Even if the haste was due to pressure to act quick, Trump should have not bowed to such pressure but instead insisted for undeniable and concrete proof before taking such a drastic action--that helped ISIS!!
Lets not leave out that immensely important consequence(HELPING ISIS) of the action that was too quickly and erroneously(IMHO) taken my friend.. -TYR

[Drummond]

I know why. But to avoid word against word 'bla-bla' I offered you to give the FULL text od the resolution draft YOU referred to, basing on which it will be possible to conduct any SUBSTANTIVE talks. Only THIS way and no any other - document on the table. Its content will be a subject fo all WHY-s and BECAUSE.
THIS is the only proper approach for those who doesn't want to waist his time in a manner partly described in my signature.

I asked you to explain Russia's and Syria's rush to stymie the Resolution. Of course, you've ducked that challenge. Again.

I'm sure that you will continue to, as well. Because you side is only interested in pushing, and convincing others of, your propaganda ... whereas, action taken from that Resolution would have led to a fact-finding mission in which THE TRUTH would be sought, and determined.

I'm actually getting tired of pointing it out: Sarin gas would NOT survive an explosion in an enclosure where it was being housed. Yet, those unfortunate enough to be in the target area, suffered symptoms consistent with Sarin poisoning !

Explaining that one, Balu, is another challenge you'll duck, as you've done already.

Propaganda has limitations, Balu. It's limited by its divergence from truth. Which is why you're not doing well in this debate ...

[Drummond]

MY FRIEND, I NOTE FAR TOO MANY -- ""MAYBE'S""- AND NOT ENOUGH REAL, CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOR AMERICA TO HAVE TAKEN THE ACTION THAT IT DID.
I CRITICIZE TRUMP, WHO I SUPPORT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT HE MADE A HUGE MISTAKE AND BELIEVED LIES TOLD TO HIM BY CERTAIN MORONS OR APPEASERS THAT WANT ISIS TO WIN IN SYRIA.. He had best get to the bottom of the TRUE loyalties of some of his Advisers, IMHO!!!!!!!

WE DISAGREE, THAT IS FINE-- AS IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHICH OF US IS CORRECT.

Too many unknowns for me to agree that such a quick and serious response was the correct action to take.
Even if the haste was due to pressure to act quick, Trump should have not bowed to such pressure but instead insisted for undeniable and concrete proof before taking such a drastic action--that helped ISIS!!
Lets not leave out that immensely important consequence(HELPING ISIS) of the action that was too quickly and erroneously(IMHO) taken my friend.. -TYR

Had a certain UN draft resolution not been opposed, by (of course) Russia and Syria, then there'd have been no impediment in the way of a proper investigation. I think the truth would've not only been found, but much shame would have been attributed to the obviously guilty parties in all of this. What we DO know is that (a) Sarin gas was the agent, (b) if stored as alleged, it couldn't have survived as an active chemical agent, much less gone on to do great harm, and (c) had the investigators gone in unimpeded, they might well have got to the bottom of just WHO was in the target area, and WHAT was.

But, no. Russia and Syria both intervened to throw a spanner in the works.

I also think this: Assad has long since (thanks to Obama, and Russia's permitted military dominance in Syria) considered America to be a weak power .. strong militarily perhaps, but lacking resolve to use it effectively. Well .. Trump corrected that impression. Had he waited, had he dithered, Assad would've continued with his beliefs. Possibly, more attacks would've been launched with banned chemical weapons.

But this has, I think, been stopped. Innocent lives have very probably been saved as a result.

I don't care what Assad or the Russians do to TERRORISTS there ... if military actions which are carried out are sufficiently targeted and effective, I say good luck to them. But, dropping a WMD ?? That, by its very nature, is NOT sufficiently targeted, it invites and pretty much ensures not only that innocents die, but die particularly horrifically.

Yes, Tyr, we disagree. I think Trump acted as he needed to. One might as well never have challenged Saddam over WMD's at all, something which would've sent the same message as doing nothing about Assad. That rogue powers can store, and use, illegal WMD's with impunity.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Had a certain UN draft resolution not been opposed, by (of course) Russia and Syria, then there'd have been no impediment in the way of a proper investigation. I think the truth would've not only been found, but much shame would have been attributed to the obviously guilty parties in all of this. What we DO know is that (a) Sarin gas was the agent, (b) if stored as alleged, it couldn't have survived as an active chemical agent, much less gone on to do great harm, and (c) had the investigators gone in unimpeded, they might well have got to the bottom of just WHO was in the target area, and WHAT was.

But, no. Russia and Syria both intervened to throw a spanner in the works.

I also think this: Assad has long since (thanks to Obama, and Russia's permitted military dominance in Syria) considered America to be a weak power .. strong militarily perhaps, but lacking resolve to use it effectively. Well .. Trump corrected that impression. Had he waited, had he dithered, Assad would've continued with his beliefs. Possibly, more attacks would've been launched with banned chemical weapons.

But this has, I think, been stopped. Innocent lives have very probably been saved as a result.

I don't care what Assad or the Russians do to TERRORISTS there ... if military actions which are carried out are sufficiently targeted and effective, I say good luck to them. But, dropping a WMD ?? That, by its very nature, is NOT sufficiently targeted, it invites and pretty much ensures not only that innocents die, but die particularly horrifically.

Yes, Tyr, we disagree. I think Trump acted as he needed to. One might as well never have challenged Saddam over WMD's at all, something which would've sent the same message as doing nothing about Assad. That rogue powers can store, and use, illegal WMD's with impunity.

Well my friend, unless some positive undeniable proof comes forth for us to see then I will think it is a false flag attack and still think Trump made a rash action and a huge mistake..
I will think that because this has too many factors pointing to it being a false flag attack.
And the muslim vermin that reap the benefit from this incident had every reason to stage it, as they have done before..
I myself , believe in the power of the knowledge of history.
History repeatedly shows that these vermin will sacrifice anybody or anything to further their cause-- that of Islam ruling the entire world regardless if they have to murder billions to reach that goal!---Tyr

[aboutime]

Well my friend, unless some positive undeniable proof comes forth for us to see then I will think it is a false flag attack and still think Trump made a rash action and a huge mistake..
I will think that because this has too many factors pointing to it being a false flag attack.
And the muslim vermin that reap the benefit from this incident had every reason to stage it, as they have done before..
I myself , believe in the power of the knowledge of history.
History repeatedly shows that these vermin will sacrifice anybody or anything to further their cause-- that of Islam ruling the entire world regardless if they have to murder billions to reach that goal!---Tyr


Not that anything I might say here matters, but I must totally disagree withyou Tyr.
Calling it a false flag attack, without actually having the up-close, actual, military info, and pointing toward the President, with everything we have seen...is disappointing to me as an American who doesn't like to disagree with friends.
So, until WE...have all the honest facts. I suggest we all COOL IT. Sounding like liberals sound, as do our enemies. Is, IMO, just as divisive as being a follower of Obama.
If disagreement here changes anything. I will just take it as expected, and as seen for so long now...being ignored for my thoughts, but my words being used by others to make their point.

[Drummond]

Not that anything I might say here matters, but I must totally disagree withyou Tyr.
Calling it a false flag attack, without actually having the up-close, actual, military info, and pointing toward the President, with everything we have seen...is disappointing to me as an American who doesn't like to disagree with friends.
So, until WE...have all the honest facts. I suggest we all COOL IT. Sounding like liberals sound, as do our enemies. Is, IMO, just as divisive as being a follower of Obama.
If disagreement here changes anything. I will just take it as expected, and as seen for so long now...being ignored for my thoughts, but my words being used by others to make their point.

I think that's really the point, isn't it ... we need FACTS. We need hard evidence which settles this once and for all.

That Syria and Russia intervened to block the draft Resolution that would've facilitated a proper investigation is deeply suspicious. Contention about its precise wording is neither here nor there, so far as I'm concerned -- we'd have learned THE TRUTH from it, regardless (to the extent it can't already be inferred !!).

[Black Diamond]

Not that anything I might say here matters, but I must totally disagree withyou Tyr.
Calling it a false flag attack, without actually having the up-close, actual, military info, and pointing toward the President, with everything we have seen...is disappointing to me as an American who doesn't like to disagree with friends.
So, until WE...have all the honest facts. I suggest we all COOL IT. Sounding like liberals sound, as do our enemies. Is, IMO, just as divisive as being a follower of Obama.
If disagreement here changes anything. I will just take it as expected, and as seen for so long now...being ignored for my thoughts, but my words being used by others to make their point.
I for one appreciate your insights. I think trump saw something in intelligence reports that alarmed him. There are also many explanations that make more sense than "false flag" or trump padding his portfolio. A warning shot over the fat Korean's bow for one. Be back in a bit. More later.

[Kathianne]

While harsh, there's more than a bit of truth here:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/america-first-dead


America First is Dead

Michael J. Totten (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/users/michael-j-totten)


President Donald Trump hasn’t even finished his first 100 days yet and his isolationist “America First” creed is already dead.


First, he ordered two American battleships in the Eastern Mediterranean to pound Syria’s al-Shayrat airbase with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles. According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, the strikes damaged or destroyed 20 percent of Bashar al-Assad’s air force in ten minutes (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39561102).

In case you hoped or feared this might be a one-off before returning to business as usual, here’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/syria-russia-iran-missile-strikes/index.html) on Monday this week: “We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world.”


And if you hoped the United States was about to join Iran, Russia and Hezbollah in propping up the Assad regime because it’s “secular,” you’re out of luck. “It’s hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad,” Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley just said (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/politics/syria-russia-iran-missile-strikes/index.html).


What a difference a week makes.


Donald Trump is hardly the first person to get the mother of all reality checks after transitioning from the campaign trail to the White House where he now gets advice and counsel from seasoned professionals rather than campaign managers, political sloganeers and sycophants. George W. Bush promised an end to nation-building abroad, then committed to nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama promised to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open.


The president says he changed his mind about Syria because he saw gut-wrenching pictures of children murdered with chemical weapons on television. I don’t buy it, at least not entirely, and I’m not saying he’s lying. We’ve all seen these pictures before. The Assad regime’s latest chemical attack killed roughly 100, but it killed more than 1,400 in 2013 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html?utm_term=.335f6b2bc15b) when citizen Trump warned Obama that terrible things would happen if he did anything about it.


Pacifists, anti-imperialists and isolationists had their way in Syria during the Obama years. We stayed out of it, and the results are worse than the Iraq War—the metastasizing of ISIS, the serial murder of almost half a million and counting, the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, and the manifestation of a Russian-Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah terrorist axis.


Smug isolationists ought to be just as chastened by events during the last decade as gung-ho interventionists.


Foreign policy is tragic and brutal. People die if you act and they die if you don’t. If you can’t handle it, don’t run for president. Because if you’re the president of the United States, you’ll have blood on your hands even if you never fire a shot.


Last September on the campaign trail, Trump said (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/09/15/trump_im_not_running_to_be_president_of_the_world_ im_running_to_be_president_of_the_united_states.ht ml), “I’m not running to be President of the world. I’m running to be President of the United States.” That’s true on the face of it, and no one wants him to be president of the world, but his bombastic America First sloganeering either willfully or obtusely harked back to the noxious America First Committee in 1940 which temporarily convinced the United States to stand aside while Hitler devoured Europe. A lot of people, myself included, feared we might have to re-learn the lessons of the 1930s now that nearly everyone who witnessed that period as an adult is no longer with us, but perhaps we were wrong.


