# Trump: "Get Ready Russia"



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Trump warns Russia that missiles 'will be coming' to Syria ? 'Get ready'

President Trump tweets a warning to Russia. "Get Ready."

Russia made it clear that they will work to shoot down the missiles launched at Syria and they will also target the platforms from whence they came.

There is still no proof Assad is responsible for the chlorine gas release, and nobody has explained why in the world Assad would have done it.

Insanity is breaking out.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Donald Trump warns Russia to 'get ready' for strikes on Syria | Daily Mail Online

You'll definitely want to peruse this article. 
Donald Trump warns Russia to 'get ready' for strikes on Syria | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

last count there's 10 other countries that are in belief that Syria is responsible for the gas attack and intend to participate in hitting back for retribution - quit quoting the dumb azz MSM saying this is all on Prez Trump ...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> last count there's 10 other countries that are in belief that Syria is responsible for the gas attack and intend to participate in hitting back for retribution - quit quoting the dumb azz MSM saying this is all on Prez Trump ...


A belief is not the same thing as a fact.

Did I say this is all Trump? Quit creating strawmen.

To make it clear (that is to say, to say it again), Trump told Russia to, "Get ready."

Yes, the usuals are on one side and the other usuals are on the other side.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Syria kills thousands with conventional weapons and no one cares. Gas and kill 60 and lets start WW3. WTF??


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Chipper said:


> Syria kills thousands with conventional weapons and no one cares. Gas and kill 60 and lets start WW3. WTF??


Remember, Assad wasn't killing thousands until Obama's Muslim Spring brought war to the region. Beforehand, Syria was a stable, secular government where Christians safely lived. It wasn't Assad who killed them.
I'm not defending Assad, I am just trying to put things in perspective. Christians have been slaughtered every single place the Globalists have meddled. You'd almost think it is intentional.


----------



## 12vman (Feb 23, 2018)

huh?.........that cant be true...........the media told me that there were no WMD in the middle east.......that they weren't moved from Iraq to Syria in a hurry........that we had NO reason to start a war w/ Iraq

sarcasm intended.......


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

This is a tragedy... Praying for both of our countries, I feel so sick about all this.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

TG said:


> This is a tragedy... Praying for both of our countries, I feel so sick about all this.


Absolutely.

This happens right after Trump suggests the U.S. leaves Syria. 
Would Assad benefit from the chlorine gas release? No. Would Russia? No. Who would benefit from the U.S. remaining? They are the ones who are responsible for the gas release.
People need to look beyond the rhetoric.
People aren't whispering in Trump's ears at this point. They are yelling, and he can't think through all the noise.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

Denton. So who are you accusing of the gas attack? If Assad didn’t do it, why did he surround the city and deny access to outside help and inspectors?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Chiefster23 said:


> Denton. So who are you accusing of the gas attack? If Assad didn't do it, why did he surround the city and deny access to outside help and inspectors?


Who would benefit?


----------



## Stockton (Jun 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> Who would benefit?


Israel of course. Didn't they already strike back? I don't
see why we'd need too. If the US believes the evidence
is that Assad did this the sanction him. No need for war.
What if Assad is not in control of his military as say our
president is? What if one of his generals hates Christians
and used gas? SO many possibilities. I sadly believe
more people think Israel did this then Assad.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Stockton said:


> Israel of course. Didn't they already strike back? I don't
> see why we'd need too. If the US believes the evidence
> is that Assad did this the sanction him. No need for war.
> What if Assad is not in control of his military as say our
> ...


Interesting what-ifs, but the town is controlled by the "rebels," with the Assad forces surrounding it. Wouldn't a better what-if be what if the anti-Assad forces released the gas, knowing Assad would immediately be blamed for it, causing Trump to react as he has?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Just found this at Gab.
REPORT: The chemical attack was not conducted by the Syrian Army or government - Cheri Berens

As Cheri points out, many of the Syrian soldiers have families in the target zone. The rebels, on the other hand....


----------



## maine_rm (Jun 24, 2017)

*Trump: "Get Ready Russia"*

Jumping into this a bit behind the curve. I have not read the two articles I am on lunch break for another five minutes and don't have the time right now. I will read them later.

I am obviously mistaken but I thought that there was multiple witnesses on the ground that saw a barrel bomb exit one of "asshats" helicopters?

