• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Dog

New chemical attack in Syria

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

100 missiles is NOT a warning shot.

One or 2  missiles IS a warning shot.

WTF does an Australian know about military actions.  You guys are brought in to be peacekeepers and usually fuck that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

WTF does an Australian know about military actions.  You guys are brought in to be peacekeepers and usually fuck that up.

Typical American arrogance. Better you read up on some facts moron.

American "peacekeepers" have killed more innocent people than any other nation in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

It was LOT more than just Duncan Hunter....  nice try though.

 

 

So, why did you bring up Obama's 'red line'? if there were no chance of an operation into Syria?

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama like Clinton skated through their terms without having to make too many difficult decisions.  Neither did anything of note. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

I thought I showed that he couldn't disregard Congress, the threat of impeachment was too heavy. In many ways, Trump and Obama think alike about Syria, neither wants to be involved in a war there. Both have been ineffectual, Trump's two attacks didn't accomplish much, neither did Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

So you are saying that the sites targeted were active CW sites 23 years ago and there were no CW or the infrastructure to make them there when the missiles struck?

In other words the information about those sites is 23 years out of date.

I wouldn't know if the sites were active or not, and neither would you, but I doubt your military would send missiles against an empty shed. They are not that stupid.

Remember, the strikes were against the Syrian CAPACITY to manufacture the weapons as well as the weapons themselves.

I know that military intelligence is said to be an oxymoron, but do you think your government would send missiles against these sites WITHOUT checking that their facts are up to date? That would be the height of stupidity. No military would be that stupid.

I  never cease to be amazed by the extreme arrogance of you Americans. Loud & arrogant. And frequently wrong but you can never accept that. No wonder the Poms don't trust your secrecy service - or whatever you call it.

Looks like Mattis was ordered to put together a demonstration of force to me. He decided hitting the old sites was either good enough or the best that could be done on short notice. The goal was to send a message, not hit the Syrian government's armed forces, many of which have Russians embedded within them. 
 

 It seems quite likely his position is much like that of Mandrake with General Ripper, attempting to stay in the game so he can moderate the madness. Mandrake had to feed bullets to General Ripper to maintain that status. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Obama like Clinton skated through their terms without having to make too many difficult decisions.  Neither did anything of note. 

Sometimes wisdom lies in deciding what shouldn’t be done despite recommendations of the enthusiasts working for you.   President Bush the lessor would be considered less a fool if he didn’t invade Iraq.   President Clinton would be considered slightly less evil if he hadn’t deregulated the financial industry.   President Nixon would be considered much more kindly if he didn’t do a lot of stuff.  Maybe watching TV is a good strategy for a President that doesn’t know how to sail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

Exactly.......  golf clap......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

Could be the rebs did it as a false flag to get us to ride to their rescue. King (I), of the Senate intell committee, said on the neuz today no evidence has been shown as yet. Looks like we are acting based on reports from the White Helmets. That's a volunteer organization made up largely of Syrians. If you currently are unable to imagine the rebs penetrating that organization...start with imagining that if they had...it would have to have been Obama's fault.

 

  

 Could the press be all wrong? "Remember The Maine!" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

Looks like Mattis was ordered to put together a demonstration of force to me. He decided hitting the old sites was either good enough or the best that could be done on short notice. The goal was to send a message, not hit the Syrian government's armed forces, many of which have Russians embedded within them. 
 

 It seems quite likely his position is much like that of Mandrake with General Ripper, attempting to stay in the game so he can moderate the madness. Mandrake had to feed bullets to General Ripper to maintain that status. 

 

 

A child, away with the fairies. Living in movies & video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

A child away with the fairies. Living in movies & video games.

I did wonder if that was too subtle for you to grasp, you didn’t disappoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Saddam trucked it all to Syria.  :ph34r:

We attacked the wrong country?? Man, talk about faulty intelligence! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Port Phillip Sailor said:

A couple of days ago I was looking at Google maps/photos of my local marina. I could identify  several boats (I know them well) and could even estimate the time of day by the shadows of the masts. So how much more detail can a spy satellite see? We don't have access to that information.