Millions of people breathed a sigh of relief when the president, after telling us what he had just done and why, said “God bless America, and the entire world.” But he lost the support of the paranoid right and the far-right. White nationalist Richard Spencer, who coined the term “alt-right” to describe himself and his followers, says Trump’s reversal is a “total betrayal” and tweeted #StandWithAssad (https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/850208440899182592/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump s-alt-right-fans-bail-syria-strikes-130839954.html). Paul Joseph Watson at the Alex Jones’ ludicrous conspiracy site Info Wars tweeted (https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/850171163527581697?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump s-alt-right-fans-bail-syria-strikes-130839954.html), “I guess Trump wasn't ‘Putin's puppet’ after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet. I'm officially OFF the Trump train.” And here’s former Ku Klux Klan wizard David Duke (https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/850165621874667520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Ftrump s-alt-right-fans-bail-syria-strikes-130839954.html): “I'm sure @HillaryClinton (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton) is cackling with her co-conspirators tonight. We are now fighting the war @realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump) was supposed to stop.”


You know who else is furious? The Russians, North Korea, Iran’s ayatollahs, and Hezbollah. The assholes of the world have united.

...

[Balu]

Not that anything I might say here matters, but I must totally disagree withyou Tyr.
Calling it a false flag attack, without actually having the up-close, actual, military info, and pointing toward the President, with everything we have seen...is disappointing to me as an American who doesn't like to disagree with friends.
So, until WE...have all the honest facts. I suggest we all COOL IT. Sounding like liberals sound, as do our enemies. Is, IMO, just as divisive as being a follower of Obama.
If disagreement here changes anything. I will just take it as expected, and as seen for so long now...being ignored for my thoughts, but my words being used by others to make their point.
Then DO NOT HESITATE TO PRESENT here - the direct material evidence - and kindly tell HOW, by which authorized organization, WHEN and in course of which INVESTIGATION they became the LEGAL proofs.
And tell WHEN and WHY your SUSPICIONS and ASSUMPTIONS became the proofs.
Then, please tell, HOW MANY versions were considered and WHY the rest were rejected and make you to choose the version that there were chemical bombs dropped by the Syrian fighters.
Try to switch on your brains if any and answer point by point.
(The approach I described is used by ANY criminal investigator. And don't forget about another principal moment - ANY doubt to be evaluated in favor of the accused, because of the Presumption of Innocence on which the Justice is based) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

[Balu]

Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution on alleged chemical attack in Syria

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 12, 22:26 UTC+3
Russia has vetoed West-drafted resolution at the UN SC over alleged chemical attack in Syria


https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170412/1166138.jpg
© EPA/JUSTIN LANE

THE UNITED NATIONS, April 12. /TASS/. Russia vetoed on Wednesday the resolution condemning the alleged chemical attack in the Syrian town of Khan-Sheikhoun on April 4 and demanding from Damascus to present information on its sorties on that day. The West-drafted resolution was supported by ten votes at the UN Security Council, which forced Moscow to veto it.
Bolivia voted against the resolution alongside Russia, while China abstained.
Britain, the US and France have circulated in the UN Security Council a revised version of their draft resolution on the investigation into the alleged chemical attack in Syria’s Khan Sheikhoun on April 4.
The resolution is a slightly revised version of previous similar document, which condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The document demands that Damascus hand over all information on flights on the day of the incident to the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the UN and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and provide access to the military bases from which strikes against Khan Sheikhoun could be carried out. The resolution also threatens Syria with sanctions and the use of military force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
----------------------------------------
In other words the resolution was to legalize the guiltiness of Syria based on the proofless assumption, by the UN SC, prior to conducting investigation

More:
http://tass.com/world/941082


(http://tass.com/world/941082)

[Balu]

Syria ready to provide OPCW investigators access to Shayrat airbase - UN envoy

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 13, 2:41 UTC+3
According to Jaafari, security guarantees from terrorist groups operating in this area and "the countries providing assistance to them" will be necessary to provide experts access to Khan Sheikhoun


https://cdn1.tass.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170413/1166140.jpg
© AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

UNITED NATIONS, April 13. /TASS/. Syria is ready to provide experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) access to Shayrat airbase to check whether sarin, which Western countries claim was used during the attack against the city of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, was stored there, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, told a meeting of the UN Security Council.
He noted that Damascus had sent a letter to the OPCW Director General, Ahmet Uzumcu, asking him "to send an unbiased and professional mission to Khan Sheikhoun and Shayrat airbase to determine what exactly happened." "Syria emphasizes its willingness to provide the mission access to Shayrat airbase to determine whether sarin was stored there," the diplomat said.
According to Jaafari, security guarantees from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups operating in this area and "the countries providing assistance to them" will be necessary to provide OPCW experts access to Khan Sheikhoun.
On Wednesday, Russia blocked the draft resolution, which said that Damascus must hand over all data on April 4 flights to the OPCW and provide access to the airbases that could be used to carry out a strike against Khan Sheikhoun.
Jaafari noted that the Syrian government is interested as nobody else in shedding light on what happened in that city. However, he spoke out against "the draft resolutions that have the insidious wording that forestall the results of any probes" and are aimed at "accusing the Syrian government in advance" of wrongdoings. The diplomat thanked Russia for vetoing the document.
The US military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a military airfield in Syria’s Homs province overnight to April 7 on instructions issued by President Donald Trump. The strike came in response to what Washington believes was the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons in the Idlib province. The US authorities asserted that the alleged chemical attack was launched from that airfield.

More:
http://tass.com/world/941095

[Balu]

Kremlin says strident rhetoric of deputy Russian UN ambassador was reasonable

Russian Politics & Diplomacy (http://tass.com/politics)
April 13, 12:58 UTC+3
"Nothing insulting was said," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov marked

https://cdn1.tass.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170413/1166164.jpg
Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov

© AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Read also
https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/333_3412a45b/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170412/1166138.jpg (http://tass.com/world/941082)

Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution on alleged chemical attack in Syria (http://tass.com/world/941082)

MOSCOW, April 13./TASS/. The Kremlin believes strident rhetoric is well-grounded in case of a need to defend the country’s interests, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday in comments on a Wednesday speech of Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Vladimir Safronkov.
"We believe - yes," Peskov in reply to the question whether the acuteness of the Syrian issue discussed at the UN Security Council could justify the tonality of his speech. "Nothing insulting was said," Peskov marked. He said the issues under discussion at the UN Security Council are really very acute, "often concerning the essence and the future of international relations’.
"Demonstrating feebleness is in the future fraught with deplorable consequences, that is why it is better to defend the interests of our Fatherland exactly today, and if it comes to this - rather toughly," he said.

More:
http://tass.com/politics/941158

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not that anything I might say here matters, but I must totally disagree withyou Tyr.
Calling it a false flag attack, without actually having the up-close, actual, military info, and pointing toward the President, with everything we have seen...is disappointing to me as an American who doesn't like to disagree with friends.
So, until WE...have all the honest facts. I suggest we all COOL IT. Sounding like liberals sound, as do our enemies. Is, IMO, just as divisive as being a follower of Obama.
If disagreement here changes anything. I will just take it as expected, and as seen for so long now...being ignored for my thoughts, but my words being used by others to make their point.

Well said my friend! My point exactly--we need proooooooooooooooof not maybe's or I want it to be this way so I can do this!
Right also about the divisiveness it causes too, , BUT IN THE CASE OF MY FRIEND DRUMMOND AND I, THAT IS NOT IN PLAY.
I see his point and he sees mine, we simply disagree at this point--should evidence emerge that settles the matter one way or another --either one of us will accept it.
I have zero anger , when making my case about this an hy I think Assad did not do it.
I save all my anger for the muslim savages that murder to further their goals, THAT DELIBERATELY MURDER INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO HEIGHTEN THE SHOCK VALUE.
And that is what I think happened in this incident...
Big D and I both know we simply disagree, with neither having any hard feelings.
He same as I stands on principle an treats those deserving of respect with respect..

Your thoughts and your military expertise and service all impress me my friend. Always have since our time at the other forum, that shafted you because you beat them so badly with your insightful posts! You had me laughing so hard at times I had tears, when you ripped those liberal asshats/chuckleheads apart..
I appreciate all you have given in service this to this nation and I know you to be an honorable man..
Such that it is my honor and a blessing to me to be able to call you my friend.-Tyr

[Drummond]

While harsh, there's more than a bit of truth here:

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/america-first-dead

A truly great President is a realistic one. He or she adapts to reality, does what's necessary. Both GWB and Trump wanted Presidencies which took less interest in international affairs, but, reality intervened and they both had to greatly revise their intentions.

This is as it should be, and such changes of mind are meritorious. It's good to have a vision of what you want to do in the world, but at the end of the day, you adapt to what you MUST adapt to, to best do your job.

[Drummond]

Syria ready to provide OPCW investigators access to Shayrat airbase - UN envoy

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 13, 2:41 UTC+3
According to Jaafari, security guarantees from terrorist groups operating in this area and "the countries providing assistance to them" will be necessary to provide experts access to Khan Sheikhoun


https://cdn1.tass.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170413/1166140.jpg
© AP Photo/Julie Jacobson

UNITED NATIONS, April 13. /TASS/. Syria is ready to provide experts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) access to Shayrat airbase to check whether sarin, which Western countries claim was used during the attack against the city of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, was stored there, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, told a meeting of the UN Security Council.
He noted that Damascus had sent a letter to the OPCW Director General, Ahmet Uzumcu, asking him "to send an unbiased and professional mission to Khan Sheikhoun and Shayrat airbase to determine what exactly happened." "Syria emphasizes its willingness to provide the mission access to Shayrat airbase to determine whether sarin was stored there," the diplomat said.
According to Jaafari, security guarantees from Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups operating in this area and "the countries providing assistance to them" will be necessary to provide OPCW experts access to Khan Sheikhoun.
On Wednesday, Russia blocked the draft resolution, which said that Damascus must hand over all data on April 4 flights to the OPCW and provide access to the airbases that could be used to carry out a strike against Khan Sheikhoun.
Jaafari noted that the Syrian government is interested as nobody else in shedding light on what happened in that city. However, he spoke out against "the draft resolutions that have the insidious wording that forestall the results of any probes" and are aimed at "accusing the Syrian government in advance" of wrongdoings. The diplomat thanked Russia for vetoing the document.
The US military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a military airfield in Syria’s Homs province overnight to April 7 on instructions issued by President Donald Trump. The strike came in response to what Washington believes was the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons in the Idlib province. The US authorities asserted that the alleged chemical attack was launched from that airfield.

More:
http://tass.com/world/941095

... Sorry, what am I 'missing' here ?

A number of days after the Syrian attack, suddenly, NOW, and only NOW, will Syria consider allowing access to the Shayrat airbase ? Well ... don't you think that if there'd been evidence of chemical weaponry there on the day of the attack, Syria has had ample opportunity, by now, to get rid of that evidence ???