But I have to agree the first thought that came to mind is how stupid would you have to be to try something like this now. I found the timeline to be very suspect. Maybe I'm naïve but I'm also a little leery you laying this at the feet of Israel.

Also agree that there's not a whole Lotta difference between killing people with gas in killing them with bullets. If one is outrages the other is equally Death is equal

Think about it if it was you or them. Would you rely on someone else's Morals. If the intention is death then see no difference.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Russia State TV Telling Citizens "What to Bring to (NUCLEAR) Bomb Shelters"

Russian media airing what to bring to bomb shelters.

Photos of German-made chlorine canisters. No links provided to support the photos, though.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

maine_rm said:


> Jumping into this a bit behind the curve. I have not read the two articles I am on lunch break for another five minutes and don't have the time right now. I will read them later.
> 
> I am obviously mistaken but I thought that there was multiple witnesses on the ground that saw a barrel bomb exit one of "asshats" helicopters?
> 
> ...


I also wonder why Israel would think this would be a good idea. I'm thinking they should know Iran will use the chaos as perfect time to strike, using Hezbollah and HAMAS, among other tools. 
All sorts of scenarios are possible if Trump and allies follow through with the threats and Russia and allies do the same.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

this intelligence blaming Syria for the gas attack is uniformly agreed on - there's about a dozen countries now lining up to participate in bombing the selected targets - it's not the US and nor Prez Trump alone here ...

Assad didn't get the message the first time - a broader message being sent this time .... it's also a world message to the very same parties that are lining up for a gas attack on Israel - a message to Little Fat Boy that has gas intimately involved in his attack plans ....


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> this intelligence blaming Syria for the gas attack is uniformly agreed on - there's about a dozen countries now lining up to participate in bombing the selected targets - it's not the US and nor Prez Trump alone here ...
> 
> Assad didn't get the message the first time - a broader message being sent this time .... it's also a world message to the very same parties that are lining up for a gas attack on Israel - a message to Little Fat Boy that has gas intimately involved in his attack plans ....


Yeah, we got the MSM narrative as fed to them by the NeoCons.
We got that you said the intel community asserts Assad is to blame. They always do, even though the last chemical attacks were clearly not from Assad. 
Why change the illusion if it continues to work, right?

I guess we'll soon see how this works out. There's a chance it could escalate into unfettered madness. Keep clinging to your faith in the Globalist intel community and resist any urge to think it through with logic.
I'm headed to work, now. Hopefully, we'll get to continue this discussion in a few hours.


----------



## Stockton (Jun 21, 2017)

To each side; what if it was the other.

You believe the rebels did it. Israel did it.
They did it to keep us involved. Well what if
you are wrong and it is Assad?

You think Assad did it; the MSM says so, and
their academics and government sources all say
so? Well what if it was the Israelis or the rebels
to keep us involved?

I have to trust Donald Trump to make that decision.
I don't have the facts. I will assume he has the 
facts. I pray he makes the right decision.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Denton said:


> Yeah, we got the MSM narrative as fed to them by the NeoCons.
> We got that you said the intel community asserts Assad is to blame. They always do, even though the last chemical attacks were clearly not from Assad.
> Why change the illusion if it continues to work, right?
> 
> ...


sorry but Russia agreed that the last gas attack was by Syria - and openly agreed to the retaliation on the air base -

and mighty arrogant of you if you think a dozen NATO ally country's intelligence agencies are all being hoodwinked by your NeoCon boogymen ....

also sorry for the correction - the MSM is all "Trump" and not a single mention of the allied effort - they agreed with the first lesson and want their teaching opportunity also - either Syria, Iran and Russia get the no gas warfare message - NOW - or the entire world gets a front row seat to Israel's nuke retaliation when they try it on the Jews ....

by the way - where was your big mouth when Obammy and Hellery started their private war with Libya????


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

This seems to happen everytime the ISIS forces get into trouble.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Just talked to my great grand aunt who’s grandson is in Syria right now. No one back home is taking any of this seriously and call it “penis wagging” LOL


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

Illini Warrior said:


> sorry but Russia agreed that the last gas attack was by Syria - and openly agreed to the retaliation on the air base -
> 
> and mighty arrogant of you if you think a dozen NATO ally country's intelligence agencies are all being hoodwinked by your NeoCon boogymen ....
> 
> ...