Port Phillip Super Spy!!!!!

 

 

 

:funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark K said:

We attacked the wrong country?? Man, talk about faulty intelligence! 

What?.............not again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Go back and read again, very closely and carefully, what I wrote. It isn't what you currently think it to be, my Dunning-Kruger poster child.  

He simply noticed the sites hit were old ones, and the places hit were an extraordinarily close match to very old information. This is the opposite of saying the information is accurate, regardless of the source. 

 If you believe those sites were active there should be some reports coming down the pike about the clouds of CW which would certainly be coming from bombed CW depots. Confirming evidence will surely be available soon. Most of the nerve gasses leave droplets around that remain active for quite some time. It's really nasty shit. 

  

 

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its awesome to hear you finally admit that.

That's because I'm an awesomely humble person :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Several experts cited said the best way to destroy chemical weapons is by explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

Yet to prove they’ve actually hit anything yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

What the poor scatterbrain Meli doesn't understand was the raids were as much to destroy the CAPACITY to manufacture the CW as to destroy any weapons themselves. Not so easy to "blow up" a CW artillery shell  or CW bomb.

Chlorine is used to make some of these CW. Chlorine is common, it used in swimming pools.  I don't know how it is converted into a weapon.

Do you understand that now Meli?

Of course, if you take notice of Mark K, the 100+ missiles landed on empty buildings because the military used intelligence 23 years out of date. 

Meli blowing it out of her arse.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Slight change of topic, but I was wondering about that.

Is it actually "safe" to bomb chemical weapons factories/storage without sending clouds of deadly dust/particals/droplets into the air and killing half of Damascus?

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

I was asking more in a general sense than specifically about these latest strikes.

It would seem to me that if you were bombing anything that held vast amounts of chemicals of any kind, you'd want to be sure of wind direction at the very least.

You know how firefighters have to be aware of what chemicals are stored in a factory(or any) fire?

I know fuck all about chemistry, except that you don't take hundreds of barrels of X Y and Z, dump em into a mixing bowl and add water and heat.

Point Break would know but he doesn't play here anymore :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

 It is unlikely we aimed at anything within the densely populated confines of Damascus, somewhat more likely our missiles wound up in there because the Rooskies may have been able to deflect them, and some may have been damaged by other means. There are reports all over the map on that. Rooskies say they got about 70% and we say none. "First casualty of war", I guess.

 However it's safe to say they got to try out their newest hardware, a rare opportunity for them. We will know more about it too.

 Ahhh...our intelligence people will anyway. We will of course be given the mushroom treatment. 

The Russians claim they shot down several of the missiles the UK fired at Homs target, and those destroyed missiles caused 3 injuries. That report not validated. UK was firing some other type missile than tomahawks. The US was firing tomahawks from ship and aircraft at Damascus targets. No reports there of missiles shot down or injuries. IDK status of French missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now.  He punted to congress because he knew they would say no.  He hoped just the threat of a red line would deter syria and when they defied him, he was like "oh shit now what?"  So he punted to congress so he could wash his hands of it.  All it did was allow the Russians to gain a major foothold there and turn the CW around.  Obama folded like a 7-2 offsuit preflop.  The point being he should never have declared the Red Line in the first place if he wasn't willing to follow through on it no matter what.  That he obviously did not, just showed that America was weak and Putin took advantage of it.  IMHO, Russia's invasion of Crimea and the annexation of the Donbass is a DIRECT result of Putin correctly calculating that Obama would sit by and let it happen.  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him.  I liked obama for many things - this was not one of them.  He totally and utterly fucked this up and we are still paying for it today.

So, you think Obama was too stupid to figure out that he'd be worse off making empty threats?

What about all of COngress' declarations of the moment that they felt national security was more important than partisan manipulating? Personally, I'm disappointed that Obama was stupid enough to make the threat in the first place; but I think he was fooled into thinking that either Assad would back down with US ships off his coast and US planes in his skies, and I think he was fooled at just how dishonest Congress is/was.