It's a bit like saying that if someone commits a murder, then, in committing it, leaves forensic evidence showing who that murderer must've been .. the murderer should then have a number of days to remove all of that evidence, before police can move in and try to gather that evidence !!

It's ridiculous, Balu.

Between the day of the Syrian attack and now, Syria and Russia have been obstructing all prospect of real, meaningful progress in getting to the truth of the matter. But NOW, after there's been time for Syria to try and cover its tracks, suddenly there's a new-found willingness to show a display of cooperation ??

Cue a repeat of Iraq, maybe ... and a cry of 'We cannot find any WMD's, therefore, they could never have existed' .. ? This is the very same insane 'logic' that the Left employed to convince the world that the Iraq invasion in 2003 was unjustified. All of it was, and is, laughably absurd.

[Kathianne]

GW and Trump both ran with a domestic focus, no denying that. Bush did not however change his perspective until the US was attacked. I'm certainly not saying that Trump is wrong, simply not following what he said he'd do. When the US was hit 8 months later, there wasn't any choice to what would become a war footing administration.

In all honesty, perhaps GW had been naive, but if 9/11 hadn't occurred, every indication was that he wasn't going to decide who was 'good' or 'bad' in the sense of involving the US military. The reason I say naive is that al Queda had already been on the offense and the USS Cole had gone unanswered, it was a matter of time. Like Trump, the transition was not easy, though for different reasons.

I do think that Trump had to act, if for no other reason he had to change the world's perception of the US following Obama-it could not go on. It was wrong for both our allies and those that want to do us harm. He's right to say that action should have been taken by Obama, when more than 10X the number of victims happened. I don't think it was the pictures from this one or Ivanka's tears that brought him to the decision, it was the real politics of what had occurred before and happened again. 2013 was NOT the last attack, hopefully this one will be.

NK little despot needed to know that he's not sitting in his little isolated country either, able to do whatever he likes. I don't know about his getting the message, he appears delusional to me, but China is reacting in a sane way.

[Gunny]

This thread looks like an Alistair MacLean novel.

[Kathianne]

This thread looks like an Alistair MacLean novel.
Gunny Expound, please.

[Balu]

... Sorry, what am I 'missing' here ?

A number of days after the Syrian attack, suddenly, NOW, and only NOW, will Syria consider allowing access to the Shayrat airbase ? Well ... don't you think that if there'd been evidence of chemical weaponry there on the day of the attack, Syria has had ample opportunity, by now, to get rid of that evidence ???.

First, you are IGNORANT in this question. So, DO consult specialists and THEY will teach you, not me. To answer in one word - it is IMPOSSIBLE.
And second. There are two points:
1. There are NO PROOFS that Syrians conducted a chemical air attack. NONE!
2. Russia VOTED the draft of the Resolution proposed by the USA&Co. UNPROVEN accusing and stating that Syria is guilty and WILL do it in future as the recent bombardment of US coalition PROVED that ISIS and other 'moderate opposition' the USA support and supply, HAS chemical weapons in stocks.
Everything is as simple as this. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

[Kathianne]

Recap: Russia/Syria, no one has 'proven' chemical weapons used, other than the dead and the autopsy reports. Autopsy results are lies, just ask Kremlin, Tass, Pravda, and Russian ambassador to UN. Oh, and Balu!

[Drummond]

First, you are IGNORANT in this question. So, DO consult specialists and THEY will teach you, not me. To answer in one word - it is IMPOSSIBLE.
And second. There are two points:
1. There are NO PROOFS that Syrians conducted a chemical air attack. NONE!
2. Russia VOTED the draft of the Resolution proposed by the USA&Co. UNPROVEN accusing and stating that Syria is guilty and WILL do it in future as the recent bombardment of US coalition PROVED that ISIS and other 'moderate opposition' the USA support and supply, HAS chemical weapons in stocks.
Everything is as simple as this. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/dirol.gif

To answer you in two words, then ... WHY IMPOSSIBLE ?

Just stating it is, doesn't make it true. I'd like you to explain your claim.

Point two goes some way to answering point one, it seems to me. Had the Resolution been passed, had inspectors then had the authority to go in and investigate, then if there was 'no proof' of Syria conducting a chemical attack, they'd have been able to report this.

... but, NO. YOUR PEOPLE acted to STOP that process.

Syria has an abysmal track record in these matters in any case. It did happen in 2013 (.. or will you deny that, too ?). Evidence, such as it is, points damningly towards its having happened again. And, Balu .. you STILL haven't explained how people in the area could suffer from Sarin poisoning, when if all Syria did was bomb a storage facility containing Sarin, the Sarin could not have then survived as an active chemical agent !!

No, Balu, the Resolution as originally worded was consistent with known fact, and therefore perfectly reasonable. If that fact was false, the subsequent investigation would've shown that. But, Balu, your people, along with Syria, stopped it before it could even begin.

[revelarts]

Recap: Russia/Syria, no one has 'proven' chemical weapons used, other than the dead and the autopsy reports. Autopsy results are lies, just as Kremlin, Tass, Pravda, and Russian ambassador to UN. Oh, and Balu!
The U.S Gov't says one thing but later through investigations and revelations on theses issues regularly find another story. that the masses of the country have been ...misinformed

Gulf of Tonkin! > Viet Nam War > sooory fake news/false flag but it was for a good cause
Incubator babies! > Gulf war I > sorry that was fake news/false flag but well um WE WON didn't we!
Aluminum tubes, yellow cake, mobile chem factories, WMDS!!! Iraq 911!> Iraq war, opps sorry "bad intel"
2013 Assad SARIN!! > Opps.. Ok mumble it was the rebels never mind.

Is there a pattern here that reasonable people might consider?

[revelarts]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-khan-sheikhun (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun)

"Syria chemical weapons attack: what we know about deadly air raid
Experts say it is too early to say whether sarin or a mix of substances was used in the attack on rebel-held Khan Sheikhun"




http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/saron-s.jpg

"A Syrian man collects samples from the site of the suspected toxic gas attack in Khan Sheikhun. Photograph: Omar Haj Kadour/AFP/Getty Images"

“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...

...Médecins Sans Frontières, whose doctors treated some of the victims, said both a nerve agent and chlorine appeared to have been used.

“Victims smelled of bleach, suggesting they had been exposed to chlorine,” the group said in a statement, after detailing symptoms of neurotoxins. “These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhun were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.”...

One of several things to note about that picture is
that guy is:
wearing protective gloves... CHECK
A protective mask ...sort of... CHECK?
And 'protective' Flip Flops ...what the Heck?http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/wow.gif

[Drummond]

GW and Trump both ran with a domestic focus, no denying that. Bush did not however change his perspective until the US was attacked. I'm certainly not saying that Trump is wrong, simply not following what he said he'd do. When the US was hit 8 months later, there wasn't any choice to what would become a war footing administration.

In all honesty, perhaps GW had been naive, but if 9/11 hadn't occurred, every indication was that he wasn't going to decide who was 'good' or 'bad' in the sense of involving the US military. The reason I say naive is that al Queda had already been on the offense and the USS Cole had gone unanswered, it was a matter of time. Like Trump, the transition was not easy, though for different reasons.

I do think that Trump had to act, if for no other reason he had to change the world's perception of the US following Obama-it could not go on. It was wrong for both our allies and those that want to do us harm. He's right to say that action should have been taken by Obama, when more than 10X the number of victims happened. I don't think it was the pictures from this one or Ivanka's tears that brought him to the decision, it was the real politics of what had occurred before and happened again. 2013 was NOT the last attack, hopefully this one will be.

NK little despot needed to know that he's not sitting in his little isolated country either, able to do whatever he likes. I don't know about his getting the message, he appears delusional to me, but China is reacting in a sane way.

Yes. I think that the chief motivation - apart from the sheer horror of pictures of the dead, as Trump would've seen them - and not forgetting another point made previously, that of the prospect of Trump maybe having access to intelligence reports which gave him additional cause for concern (unproven, but distinctly possible) ... was to reverse the Obama legacy of inaction, and the perceived weakness of resolve America had shown on the world stage previously. Trump needed to make it clear that, on his watch, the US would react differently, more decisively.

Such a perception could work extremely well in America's favour, of course, in all sorts of ways. It was a valuable lesson to teach everybody. It needed to be taught, in my opinion ... Obama had done too much damage to America's standing in such matters.

[Besides which ... the media, over here, have tried to paint Trump as 'Russia's poodle' (a reference to the disparagement meted out to Tony Blair, when he was characterised as Bush's poodle over Iraq, in 2003). Trump has proven, surely beyond all doubt, how fictional all of that was.]

Trump is turning out to be a stellar President .. I've no doubt that history will mark him out as one of the all-time 'great' Presidents you've had throughout the history of the United States of America.

[Balu]

Hundreds poisoned in US-led coalition’s strike on IS depot in Deir ez-ZorWorld (http://tass.com/world)
April 13, 13:20 UTC+3
According to the Syrian army command, hundreds of people died from poisoning


https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170413/1166168.jpg
© AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, archive

BEIRUT, April 13. /TASS/. Hundreds of people died from poisoning after an air strike by the US-led coalition on the headquarters and the depots of the Islamic State terrorist organization (outlawed in Russia) near Deir ez-Zor, the Syrian army command said in a statement (http://sana.sy/en/?p=104229) circulated by SANA news agency.
The US-led coalition struck the terrorists’ positions at 5:30 p.m. local time on Wednesday. The air strike killed a large number of terrorists, including mercenaries, the statement said.
Read also
Russia submits its proposal to OPCW on extra inspectors in Syria’s Idlib (http://tass.com/politics/941136)
Russia won't support UN Security Council resolution condemning Syrian government — Lavrov (http://tass.com/politics/941119)
Syria ready to provide OPCW investigators access to Shayrat airbase — UN envoy (http://tass.com/world/941095)
Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution on alleged chemical attack in Syria (http://tass.com/world/941082)
Russian diplomat believes UK fears Moscow-Washington cooperation on Syria (http://tass.com/politics/941045)
Russian diplomat slams Washington’s use of force in Syria as challenge to global security (http://tass.com/politics/940951)




"However, a yellow smoke rose over the depot after the bombing. This is evidence that the depot stored chemical agents," according to the document.
"As a result, hundreds of people, including civilians, died as a result of poisoning," the statement reads.
The Syrian army command did not give the exact number of people who had died or suffered in the coalition’s bombing.
"This incident confirms once again that terrorist organizations possess stocks of chemical weapons and have a possibility to get, store and use them thanks to the assistance of well-known regional states," the document says.
The Syrian army command came up with a statement on April 4, blaming terrorist gangs for the use of poisonous gases in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in the Idlib province. The statement stressed that "the Syrian army does not possess chemical munitions and all the accusations against it on this score were fabricated."
On order of US President Donald Trump, the US military fired Tomahawk missiles overnight to April 7 on an airfield in the Syrian province of Homs, from which, as Washington believed, aircraft had taken off to deliver a strike on Khan Sheikhoun.
Later, Russia blocked a draft resolution at the UN Security Council, which said that Damascus must hand over all data on April 4 flights to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and provide access to the airbases that could be used to carry out a strike against Khan Sheikhoun.
Syria’s Permanent Representative at the UN Bashar Jaafari said at the UN Security Council session that Damascus was ready to provide access for OPCW experts to the Shayrat airbase to check if it stored sarin, which, as Western countries claim, was used in the recent attack.




More:
http://tass.com/world/941173

[Drummond]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-khan-sheikhun (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-what-we-know-khan-sheikhun)

"Syria chemical weapons attack: what we know about deadly air raid
Experts say it is too early to say whether sarin or a mix of substances was used in the attack on rebel-held Khan Sheikhun"




http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/saron-s.jpg

"A Syrian man collects samples from the site of the suspected toxic gas attack in Khan Sheikhun. Photograph: Omar Haj Kadour/AFP/Getty Images"


One of several things to note about that picture is
that guy is:
wearing protective gloves... CHECK
A protective mask ...sort of... CHECK?
And 'protective' Flip Flops ...what the Heck?http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/wow.gif


What's the dispersal rate of Sarin ?

Did the man in the photo then know what he could've been dealing with ? It would seem .. NOT ....

And, can you explain why you're relying on a British LEFT WING publication, for your 'news' .. ?

[Drummond]

Hundreds poisoned in US-led coalition’s strike on IS depot in Deir ez-Zor

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 13, 13:20 UTC+3
According to the Syrian army command, hundreds of people died from poisoning


https://phototass3.cdnvideo.ru/width/744_b12f2926/tass/m2/en/uploads/i/20170413/1166168.jpg
© AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, archive

BEIRUT, April 13. /TASS/. Hundreds of people died from poisoning after an air strike by the US-led coalition on the headquarters and the depots of the Islamic State terrorist organization (outlawed in Russia) near Deir ez-Zor, the Syrian army command said in a statement (http://sana.sy/en/?p=104229) circulated by SANA news agency.
The US-led coalition struck the terrorists’ positions at 5:30 p.m. local time on Wednesday. The air strike killed a large number of terrorists, including mercenaries, the statement said.
Read also


Russia submits its proposal to OPCW on extra inspectors in Syria’s Idlib (http://tass.com/politics/941136)
Russia won't support UN Security Council resolution condemning Syrian government — Lavrov (http://tass.com/politics/941119)
Syria ready to provide OPCW investigators access to Shayrat airbase — UN envoy (http://tass.com/world/941095)
Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution on alleged chemical attack in Syria (http://tass.com/world/941082)
Russian diplomat believes UK fears Moscow-Washington cooperation on Syria (http://tass.com/politics/941045)
Russian diplomat slams Washington’s use of force in Syria as challenge to global security (http://tass.com/politics/940951)




"However, a yellow smoke rose over the depot after the bombing. This is evidence that the depot stored chemical agents," according to the document.
"As a result, hundreds of people, including civilians, died as a result of poisoning," the statement reads.
The Syrian army command did not give the exact number of people who had died or suffered in the coalition’s bombing.
"This incident confirms once again that terrorist organizations possess stocks of chemical weapons and have a possibility to get, store and use them thanks to the assistance of well-known regional states," the document says.
The Syrian army command came up with a statement on April 4, blaming terrorist gangs for the use of poisonous gases in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in the Idlib province. The statement stressed that "the Syrian army does not possess chemical munitions and all the accusations against it on this score were fabricated."
On order of US President Donald Trump, the US military fired Tomahawk missiles overnight to April 7 on an airfield in the Syrian province of Homs, from which, as Washington believed, aircraft had taken off to deliver a strike on Khan Sheikhoun.
Later, Russia blocked a draft resolution at the UN Security Council, which said that Damascus must hand over all data on April 4 flights to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and provide access to the airbases that could be used to carry out a strike against Khan Sheikhoun.
Syria’s Permanent Representative at the UN Bashar Jaafari said at the UN Security Council session that Damascus was ready to provide access for OPCW experts to the Shayrat airbase to check if it stored sarin, which, as Western countries claim, was used in the recent attack.




More:
http://tass.com/world/941173

Even IF this is a true report, Balu, what's actually known about it ?

Was the attack based upon knowledge of chemical storage in the target area, or was it just carried out with another objective in mind ??

IF, repeat, IF, chemicals WERE stored there ... WHAT chemicals ? Do we know what they were ? Were they also Sarin, or if not, were they chemicals more consistent with a realistic prospect of their being terrorist-manufactured ?

And, please explain ... do you disapprove of the attack, yourself, Balu ? Have you suddenly reappraised your enthusiasm for fighting these terrorists ?? You SHOULD be pleased, I'd have thought ...

[revelarts]

GW and Trump both ran with a domestic focus, no denying that. Bush did not however change his perspective until the US was attacked. I'm certainly not saying that Trump is wrong, simply not following what he said he'd do. When the US was hit 8 months later, there wasn't any choice to what would become a war footing administration.
I say they both lied.
And there's always a choice.
Always
and Iraq Certainly wasn't a "terrorist" threat or a foreign military threat to the U.S.. period.
nieher is Syria.
Both Assad and Saddam were/are fighting the brand of terrorist that we're told attacked on 911. Wahabi Saudi terrorist on the planes on 911 then and Wahabi Saudi "Syrian" rebels in Syria now.


In all honesty, perhaps GW had been naive, but if 9/11 hadn't occurred, every indication was that he wasn't going to decide who was 'good' or 'bad' in the sense of involving the US military. The reason I say naive is that al Queda had already been on the offense and the USS Cole had gone unanswered, it was a matter of time. Like Trump, the transition was not easy, though for different reasons.
IMO Bush wasn't naive. No ones focus was on AQ at the time. But i think his and the country's response was naive. We reacted as if AQ was a sovereign state rather than a criminal mercenary cult.
Trump has NO excuse, since he's been in office HE'S ordered drone strikes that has killed nearly as many innocent children. How many pictures of those children moved his heart?



I do think that Trump had to act, if for no other reason he had to change the world's perception of the US following Obama-it could not go on. It was wrong for both our allies and those that want to do us harm. He's right to say that action should have been taken by Obama, when more than 10X the number of victims happened. I don't think it was the pictures from this one or Ivanka's tears that brought him to the decision, it was the real politics of what had occurred before and happened again. 2013 was NOT the last attack, hopefully this one will be.

I'm sorry i disagree strongly, he didn't have to do JACK.
Any wise leader would 1st make SURE exactly what happen BEFORE any knee jerk emotional reaction. He RIGHTLY chastised OBAMA that attacking Syria had NO good options. and that doing it without congress was unconstitutional. All he's showing is that his words one day mean NOTHING. the excuses that you're providing for him now may flow out his own or his spokespeople mouths but they have the SAMe weight as his previous. He could change his mind and do something else, and slap new words around that to justify it.

as far as Obama NOT reacting is concerned AGAIN the investigation found that the REBELS did the attack in 2013 so WHY was it weak for him not to attack ASSAD ..he didn't do it. PLUS he and Putin got Assad to turn over TONS of chemical weapons.
What has this missile strike accomplished? It left the airfield fully functional. Assad is still alive and the AQ ISIS terrorist rebels are now poised to have U.S. cover AGAIN , and it's put us at the brink of WW3.



NK little despot needed to know that he's not sitting in his little isolated country either, able to do whatever he likes. I don't know about his getting the message, he appears delusional to me, but China is reacting in a sane way.
are we the world police? Did Trump mean america 1st AT ALL?
Has NK sent terrorist here? have they even attacked SOUTH KOREA?
They can't even feed their own people or keep the lights on in that country.
not every problem ... if we feel compelled to deal with them all... is a nail that the U.S. military is supposed to hit.. or threaten to hit... if countries don't behave in ways we like.
It's not what most people voted for
It's not what he ran on
It's the same Hillary and Lindsey Graham insane Neo-Con/Neo-Lib military interventionist foreign policy that has back fired for the past 25 years.

[Drummond]

I say they both lied.
And there's always a choice.
Always
and Iraq Certainly wasn't a "terrorist" threat or a foreign military threat to the U.S.. period.
nieher is Syria.
Both Assad and Saddam were/are fighting the brand of terrorist that we're told attacked on 911. Wahabi Saudi terrorist on the planes on 911 then and Wahabi Saudi "Syrian" rebels in Syria now.


IMO Bush wasn't naive. No ones focus was on AQ at the time. But i think his and the countries response was naive. We reacted as if AQ was a sovereign state rather than a criminal mercenary cult.
Trump has NO excuse, since he's been in office HE'S ordered drone strikes that has killed nearly as many innocent children. How many pictures of those children moved his heart?




I'm sorry i disagree strongly, he didn't have to do JACK.
Any wise leader would 1st make SURE exactly what happen BEFORE any knee jerk emotional reaction. He RIGHTLY chastised OBAMA that attacking Syria had NO good options. and that doing it without congress was unconstitutional. All he's showing is that his words one day mean NOTHING. the excuses that you're providing for him now may flow out his own or his spokespeople mouths but they have the SAMe weight as his previous. He could change his mind and do something else, and slap new words around that to justify it.

as far as Obama NOT reacting is concerned AGAIN the investigation found that the REBELS did the attack in 2013 so WHY was it weak for him not to attack. PLUS he and Putin got Assad to turn over TONS of chemical weapons.
What has this missile strike accomplished? It left the airfield fully functional. Assad is still alive and the AQ ISIS terrorist rebels are now poised to have U.S. cover AGAIN , and it's put us at the brink of WW3.


are we the world police? Did Trump mean america 1st AT ALL?
Has NK sent terrorist here? have they even attacked SOUTH KOREA?
They can't even feed their own people or keep the lights on in that country.
not every problem ... if we feel compelled to deal with them all... is nail that the U.S. military is supposed to handle.
It's not what most people voted for
It's not what he ran on
It's the same Hillary's and Lindsey Graham's insane neo-con Neo-lib military interventionist foreign policy that has back fired for the past 25 years.

There's some typical bog-standard Leftie thinking in all of this.

.. where to start .. ?

Saddam's Iraq WAS a threat to the entire West. He was known to have terrorist links (he even bankrolled Hamas !). Had he not been dealt with, this would've sent a terrible message to all rogue States (present AND future), telling them that there will be no consequences to stockpiling WMD's, because nobody will MEANINGFULLY investigate, nobody will actually STOP you from doing so, nobody will give you cause to think again !!

There is indeed a choice. You can do nothing, then, one day, wake up to 'wonder' why, suddenly, the world's so much less safe a place to live in. A responsible President, commanding the power that the American one does, uses his power to prevent such dangers from ever growing, to threaten his country's way of life.

This may not be the Leftie way, though. But some of us have a more responsible mindset .. 'sorry'.

Assad, Saddam .. did they never themselves commit atrocities ? Were / are they two leaders who'd never launched WMD attacks on their OWN people ?? Do they, therefore, NOT deserve, in Leftie eyes, to be accountable for such actions ??

As for 'NK' .. the belligerence of that regime, there, is surely proven ? How many more missile 'tests' do they have to carry out, how much more of a refinement of their capabilities should they have the time and opportunity to make, before, FINALLY, somebody wakes up to their being an ever-growing threat ??!?

Revelarts, I find your 'head in the sand' attitude incredible. NOT a surprise .. as, after all, you're thinking like a Leftie. But incredible, nonetheless.