I also don't think Putin "wiped the floor with him." If that were true, why did Putin put such serious effort into defeating Hillary (who would just be a continuation). But of course IYHO Democrats are weaklings. Historically, they're the guys you call in after a war is started and you want to win it. Republicans just start them.

-DSK

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, you think Obama was too stupid to figure out that he'd be worse off making empty threats?

What about all of COngress' declarations of the moment that they felt national security was more important than partisan manipulating? Personally, I'm disappointed that Obama was stupid enough to make the threat in the first place; but I think he was fooled into thinking that either Assad would back down with US ships off his coast and US planes in his skies, and I think he was fooled at just how dishonest Congress is/was.

I also don't think Putin "wiped the floor with him." If that were true, why did Putin put such serious effort into defeating Hillary (who would just be a continuation). But of course IYHO Democrats are weaklings. Historically, they're the guys you call in after a war is started and you want to win it. Republicans just start them.

-DSK

Just to be fair historically 

WW1 Wilson Dems  

116,000 dead

WW2 FDR Dems   

405,000 dead

Korea Truman Dem.  

52,000 dead

Vietnam Kennedy/Johnson Dem  58,000

iraq/ Afghanistan  Bush GOP  

6900 

technically Obama gets some for the surge in Afghanistan

Regardless. I think it’s fair to say The GOP hasn’t been in charge in the last hundred years of wars but one.  The lone entry while long and ongoing pales when compared to the blood spilt in previous wars

To be fair all of the wars had to be fought.    Just pointing out the politics of claiming one side or the other holds some moral high ground  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I brought up his Red line because had he ignored congress like the rest all do, we likely might not be here now. 

Yes, we might have advanced from "interfering in civil war" to "failed state and terrorist haven" like Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I thought I showed that he couldn't disregard Congress, the threat of impeachment was too heavy. In many ways, Trump and Obama think alike about Syria, neither wants to be involved in a war there. Both have been ineffectual, Trump's two attacks didn't accomplish much, neither did Obama.

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

That's how terrorists are born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You can tell when we've "accomplished much" by the smoking ruins and swarming terrorists.

You've been taking lessons :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Just to be fair historically 

WW1 Wilson Dems  

116,000 dead

WW2 FDR Dems   

405,000 dead

Korea Truman Dem.  

52,000 dead

Vietnam Kennedy/Johnson Dem  58,000

iraq/ Afghanistan  Bush GOP  

6900 

technically Obama gets some for the surge in Afghanistan

Regardless. I think it’s fair to say The GOP hasn’t been in charge in the last hundred years of wars but one.  The lone entry while long and ongoing pales when compared to the blood spilt in previous wars

To be fair all of the wars had to be fought.    Just pointing out the politics of claiming one side or the other holds some moral high ground  

 

Not sure I agree "all the wars had to be fought" but the world would certainly be different had we not intervened in WW1 and WW2. Remember a lot of the world holds a grudge against us...... maybe not a grudge but certainly a lack of warm fuzzy feelings..... about how long it took FDR to get us into WW2.

We could have continued to ignore German provocations and stayed out of WW1. The British would have had to sue for peace and France would have lost territory and had a punitive settlement levied on them, instead of Germany. The Kaiser stays in power and Hitler would most likely have had a very minor part in politics, especially considering that the Kaiser's heir was a right-winger himself..... maybe Germany has a revolution and turns Bolshevik? Maybe France does? I dunno. War is terrible but staying out of one does not really guarantee a good outcome.

If I were going to claim any moral high ground, I'd say that the Navy has saved more people than we've killed. As for the Democrat/Republican thing, it's just an interesting fact in the face of partisan Republican blustering that our wars have been won by Democrats, with one notable exception. In this case, the silly claim that Putin "wiped the floor" with Obama.