Some of us face reality, and want to pre-empt growing threats and dangers by acting to remedy them. It is no less than thoroughly responsible to do so !!

[revelarts]

There's some typical bog-standard Leftie thinking in all of this.

.. where to start .. ?

Saddam's Iraq WAS a threat to the entire West. He was known to have terrorist links (he even bankrolled Hamas !). Had he not been dealt with, this would've sent a terrible message to all rogue States (present AND future), telling them that there will be no consequences to stockpiling WMD's, because nobody will MEANINGFULLY investigate, nobody will actually STOP you from doing so, nobody will give you cause to think again !!

There is indeed a choice. You can do nothing, then, one day, wake up to 'wonder' why, suddenly, the world's so much less safe a place to live in. A responsible President, commanding the power that the American one does, uses his power to prevent such dangers from ever growing, to threaten his country's way of life.

This may not be the Leftie way, though. But some of us have a more responsible mindset .. 'sorry'.

Assad, Saddam .. did they never themselves commit atrocities ? Were / are they two leaders who'd never launched WMD attacks on their OWN people ?? Do they, therefore, NOT deserve, in Leftie eyes, to be accountable for such actions ??

As for 'NK' .. the belligerence of that regime, there, is surely proven ? How many more missile 'tests' do they have to carry out, how much more of a refinement of their capabilities should they have the time and opportunity to make, before, FINALLY, somebody wakes up to their being an ever-growing threat ??!?

Revelarts, I find your 'head in the sand' attitude incredible. NOT a surprise .. as, after all, you're thinking like a Leftie. But incredible, nonetheless.

Some of us face reality, and want to pre-empt growing threats and dangers by acting to remedy them. It is no less than thoroughly responsible to do so !!
Drummond I know you're committed to your views. but i will ask you to answer me a few questions.

Did Saddam attack the U.S. On 911?
Did anyone from Iraq attack the US on 911 or ever?

Does Saudi Arabi have "terrorist links"?
Does Turkey have "terrorist links"?
Does Pakistan "terrorist links"?
Have you ever OBJECTIVELY reviewed the list of countries that commit atrocities?

I was going to ask you
if there are ANY OTHER choices besides the Military invasion of nations or "doing nothing"?
But i don't think you can conceive of any. Or conceive of anything else that will "solve" the problem to your satisfaction and that's truly sad.


Finally I'd like to hope that you'd acknowledge one thing at least.
the FACT that the "WAR" on terror has generated more terrorist and more counties that a under terrorist banners than when it began. Iraq is riddled with terrorist that weren't there before. Libya has AQ flags flying over the capital, Syria has had AQ flags flying over cities and Christians and NON-SAUDI/WAHABIST muslims have had their heads cut off for the pass several years. But pre-Syrian"rebels" Christians and muslims lived in Syria in relative peace. Yemen is thick with terrorist. Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all been caught harboring, financing and training the WORSE of terrorist.. to send to Syria ..and to.... where next Drummond?

I suspect that you can not translate what i'm saying into the mental framework of the world that you have, so you'll either dismiss it or blame the inconstancies and problems on the "the left" and be done with it.

but whatever the case, I think we'll just have to disagree.

[Drummond]

Drummond I know you're committed to your views. but i will ask you to answer me a few questions.

Did Saddam attack the U.S. On 911?
Did anyone from Iraq attack the US on 911 or ever?

No, and no, in that order ...

However, Saddam DID shelter Zarqawi, a leading Al Qaeda figure ...so you can't claim that he had no friendly links with Al Q.


Does Saudi Arabi have "terrorist links"?

Yes and no. Ignoring the fact of where bin Laden came from (.. you'll need to do that, of course ..) ...

http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-arabias-links-to-terrorism


With the end of the Cold War, the most persuasive reasons for maintaining the marriage of convenience with Saudi Arabia disappeared. With the September 11 attacks, the returns on this partnership went from zero to negative. The Saudis have become the friends of our enemies and the enemies of our friends. Bin Laden is an extension of Saudi foreign policy. To be fair, the Saudis don't quite know how to deal with the monster they've created – so far they've avoided tough choices. As long as the benefits of sponsoring terror are enormous and the costs of sponsoring terror are negligible, they will not take decisive action. The US must therefore make the costs of funding Wahhabi extremism terribly high, while making the benefits slim pickings.

I'll be fair .. Saudi Arabia has been tough on terrorists, of late. This is encouraging. Nonetheless ... Saudi Arabia is the chief source of the Wahhabi 'variant' of Islam, an extremist version of it. Terrorists take to it like a duck to water.


Does Turkey have "terrorist links"?

Funny you should ask ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?r=US&IR=T


A US-led raid on the compound housing the Islamic State's "chief financial officer" produced evidence that Turkish officials directly dealt with ranking ISIS members, Martin Chulov of the Guardian reported recently.

The officer killed in the raid, Islamic State official Abu Sayyaf, was responsible for directing the terror army's oil and gas operations in Syria. The Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh) earns up to $10 million a month selling oil on black markets.

Documents and flash drives seized during the Sayyaf raid reportedly revealed links "so clear" and "undeniable" between Turkey and ISIS "that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara," senior Western official familiar with the captured intelligence told the Guardian.

This is what they told THE GUARDIAN. So, you know 'It Must Be True' ...

Shall I continue ?


Does Pakistan "terrorist links"?

You mean, apart from allowing bin Laden his own compound to stay at, for YEARS .. ?

Oh, well .. let's see ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism


Pakistan's tribal region along the border of Afghanistan has been claimed to be a "haven for terrorists" by western media and the United States Defense Secretary. According to an analysis published by the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution in 2008, Pakistan was, "with the possible exception of Iran, perhaps the world’s most active sponsor of terrorist groups... aiding groups that pose a direct threat to the United States." Daniel Byman, an author, also wrote that, "Pakistan is probably 2008's most active sponsor of terrorism".

NEED I SAY MORE ?



Have you ever OBJECTIVELY reviewed the list of countries that commit atrocities?

Have YOU ?


I was going to ask you
if there are ANY OTHER choices besides the Military invasion of nations or "doing nothing"?
But i don't think you can conceive of any. Or conceive of anything else that will "solve" the problem to your satisfaction and that's truly sad.

Well now, a Leftie would claim that you could 'negotiate' with aggressors. But it doesn't take much reflection to dismiss that as impractical, bordering on the comically absurd.

Could the Taliban have been negotiated with, to give up bin Laden ? GW Bush DID give them that opportunity, by the way. They ignored it .. of course ...

Have you ever heard of an Islamic terrorist who could be persuaded to renounce his terrorism, or even 'just' so much as 'consider' renouncing violence ?

It's in the nature of the problem that the aggressors we're talking about won't consider anything LESS than force. They respect nothing else. If you think otherwise ... I look forward to your evidence !!



Finally I'd like to hope that you'd acknowledge one thing at least.
the FACT that the "WAR" on terror has generated more terrorist and more counties that a under terrorist banners than when it began. Iraq is riddled with terrorist that weren't there before. Libya has AQ flags flying over the capital, Syria has had AQ flags flying over cities and Christians and NON-SAUDI/WAHABIST muslims have had their heads cut off for the pass several years. But pre-Syrian"rebels" Christians and muslims lived in Syria in relative peace. Yemen is thick with terrorist. Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all been caught harboring, financing and training the WORSE of terrorist.. to send to Syria ..and to.... where next Drummond?

Correction: Obama's much-announced withdrawal of troops from Iraq was the very making of ISIS. American troops moved out. ISIS moved in !

The big problem with the War on Terror has been that it's been RELAXED. Consequently, terrorists from ISIS and other groups have had far less pressure on them ... they've been given the gift of a 'breather', and of course, they've used the opportunity to enhance their capabilities.

Obama must be proud !!


I suspect that you can not translate what i'm saying into the mental framework of the world that you have, so you'll either dismiss it or blame the inconstancies and problems on the "the left" and be done with it.

Bog-standard Leftieism IS distinctive !! What helps to make it so is its weird belief that realities just don't matter. Lefties see the world as they choose, and not as it IS. Their ideological opposites are far more realistic.


but whatever the case, I think we'll just have to disagree.

Not at all !! You could just give up on your Leftie idealism, and deal with the world in ITS terms, instead ...

... how about that ???

[Balu]

Hundreds poisoned in US-led coalition’s strike on IS depot in Deir ez-Zor

World (http://tass.com/world)
April 13, 13:20 UTC+3
According to the Syrian army command, hundreds of people died from poisoning ...

Well... The USA confirmed that it was their strike. Question - which American objectives MUST be the the targets for Russian cruise missiles strikes? :lol:

[revelarts]

No, and no, in that order ...
However, Saddam DID shelter Zarqawi, a leading Al Qaeda figure ...so you can't claim that he had no friendly links with Al Q.
"shelter"? if that's the guy i remember he lived in Iraq hiding in the hinterlands but he was not a guest of Saddam.

But exactly correct on Iraq, it had oohing to do with 9-11 or the terrorist that are OUR major problem.
Iraq was NOT a priority. certainly not a Billion dollar, 100thousands+ dead priority.



Yes and no. Ignoring the fact of where bin Laden came from (.. you'll need to do that, of course ..) ...
http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-arabias-links-to-terrorism
I'll be fair .. Saudi Arabia has been tough on terrorists, of late. This is encouraging. Nonetheless ... Saudi Arabia is the chief source of the Wahhabi 'variant' of Islam, an extremist version of it. Terrorists take to it like a duck to water.
Funny you should ask ...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?r=US&IR=T
This is what they told THE GUARDIAN. So, you know 'It Must Be True' ...
Shall I continue ?
You mean, apart from allowing bin Laden his own compound to stay at, for YEARS .. ?
Oh, well .. let's see ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
NEED I SAY MORE ?

Not at all, this is exactly my point, here we have CLEAR evidence that 3 countries that are KNOWN to be consorting with our REAL enemies and yet we have no trrops on the ground or BOYAH missile strikes to overthrow the gov't. in fact we've been sending each of the terrorist affiliated nations BILLIONS of dollars, in aid military and CASH.
But somehow ASSAD, who we don't even have hard evidence of committing this latest chem attack MUST be fired apon with 53 missiles?! it makes no logical sense. at least based on our STATED goals.

the congressional use of force CLEARLY says that the U.S. is authorized to attack any nation that harbors or assist anyone associated with the 911 groups. But somehow since bush the countries we've been pestering have had the LEAST connections.

the point is ASSAD is not a legitimate target compared to others. IF we're really looking for excuses to attack nations.
the bar is not level.
OR PERHAPS,is it possible that the war on terror and defending the innocent from "atrocities" are a smokescreen for other goals?
Or maybe the U.S. leadership from Bush to Trump is just stupid?
because based on your own quick assessment there ar e many other nations with VERY REAL terrorist connections who we still call "Friends" and "NATO partners"


Have YOU ?
Yes and there are many countries that commit various atrocities have been since WW2, Saddam did years before we attacked him. He gasses his own and we did NOTHING, in fact we gave him a CASH afterwards. again the motives for "attacking other countries is NOT level Drummond. . there are OTHER agendas at work. and the "atrocities card" or the "drug dealer card" or the evil dictator cards" are only played to the point of war when gov't officials have another agenda.



Well now, a Leftie would claim that you could 'negotiate' with aggressors. But it doesn't take much reflection to dismiss that as impractical, bordering on the comically absurd.

Could the Taliban have been negotiated with, to give up bin Laden ? GW Bush DID give them that opportunity, by the way. They ignored it .. of course ...

Have you ever heard of an Islamic terrorist who could be persuaded to renounce his terrorism, or even 'just' so much as 'consider' renouncing violence ?

It's in the nature of the problem that the aggressors we're talking about won't consider anything LESS than force. They respect nothing else. If you think otherwise ... I look forward to your evidence !!
I'm not talking about "negotiation", but at least you took a shot.



Correction: Obama's much-announced withdrawal of troops from Iraq was the very making of ISIS. American troops moved out. ISIS moved in !

The big problem with the War on Terror has been that it's been RELAXED. Consequently, terrorists from ISIS and other groups have had far less pressure on them ... they've been given the gift of a 'breather', and of course, they've used the opportunity to enhance their capabilities.

Obama must be proud !!
you have to go back further . when GWBush fired all of Sadams Army without pay HE created ISIS in IRAQ. There was no Isis in Iraq until he invaded, period. GWB must be very proud.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Kathianne;863819]@Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30) Expound, please.[/QUOTE Kathianne ... Ive read every one of Alistair MacLean's novels. He was from Scotland. Very technical and quite verbose. He keeps you on your seat because he's got so many twists and turns it's ridiculous. I'm trying to think of something you may have seen that he wrote. "Where Eagles Dare".

He screwed me up. When we came back to the US I had to learn to spell all over again. Americans don't spell in proper English. And I learned proper English. I catch myself using proper English all the time and have to hit the backspace. :)

Anyways, he was a mystery thriller writer. When we lived in Greece, I lived in the base library. I wasn't quite yet into girls -- like there were a whole bunch to go round -- I'd go there and just sit and read.

English writers are verbose as Hell. They seem more concerned with technical detail than the characters. If yu can stay awake through Last of the Mohicans or Dracula or Frankenstein you got me beat. The movies are better than the books. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is written in the same style. The characters are cold and you plod through the story,

[Kathianne]

@Gunny (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=30) Expound, please. @Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8) ... Ive read every one of Alistair MacLean's novels. He was from Scotland. Very technical and quite verbose. He keeps you on your seat because he's got so many twists and turns it's ridiculous. I'm trying to think of something you may have seen that he wrote. "Where Eagles Dare".

He screwed me up. When we came back to the US I had to learn to spell all over again. Americans don't spell in proper English. And I learned proper English. I catch myself using proper English all the time and have to hit the backspace. :)

Anyways, he was a mystery thriller writer. When we lived in Greece, I lived in the base library. I wasn't quite yet into girls -- like there were a whole bunch to go round -- I'd go there and just sit and read.

English writers are verbose as Hell. They seem more concerned with technical detail than the characters. If yu can stay awake through Last of the Mohicans or Dracula or Frankenstein you got me beat. The movies are better than the books. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is written in the same style. The characters are cold and you plod through the story,

Ok, verbosity, got it. Not me. ;)

[Gunny]

Ok, verbosity, got it. Not me. ;)I don't know how to explain it without being verbose. It's just a different style of writing. Most of the novels I listed are 19th century. McLean's are 40s-50s. If you can live through a James Fennimore Cooper novel. let me know. :laugh:

[Drummond]

"shelter"? if that's the guy i remember he lived in Iraq hiding in the hinterlands but he was not a guest of Saddam.

But exactly correct on Iraq, it had oohing to do with 9-11 or the terrorist that are OUR major problem.
Iraq was NOT a priority. certainly not a Billion dollar, 100thousands+ dead priority.

Did I say he was a 'guest' ? I said he was sheltered. And, sheltered, he WAS.

See ...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Osama%20Saddam%20Link%20Conformed.htm


King Abdullah told a Saudi newspaper that the Jordanians knew Saddam to be sheltering Zarqawi in the last years of the Ba'athist reign of terror and demanded his extradition. Saddam refused to turn Zarqawi over to the Jordanians. Abdullah had been clear on that point; the Ba'athists had not claimed they could not reach him, but that they flatly refused to hand him over.

You don't think that qualifies as 'sheltering' ?

Also from the same link, by the way ...


... the Exempt Media completely missed important corroboration from Iraq's new government that Saddam sheltered and even encouraged al-Qaeda terrorists during his reign of terror.


In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

The War on Terror was meant to be precisely that ! You can argue all you like about how much of a 'priority' Saddam was in that, but that he was a legitimate target is surely beyond dispute.

This is over and above the whole issue of whether or not he had WMD's, and if he did, what he might do with them, AND, what message it would send the world to just leave him alone to stockpile, as he chose !


Not at all, this is exactly my point, here we have CLEAR evidence that 3 countries that are KNOWN to be consorting with our REAL enemies and yet we have no trrops on the ground or BOYAH missile strikes to overthrow the gov't. in fact we've been sending each of the terrorist affiliated nations BILLIONS of dollars, in aid military and CASH.

Good ol' Obama, eh, Revelarts ?


But somehow ASSAD, who we don't even have hard evidence of committing this latest chem attack MUST be fired apon with 53 missiles?! it makes no logical sense. at least based on our STATED goals.

This issue is still ongoing, to some extent. I'm wondering if it's too early, yet, for us to be sure of the full picture ?


the congressional use of force CLEARLY says that the U.S. is authorized to attack any nation that harbors or assist anyone associated with the 911 groups. But somehow since bush the countries we've been pestering have had the LEAST connections.

Since Bush, you say ? Well, who took over, after Bush ?


the point is ASSAD is not a legitimate target compared to others. IF we're really looking for excuses to attack nations.
the bar is not level.

I can accept that you, personally, don't accept where the bar now needs to be set. Then again ... what Leftie does ?

Get over it. From what I've been learning, a great many Americans APPROVE of Trump's action.


OR PERHAPS,is it possible that the war on terror and defending the innocent from "atrocities" are a smokescreen for other goals?

You're a great one for conspiracy theories. I doubt that you can usefully back up your thinking, though.


Or maybe the U.S. leadership from Bush to Trump is just stupid?
because based on your own quick assessment there ar e many other nations with VERY REAL terrorist connections who we still call "Friends" and "NATO partners"

Really ?

Well, the geopolitical scene is an ever-evolving one. Considerations - and GOOD ones - may be in play, which address, 'real time', what is for the best.

If you have Saudi Arabia in mind .. well, they, of late, HAVE been taking an anti-terrorist line. For as long as that persists, isn't it a good thing to ally with them, to give support as and when it's needed ?


Yes and there are many countries that commit various atrocities have been since WW2, Saddam did years before we attacked him. He gasses his own and we did NOTHING, in fact we gave him a CASH afterwards. again the motives for "attacking other countries is NOT level Drummond. . there are OTHER agendas at work. and the "atrocities card" or the "drug dealer card" or the evil dictator cards" are only played to the point of war when gov't officials have another agenda.

It's interesting, Revelarts. Here you are, taking a 'lamenting' tone over what you say is happening. Yet .. if the US made the extent of effort to be a world policeman that you're implying may be appropriate ... you, of all people, would happily be at the head of the queue to carp about it !!

Why not admit that you hate the War on Terror, and be done with it ?


I'm not talking about "negotiation", but at least you took a shot.

What, then ?


you have to go back further . when GWBush fired all of Sadams Army without pay HE created ISIS in IRAQ. There was no Isis in Iraq until he invaded, period. GWB must be very proud.

I love this 'logic'. Applying it, I could also say that there was no 9/11 before Bush took Office. Does that mean that it was all Bush's fault ??

Besides, you're missing the point that Iraq's security interests were being met, from the presence of American troops, who were, in any case, busily trying to train up the Iraqi personnel necessary to take over from them. The real problem, and ISIS's consequent emergence in Iraq, came about because Obama withdrew American personnel prematurely, AND obligingly gave any terrorist who cared to know about it, ample advance warning of it !!!

[revelarts]

I love this 'logic'. Applying it, I could also say that there was no 9/11 before Bush took Office. Does that mean that it was all Bush's fault ??

Besides, you're missing the point that Iraq's security interests were being met, from the presence of American troops, who were, in any case, busily trying to train up the Iraqi personnel necessary to take over from them. The real problem, and ISIS's consequent emergence in Iraq, came about because Obama withdrew American personnel prematurely, AND obligingly gave any terrorist who cared to know about it, ample advance warning of it !!!
we've gone far a field of the thread but to address your last bit
3 thing briefly,
1st GWBush set up the the timing on the 2011 withdrawal, and unless we want to say that Bush NEVER intended to honor that agreement then Obama can't have the whole blame on the withdrawal.

2nd the Isis Fighters are made up of the same Syrian and Libyan rebels that Obama and the people like McCAin and Garahm and even Romney agreed with and egged on.

3rd Many of the people in the Iraqi Insurgencies and NOW in Isis are many of the 40,000 former Bathist of Saddam that were stupidly put on the streets with out a job or pensions.

Does Obama hold part of the bag, absolutely. Is it all on him no. it started with the invasion of Iraq.
which had NOTHING to do with 911 as you've already stated.

How Saddam’s Former Soldiers Are Fueling the Rise of ISIS | The Rise of ISIS | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/rise-of-isis/how-saddams-former-soldiers-are-fueling-the-rise-of-isis/)

CNN.com - U.S. dissolves Iraqi army, Defense and Information ministries - May. 23, 2003 (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/23/sprj.nitop.army.dissolve/)

Paul Bremer on Iraq, ten years on: 'We made major strategic mistakes. But I still think Iraqis are far better off' - Middle East - World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/paul-bremer-on-iraq-ten-years-on-we-made-major-strategic-mistakes-but-i-still-think-iraqis-are-far-better-off-8539767.html)

Documents Indicate Policy Plan That Fueled Iraqi Insurgency Was Compartmentalized in Rumsfeld's Pentagon | Foreign Policy Journal (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/17/documents-indicate-policy-plan-that-fueled-iraqi-insurgency-was-compartmentalized-in-rumsfelds-pentagon/)

"...Among the documents released is Bremer’s memo to Rumsfeld informing him of his intent to issue Order #2. In that memo, with the subject heading “Dissolution of the Ministry of Defense [MOD] and Related Entities” and dated May 19, 2003, Bremer stated, “In the coming days I propose to issue the attached order (Tab A) carrying forward the de-Ba’athification effort by dissolving Saddam’s key security ministries…. The order also makes clear we will begin the process of establishing new armed forces for the new Iraq to provide for legitimate self-defense needs.” Bremer also noted that “The order will affect large numbers of people: There were some 400,000 employees of the MOD alone”, and acknowledged “the risks of serious discontent, increased terrorism, and much higher crime rates that may result if we cut of [sic] all military and security sector pensioners in a heavily militarized society.”"