-DSK

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mark K said:

Looks like Mattis was ordered to put together a demonstration of force to me. He decided hitting the old sites was either good enough or the best that could be done on short notice. The goal was to send a message, not hit the Syrian government's armed forces, many of which have Russians embedded within them. 
 

 It seems quite likely his position is much like that of Mandrake with General Ripper, attempting to stay in the game so he can moderate the madness. Mandrake had to feed bullets to General Ripper to maintain that status. 

 

 

I'd say there is likely a lot of truth to this.  

Quote

 

Prez Trump: General Mattis, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?

Gen Mattis: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.

Prez Trump: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to the Lawyers. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Lawyer infiltration, Lawyer indoctrination, Lawyer subversion and the international Lawyer conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.  Unless there is a Russian hooker peeing on me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

In this case, the silly claim that Putin "wiped the floor" with Obama.

Who claimed that?  It wasn't me.

I still maintain strongly that obama's bluff got called in Syria and when he didn't follow though, we looked weak ever after and that emboldened Putin to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  It also opened the door for Russia to go in heavy in Syria and openly back Assad in the civil war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who claimed that?  It wasn't me.

I still maintain strongly that obama's bluff got called in Syria and when he didn't follow though, we looked weak ever after and that emboldened Putin to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.  It also opened the door for Russia to go in heavy in Syria and openly back Assad in the civil war.  

I think Europe's dependency on Russian oil emboldened him to take Crimea; it is one of Obama's failures that he did not manage to rally NATO and stop it. OTOH there is no reason to think that the Republican Congress would act any different with Crimea and the Ukraine than they did with Syria.... promise to put aside partisan bickering and then jerk the rug out from under Obama again. Kind of like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football, only disgusting instead of funny.

 

20 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

.......  Obo showed his hand in Syria and Putin wiped the table with him. ......

My bad, sorry

-DSK

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Wow! Away with the fairies. Blame everything on Russia. As if the Russians could be bothered screwing up a supermarkets computer for half an hour.

Got your tin foil hat on Meli?    The Russians are coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

It was in the news on Sunday morning, less than 12 hours after 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/04/16/russia-would-wage-cyber-war-britain/

i think understanding a DNS attack is a few grades above his level unfortunately, he could try a little research however if he’s inclined  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

Source: SKY NEWS



Moscow claims it outlined its "red lines" to US officials before the strikes were launched last weekend. 

11:08, UK, 
Friday 20 April 2018 

Russia has revealed it warned the US about "red lines" it should not cross before it launched airstrikes on Syria. 

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have said that officials in Washington were contacted before last weekend's strikes by the US, UK and France. 

Mr Lavrov said: "There were military leadership contacts, between generals, between our representatives and the coalition leadership. 

"They were informed about where our red lines are, including red lines on the ground, geographically. And the results show that they did not cross these red lines." 

Some 105 missiles were launched in response to a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April that killed more than 40 people.

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/russia-we-told-us-where-in-syria-they-could-not-bomb-11338625 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

Source: SKY NEWS



Moscow claims it outlined its "red lines" to US officials before the strikes were launched last weekend. 

11:08, UK, 
Friday 20 April 2018 

Russia has revealed it warned the US about "red lines" it should not cross before it launched airstrikes on Syria. 

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have said that officials in Washington were contacted before last weekend's strikes by the US, UK and France. 

Mr Lavrov said: "There were military leadership contacts, between generals, between our representatives and the coalition leadership. 

"They were informed about where our red lines are, including red lines on the ground, geographically. And the results show that they did not cross these red lines." 

Some 105 missiles were launched in response to a suspected chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April that killed more than 40 people.

Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/russia-we-told-us-where-in-syria-they-could-not-bomb-11338625 

The little neo-Liberal loser behind a computer screen is fearless. Classic! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, badlatitude said:

What an obedient servant Trump is, instead of telling Russia to get out of the way or be killed, he seeks permission to bomb.

 

Russia: We told US where in Syria they could not bomb

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

I know it gets your dick hard to think you have something to beat the orangeman up with some dirt or "gotcha".  But you're swinging for the fences after the ball is already in the catcher's mitt.  I highly suggest you use some vaseline to cut down on the skin chaff from stroking yourself so hard.  