Documents Indicate Policy Plan That Fueled Iraqi Insurgency Was Compartmentalized in Rumsfeld's Pentagon | Foreign Policy Journal (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/17/documents-indicate-policy-plan-that-fueled-iraqi-insurgency-was-compartmentalized-in-rumsfelds-pentagon/)

They KNEW they were making it worse, and they did it anyway.
2003 the GWBUSH admin.
Did Obama play his own part, sure, but who created the mess WHERE THERE WAS NOT ONE? the honest answer has nothing to do with your unique 'left always am bad' and 'right always do double plus good' mentality.
it has to do with the ACTIONS of people involved.

[Drummond]

we've gone far a field of the thread but to address your last bit
3 thing briefly,
1st GWBush set up the the timing on the 2011 withdrawal, and unless we want to say that Bush NEVER intended to honor that agreement then Obama can't have the whole blame on the withdrawal.
Don't be ridiculous. Obama publicly declared his own intentions, even before he properly took Office. Besides, Obama would've had the capability to do what HE wanted. If he'd wanted to oppose such a timing, or follow another route entirely, he could have done that. Instead, HE chose what HE chose. Therefore, the result of that is entirely his responsibility.


2nd the Isis Fighters are made up of the same Syrian and Libyan rebels that Obama and the people like McCAin and Garahm and even Romney agreed with and egged on.

Context ? Did this so-called 'egging on' involve outright alliegance with ISIS ? An understanding of what ISIS were ? I doubt it !


3rd Many of the people in the Iraqi Insurgencies and NOW in Isis are many of the 40,000 former Bathist of Saddam that were stupidly put on the streets with out a job or pensions.

You want to blame Bush for decisions which all of those independently made ?

Typical Leftie tactic, that. Anything you think you can blame Bush for, you WILL blame him for .. whether true or not, whether sensible or not !


Does Obama hold part of the bag, absolutely. Is it all on him no.

I disagree. Obama was free to take his own path. This he did. It IS all down to him.

Or would you like to claim that Bush and Obama co-ran Obama's Presidency ??


it started with the invasion of Iraq.

which had NOTHING to do with 911 as you've already stated.
... BUT, there were dangers involved in leaving Saddam alone. Teaching the world that no power choosing to stockpile WMD's could do so without fear of reprisals was one. Letting Saddam choose to be as actively involved with terrorists as he wanted, was another.

Saddam was a legitimate target in the War on Terror. Face that fact.

We're aware that the outcome of the 2003 invasion wasn't ideal. But, that's a far cry from concluding that it would have worked out better had Saddam been left alone, free instead to do his worst. Perhaps the problems would've been different ...a proliferation of rogue regimes all threatening WMD use, for example ? Maybe Islamic terrorists would've got their hands on, and deployed, WMD's by now ?

The biggest single mistake has been to relax the War on Terror. It shouldn't have reached its peak with Iraq ... it should have continued on.

[revelarts]

must watch,
new Bill in congress,
Purpose, that the U.S. gov't not FUND, arm, train or support directly or indirectly AQ ISIL and AlNusra TERRORIST in the M.E..

As i mention to drummond earlier. the U.S. is Supporting AQ, ISIS/ISIL, Al NUSRA.
Making them STRONGER in a covert/overt effort to defeat ASSAD.

Syria didn't attack us on 911. AQ did!
Syria didn't fight us in IRAQ AQ and ISIS did!
Syrian troops didn't cut the heads off of Christians ALNusra Did.

Seems to me either our gov't is STUPID or
there's another unspoken agenda for wanting Assad gone MORE than defeating terrorist groups that have killed thousands of americans over the last 12+ years and literally threatened to destroy the U.S..
Has Syria threatened to destroy the U.S..?

whatever the Bush/Obama/Trump motives the "war on terror" is shown to be pure BS with the need for this law.
But seems to me it's Overkill. the anti terror laws on the books already should put ANY gov't office (high or Low) in prison (or Gitmo) for aiding any of those groups. But somehow It's been done year after year without consequence.

"I didn't KNOW i was giving training, and money to AQ." wouldn't go over well in court if any of us were on trial... after doing it for YEARS.
but these gov't actions never even MAKE it to court. why? Stupidity or another agenda?
you choose.
basically been going on since BinLaden though, so how much stupid can we buy before we start to wonder if it might be on purpose?
.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOPdGYGjCK0

[Drummond]

must watch,
new Bill in congress,
Purpose, that the U.S. gov't not FUND, arm, train or support directly or indirectly AQ ISIL and AlNusra TERRORIST in the M.E..

As i mention to drummond earlier. the U.S. is Supporting AQ, ISIS/ISIL, Al NUSRA.
Making them STRONGER in a covert/overt effort to defeat ASSAD.

Syria didn't attack us on 911. AQ did!
Syria didn't fight us in IRAQ AQ and ISIS did!
Syrian troops didn't cut the heads off of Christians ALNusra Did.

Seems to me either our gov't is STUPID or
there's another unspoken agenda for wanting Assad gone MORE than defeating terrorist groups that have killed thousands of americans over the last 12+ years and literally threatened to destroy the U.S..
Has Syria threatened to destroy the U.S..?

whatever the Bush/Obama/Trump motives the "war on terror" is shown to be pure BS with the need for this law.
But seems to me it's Overkill. the anti terror laws on the books already should put ANY gov't office (high or Low) in prison (or Gitmo) for aiding any of those groups. But somehow It's been done year after year without consequence.

"I didn't KNOW i was giving training, and money to AQ." wouldn't go over well in court if any of us were on trial... after doing it for YEARS.
but these gov't actions never even MAKE it to court. why? Stupidity or another agenda?
you choose.
basically been going on since BinLaden though, so how much stupid can we buy before we start to wonder if it might be on purpose?
.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOPdGYGjCK0

This is just offensive, Revelarts.

I for one find it difficult to accept that the US is giving terrorists ANY such support. Whether or not Obama found some back-channel way to do such a thing ... somehow I doubt it, though admittedly I wouldn't put it past him. Trump most definitely WOULD NOT.

Unless you prove your assertion beyond doubt, Revelarts (more so than having just one commentator saying it's happened, possibly said for partisan / electoral gain ?), don't expect me to take your posting seriously in future.

Let's say it was true, though. Let's say Obama arranged that support. Well ... I suggest that this would mean that Obama was purposely aiding and arming America's enemies. So, why isn't Obama facing some form of prosecution, on the grounds of betrayal to his country ??

[revelarts]

This is just offensive, Revelarts.
I for one find it difficult to accept that the US is giving terrorists ANY such support. Whether or not Obama found some back-channel way to do such a thing ... somehow I doubt it, though admittedly I wouldn't put it past him. Trump most definitely WOULD NOT.
Unless you prove your assertion beyond doubt, Revelarts (more so than having just one commentator saying it's happened, possibly said for partisan / electoral gain ?), don't expect me to take your posting seriously in future.
Let's say it was true, though. Let's say Obama arranged that support. Well ... I suggest that this would mean that Obama was purposely aiding and arming America's enemies. So, why isn't Obama facing some form of prosecution, on the grounds of betrayal to his country ??


Been going on for decades, at times i'm sure it was literally a "mistake", sometimes, as with the quote from Bremer of the Bush admin i posted earlier, they KNEW they we're promoting terrorism with their policies/actions by default, but also often it was known and calculated as "jihadist" can be useful tools against...
the soviets and Z Brezenski said when he helped recruit, fund and arm the Afghan "rebels",
the Israelis promoted the fledgling Hamas as a rival to the PLO,
Obama and his Republican Allies in congress gave LIKELY or Known ISIS fighters funds, arms, training and cover to fight Assad.
Even more clearly they did the same in Libya against Khadaffi. our CIA and military “advisors” to the "rebels" were well aware that those Libyan "freedom fighters" we air and sea supported were AQ. And many were former Isis fighters against our own men in IRAQ who came back home to topple Khadaffi.
then the 2nd hand help of AQ via other M.E. states Allies which tries to give the U.S. the appearance of somewhat clean hands. the Saudis, passing money and arms that they got from the U.S.. the Turks giving the terrorist EVERYTHING, literally everything that they can. Quatar as well, Jordan and Pakistan have played both sides sometimes fighting terrorist sometime sheltering and supporting.

more than enough of this information is publicly available if you're open enough to see it.


the problem is if you have blinders on and Only WANT to see the U.S. as fighting terror and Speadin’ Democray then you don't add it to facts that form your view.


I can, and will, post a few links but if you don't want to believe them because you have MINSET that DOESN’T ALLOW IT TO BE REAL,
"Someone would have done something" Or "Only the democrats do bad things"
“the lefty media ALWAYS lies and NEVER say ANYTHING true”
then well no amount of evidence will make a difference will it?

[revelarts]

there's more than this available that confirm what i'm saying Drummond but here are a few items to check.
I'm not trying to make the U.S. LOOK hypocritical and supporting terrorist willy nilly,
I'm just looking at the TOTALITY of the words and ACTIONS. not just "stated goals" flag waving, macho posturing

SO if your interested, in no particular order.

Senior Western official: Links between Turkey and ISIS are now 'undeniable'
http://uk.businessinsider.com/links-between-turkey-and-isis-are-now-undeniable-2015-7?r=US&IR=T


Saudi Arabia's Links to Terrorism
http://www.meforum.org/528/saudi-arabias-links-to-terrorism


Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism


Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group
Rebel groups across Syria are defying the United States by pledging their allegiance to a group that Washington will designate today a terrorist organization for its alleged links to al-Qaeda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9735988/Syrian-rebels-defy-US-and-pledge-allegiance-to-jihadi-group.html


Free Syrian Army rebels defect to Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra
The well-resourced organisation, which is linked to al-Qaida, is luring many anti-Assad fighters away, say brigade commanders
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group


Zbigniew Brzezinski to Jihadists: Your cause is right!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTv2nFjMBk


How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/


From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/409274513.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar%2023,%202002&author=Joe%20Stephens%20and%20David%20B.%20Ottaway&pub=The%20Washington%20Post&edition=&startpage=A.01&desc=From%20U.S.,%20the%20ABC's%20of%20Jihad;%20Vi olent%20Soviet-Era%20Textbooks%20Complicate%20Afghan%20Education% 20Efforts


The 9/11 Commission report (PDF) released in 2004 said some of Pakistan’s religious schools or madrassas served as “incubators for violent extremism.” Since then, there has been much debate over madrassas and their connection to militancy.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10353/


US Chief Of VISA section at JEDDAH,MICHAEL SPRINGMANN testified that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications by Saudi Aabian men similar to those named as the 9/11 HijackersPatsies when he was head of the consular section of the US embassy in Jeddah, but C.I.A. officers repeatedly overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6YHij-aCU


Rym Momtaz and Trevor J. Ladd report on ABC News
Two former Senators who led inquiries into the 9/11 attacks have issued sworn statements that they believe the government of Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the fight on terrorism, may have played a role in the terror attacks ten years ago. “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” said former Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Graham led a 2002 Congressional probe of the attacks.
Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who served on the 9/11 Commission, said in a separate affidavit that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued.”....
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1AXz8w5ly4




Ex-Senators Say Saudi Arabia May Be Linked to 9/11
According to Sen. Graham, open questions include possible financial support of al Qaeda by Saudi charities, and the role of a Saudi resident of California who was in contact with both the hijackers and Saudi officials. "There was a direct line," wrote Graham, "between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia, and [a] Saudi government agent living in the United States, Omar al Bayoumi, provided direct assistance to September 11th hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/senators-saudi-arabia-linked-911/story?id=15827925#.T1K3I8yS7qS




Inside the Saudi 9/11 coverup
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/


BIN LADENS ALLOWED OUT OF U.S. AFTER 9-11
Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor
http://www.wnd.com/2003/09/20600/#Q7VVHu2rudJVFPmI.99




NEW SAUDI KING TIED TO AL QAEDA, BIN LADEN AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-saudi-king-named-in-911-suits/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/27/king-salmans-shady-history-saudi-arabia-jihadi-ties/?wp_login_redirect=0
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=salman_bin_abdul-aziz_1


How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123275572295011847
Ehud Olmert on Sunday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of deliberately strengthening Hamas in order to convince the Israeli public that there is no Palestinian partner for peace.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Olmert-PM-strengthening-Hamas-to-deceive-Israelis
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35605-Muslim-Brotherhood-wins-Presidency&p=560102#post560102


CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he _gassed_iran




U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp




U.S. Weaponry Heading to Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
Recent unrest has not severed agreements
http://reason.com/24-7/2012/12/07/us-weaponry-heading-to-muslim-brotherhoo




"...The CIA, concerned about the factionalism of Afghanistan … found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans were easier to “read” than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the Middle East, became the “reliable” partners of the CIA in its war against Moscow..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc




Bin Laden Comes homes to Roost : His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3340101/#.WPJw8hTp-NM




the people we’re fighting today we funded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/#.UEaKb6BFbKc




Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html


‘Freelance jihadists’ join Libyan rebels
Ex-al Qaeda member speaks out
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/29/1000-freelance-jihadists-join-libyan-rebels/


US Congressman Dennis Kucinich on Al-Qaeda flag over Benghazi Courthouse 02-11-2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPbXc78bOjw




Is the U.S. Still Funding Iranian Suicide Bombers?
President Obama is denouncing a suicide attack by the Sunni terrorists Jundallah that killed 39 in Iran, but is his administration still backing the group? Reza Aslan on how the bombing might bring the two countries together.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/16/iran-suicide-bombing-is-the-us-still-funding-jundallah.html




THE REDIRECTION
Is the Bush Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection


Al-Qaeda Backers Found With U.S. Contracts in Afghanistan
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-30/al-qaeda-backers-found-with-u-s-contracts-in-afghanistan.html


Frontline PBS
there is evidence to suggest under the recent Bush administration, the U.S. was deeply involved in funding Jundallah terrorists.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/jundallah.html#ixzz1c6SHX5Is




Top Jundallah Figure Says US Ordered Attacks
Baloch Separatist Group Stopped Getting al-Qaeda Aid in 2003, Then Started Getting US Aid by Jason Ditz, August 25, 2009
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/top-jundallah-figure-says-us-ordered-attacks/


The Fuzzy Line of Terrorism by FBI 911 hero Coleen Rowley
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/27/the-fuzzy-line-of-terrorism/


Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa


http://rt.com/news/iran-mek-us-military-237/


Moreover, organizations are labeled as terrorists, then de-listed, and then re-listed … depending on ever-changing American policy objectives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/when-is-a-terrorist-no-longer-a-terrorist/


TERROR LIST GAMES
The NYU scholar Remi Brulin has exhaustively detailed the rank game-playing that has taken place with this list: Saddam was put on it when he allied with the Soviets in the early 1980s, then was taken off when the US wanted to arm and fund him against Iran in the mid-1980s, then he was put back on in the early 1990s when the US wanted to attack him.
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/14/terrorism_20/




http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/vp-biden-says-that-the-taliban-per-se-is-not-our-enemy/




“The Chechens’ American friends: The Washington neocons’ commitment to the war on terror evaporates in Chechnya, whose cause they have made their own.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/08/usa.russia




How a Chechen terror suspect wound up living on taxpayers' dollars near the National Zoo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38200-2005Mar15.html




…………………………….
Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
George W. Bush




You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.
George W. Bush


http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/Join-the-CIA.gif

[revelarts]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-exper...100819428.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-expert-claims-latest-chemical-100819428.html)

MIT expert claims latest chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged

<tbody>

Postol notes the “only source the document cites as evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater” left by a munition.

Postol located the crater via satellite and examined it himself, concluding it reveals “absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft”.

The “data cited by the White House”, he says, “is more consistent with the possibility that the munition was placed on the ground rather than dropped from a plane.” He says the evidence indicates that a tube of chemical agent was placed on the ground in the al Qaeda held area and then an explosive was placed on top of that and detonated, dispersing the chemical agent.....

</tbody>

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/5eea90cc98574f4b03cd69c4caf3ec67.jpg



<tbody>
“No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it.

“All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report [from Ghouta in 2013], was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

“I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicisation of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it.

“And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.”...

</tbody>


(http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/66712.html)MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack "Cannot Be True" (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/66712.html)

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/m...mical-weapons/ (https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mit-syria-chemical-weapons/)

MIT Expert, Fmr DoD Science Advisor Release Damning Report: "Syrian Gas Attack Was Staged" (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mit-expert-fmr-dod-science-advisor-released-report-syrian-gas-attack-was-staged/)

Theodore Postol's CV


<tbody>
Theodore Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. He did his undergraduate work in physics and his graduate work in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Postol joined the staff of Argonne National Laboratory, where he studied the microscopic dynamics and structure of liquids and disordered solids using neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular dynamics techniques. Subsequently he went to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment to study methods of basing the MX Missile, and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations. After leaving the Pentagon, Dr. Postol helped to build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study developments in weapons technology of relevance to defense and arms control policy. In 1990 Dr. Postol was awarded the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society. In 1995 he received the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses.

</tbody>



Link to Postal's full Quick Assessment report
https://www.scribd.com/document/3449...017#from_embed (https://www.scribd.com/document/344995943/Report-by-White-House-Alleging-Proof-of-Syria-as-the-Perpetrator-of-the-Nerve-Agent-Attack-in-Khan-Shaykhun-on-April-4-2017#from_embed)

[Gunny]

Do y'all actually expect anyone to read through this junk? Holy crap. I might as well go back to the library.

[Kathianne]

Do y'all actually expect anyone to read through this junk? Holy crap. I might as well go back to the library.

I'm of the mindset that there are many who agree with this Dr., many of whom were strong Trump supporters. The Dr., has the credentials to give credence to their beliefs. Personally I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to our government when it comes to military decisions, while not a perfect record for certain, it's the home team as it were.

I may not agree with all the decisions they make, certainly would not give the same 'pass' to the CIA, but in general do not see the military easily going with false flag types of operations.

I do think the attempt to find someone like this Dr., is a step I would take if going down that road. As for 'length,' Rev's post was much shorter than the one Tyr posted on the same yesterday.

Read them or not, that's your choice. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm of the mindset that there are many who agree with this Dr., many of whom were strong Trump supporters. The Dr., has the credentials to give credence to their beliefs. Personally I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to our government when it comes to military decisions, while not a perfect record for certain, it's the home team as it were.

I may not agree with all the decisions they make, certainly would not give the same 'pass' to the CIA, but in general do not see the military easily going with false flag types of operations.

I do think the attempt to find someone like this Dr., is a step I would take if going down that road. As for 'length,' Rev's post was much shorter than the one Tyr posted on the same yesterday.

Read them or not, that's your choice. ;)

This is a great place for me to note this to one and all.
One can find and see truth in another man's views an judgments on a specific subject --without being 100% on board with the guy about all his other views/judgments..
Just as he may well have presented true cases in his long battling campaign against our government.
As to my being a strong Trump supporter -- you are right-- and I still am but I will call foul on Trump when I think he does wrong.
This I did and I hope nobody paints me with a broad-brush for maintaining my integrity.. of course I have no control over that should it occur...
However, my long record here should counter, any such accusation, if or when it is made, IMHO.
Clarification, I HOPE HAS NOW BEEN GIVEN ON THIS SUBJECT AND MY VIEWS IN REGARDS TO ASSAD AND CHEM WEAPONS USE CHARGE.
I do not think him guilty and I think it is a false flag attack .
And I will continue to think that until positive proooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooof comes forth..
None has as of yet, IMHO...-Tyr
-Tyr

[revelarts]

I'll stand with the facts.
I mean, If the home team is wrong and wants to kill people... the wrong people... I'm not going to go along with it's mass murders just because it's the home team.
I want to try and get the home team to STOP and think. not just go along out of a overriding sense of loyalty.


................
Ann Couter
War with Syria? She still thinks Trump's PRE-Election stance should still stand.

"...quagmire..."
"...these invasions and overthrowing dictators never helps... ...makes it worse..."
"...some of these generals advising Trump are acting like Dr Strangelove...."
YES!! thank YOU ANN COUTER! i couldn't have said it better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M61rE63eRiM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX0HTPvlVX8

[revelarts]

the Syrian "REBELS" are all Jihadist
there are NO MORE "moderates" since 2015.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0QoocyfJWI
http://www.mintpressnews.com/not-freedom-fighters-ben-swann-calls-us-funding-terrorists-syria-cbs/223584/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xIXiSq3K_c

[Kathianne]

I thought this was 'settled.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-intelligence-idUSKBN17S0RY


Wed Apr 26, 2017 | 7:10am EDTFrench intelligence says Assad forces carried out sarin attack
...

[Kathianne]

When does the preponderance of the evidence kick in?

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/26/video-russia-syria-lied-chemical-weapons-attack/


The day after the chemical weapons attack in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun, I wrote a post titled “Surprise! Russia is lying about Syrian chemical weapon attack (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/05/surprise-russia-is-lying-about-syrian-chemical-weapon-attack/).” My reaction at the time was mostly based on Russia’s previous behavior, i.e. lying about an airstrike on a relief convoy last year, lying about its involvement in Ukraine, etc. That coupled with the fact that Syria had used chemical weapons several times previous to the attack this month led me to believe Russia was once again lying to protect the Assad regime.

Later, we learned that the U.S. military had information showing the jets used in the chemical attack had been launched from the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria, an airbase where Syrians and Russians were working together. That information was what led the Trump administration to a) bomb the airfield with Tomahawk missiles and b) accuse Russia (http://hotair.com/archives/2017/04/10/report-u-s-has-concluded-russia-knew-about-chemical-attack-in-advance/) of having knowledge of the chemical attack.

Today the New York Times published a video which goes into detail about what Syria and Russia claimed happened during the attack compared to what satellite photos and video of the area show. What they found: Russia (and Syria) lied about the attack. This clip is about 7 minutes long but it’s worth watching if you have any remaining doubts about what happened in Khan Sheikhoun.

Go to the site to see the video, it's very enlightening

And if you still have some doubt, yesterday France announced further evidence that the sarin used in the attack was identical to the mixture used previously by the Syrian military. From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/europe/france-syria-chemical-weapons/):


The French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that samples taken from the attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun matched those from a previous incident.

“We have definite sources that the procedure used to make the Sarin sampled is typical of the methods developed in Syrian laboratories,” he said. “This method bears the signature of the regime, and that is what has allowed us to establish its responsibility in this attack.”


Maybe you never had any doubt that Syria and Russia were lying about responsibility for this attack, but for those who did, this should go a long way to clearing it up.