And BTW do you know who you sound like when you post these sorts of frothing at the mouth TDS stuff?  And I mean EXACTLY sound like?  You could be the liberal twin of NGS or Happy Jack from just a few years ago when they would breathlessly post the OOOTD (obama outrage of the day).  And you look no less buffoonish they they did when they were doing it.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

10

Not good.

Moscow suspends US-Russian memorandum on flight safety over Syria
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So BL honestly, put your well known partisan hatred for trumpy aside for a moment..... are you REALLY willing to risk a shooting war with the rooskies over trying to send a statement to Assad?  The targets were not chosen by trump.  IN fact I doubt he could pick out syria on a map, much less tell Mattis where he wanted Tomahawks to land.  I guarantee it the was military commanders themselves who chose the targets so as not to kill any russians.  In fact NPR reported that the US, GBR and FRA used the already established "military deconfliction channels" to tell the russians where they were flying and where the launch boxes would be so as not to risk a potential mistake and cause this to escalate.  

I know it gets your dick hard to think you have something to beat the orangeman up with some dirt or "gotcha".  But you're swinging for the fences after the ball is already in the catcher's mitt. 

And BTW do you know who you sound like when you post these sorts of frothing at the mouth TDS stuff?  And I mean EXACTLY sound like?  You could be the liberal twin of NGS or Happy Jack from just a few years ago when they would breathlessly post the OOOTD (obama outrage of the day).  And you look no less buffoonish they they did when they were doing it.  Just saying.

Jeffie, what kind of a non-serious fuck are you anyway? You call me a partisan and then go into a ridiculous cover story to protect Trump. Russians should have never been the target; chemical weapons facilities should have been the target. Clearing everything with Russia so they could hide things and put things away in advance, destroys the whole idea of making Assad pay for his actions.

This was nothing more than another Trump production, this was a game of charades, and any actual targets were removed the moment they were given notice. 100 missiles instead of 62 and all that was spent were American taxpayer dollars for nothing. This was planned together and produced lots of bangs and no bite. I recall Russia saying that they would retaliate against any U.S. strike, now they're changing their story after the fact, but it seems to have worked on you. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-assessment/pro-assad-official-says-targeted-bases-were-evacuated-on-russian-warning-idUSKBN1HL07R

Do you think Russia would have had a fit if we bombed a few Russian soldiers? We bombed the snot out of the Wagner mercenaries, and Russia didn't do shit. The reason for that is the number of factories that service their tanks and aircraft are in Ukraine and Russia isn't going to fight anyone. There is a huge difference between pulling off a generic military action and going toe to toe with the U.S. of A. Heed your own advice, Jeff, you sound like Gator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

I don't want to fight the Russians for Syria, not particularly anyway.

All yours, comrades! Lotzaluk.    

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the reason the Russians want it is so they can build a pipeline thru it. Remember that they are major sellers of oil & gas now and still have relatively limited access to sea trade or to Europe. Even after stealing Crimea, they gain a major port but still have to go thru th Bosporus which is controlled by Turkey (who hate Russia).

Otherwise, I'd be happy to fight Russia for Syria on the condition that the loser has to keep it

-DSK

And the leaders of both nations fight it out naked in an arena with socks full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/04/2018 at 5:33 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tell me what you mean, please - because I am of the opinion that past behavior and observations on the ground make the possibility that the regime deployed chemical weapons again very plausible.   I'm also very much disinclined to accept Russia's accounting of events at face value.   There are some capable and independent authorities that are poised to do a proper investigation, their opinion will mean a bit more to me than the conspiracy-theory, hate the US and Israel spew of many that are contributing to this thread. 

Sorry, RL has been kicking my butt lately.

I have highlighted the word in your post which is at the heart of our disagreement.

Your posts are completely reasonable and make perfect sense, if you believe this.

Personally, I have difficulty with that bit. but then I'm a stickler for evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this