Im going to agree with you on your stance Illini

Its fair to say no one except those directly involved or directly saw, know who exactly did it and why, which is the approach I perceive Denton is taking. However, regarding Denton's approach, 3 things are facts.

1. This not the first chemical attack, there have been multiple chemical attacks over multiple years, and as you guessed it, Russian initially publicly denied Syria or itself being involved in each one
2. However, as you said Illini, Russia agreed that the last gas attack was by Syria - and openly agreed to the retaliation on the Syrian air base
3. Russia, just yesterday, and multiple times all throughout this war over multiple years, has blocked/vetod resolutions at the UN to have in international comity investigate what happened, who did it and that those who did it are held accountable.

Russia or Syria may or may not have been involved in yesterdays attack. However, Russia has repeatedly been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Each time they were caught, hey have used denial, false information and plausible deniability until caught red handed. Russia and Syria may be innocent this time but they have a terrible track record. That, and you dont repeatedly block/deny international investigations to determine what happened, who did it and to hold them accountable if you truly are innocent. Its shady as hell. It makes you look guilty as hell. Its something you would do, not if you are innocent, but if you were trying to deflect, discredit and postpone an investigation until you either the parties dont care, or you can clean up the mess and say, see, nothing to see here. Never mind the man behind the curtain.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

TG said:


> Just talked to my great grand aunt who's grandson is in Syria right now. No one back home is taking any of this seriously and call it "penis wagging" LOL


Regardless of what happens, Trumps window of "responding within 24 to 48 hours" has passed without any action from him, despite what he tweeted and said. This inaction makes him look weaker and his words less believable and trustworthy next time.

If Trump eventually does take action, it would have to be significantly more powerful and impactful then last time. Last time he bombed a single runway which was quickly rebuilt and used to target Israel yet again. This initial response by Trump of just bombing one single runway in Syria, as we can see with the continued chemical attacks since, did absolutely nothing to stop or sway further attacks against innocents (either chemical attack, bio attacks, barrel bombs, indiscriminate bombing etc) in the future.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

You are overlooking the fact that we destroyed syrian aircraft. Some reports claim 20% of his airforce. Trump may be delaying until he can position enough assets to destroy Assads whole airforce. That and since Putin is promising retaliation against our ships, we must have the firepower in place to defend against a counter attack.


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

This is what is so damned dangerous in this situation. If either side loses planes and pilots, it will be bad. If either side loses a ship, there will be war.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

There are boundaries in place that are universally accepted by humans as unacceptable, regardless of geographic location. When these boundaries/redlines are crossed, there needs to be a strong, severe consequence(s). Deliberately targeting civilians through various means, especially on a repeated basis, is a redline. There should be severe consequences for crossing this redline, just as there should have been the first time it happened during the last administration. Severe consequences should have happened the first time the red line was crossed. Then the second time. Then the third. All the way up to the last, most recent time. Its escalated. Should have been dealt with the first time. Not having a strong, severe consequence by enforcing these redlines, each time they occur, will be more dangerous then having a severe consequence in the long run.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

SanAntonioPrepper said:


> There are boundaries in place that are universally accepted by humans as unacceptable, regardless of geographic location.


I feel like we've been through this once, but I'll say it again: IF there were boundaries in place which were_ universally accepted as unacceptable (to cross)_ then there would be no need for strong or severe consequences, as we would all universally respect those boundaries. Your premise is directly contradicted by your following assertions. It is, again, a very lofty platitude which is not now nor ever has been true.



> Deliberately targeting civilians through various means, especially on a repeated basis, is a redline.


Ever hear of a little town named Dresden? How about Hiroshima or Nagasaki?


----------



## pakrat (Nov 18, 2012)

Denton said:


> Trump warns Russia that missiles 'will be coming' to Syria ? 'Get ready'
> 
> President Trump tweets a warning to Russia. "Get Ready."
> 
> ...


While I'll acknowledge that's there been no proof demonstrated to the general public, I'm pretty sure we're monitoring all flight activity in the area and are fairly clear on where and when the attack planes left the ground and where they returned to. As Russia is currently demonstrating, they're backing Assad 100%. That alone could well embolden Assad to snub his nose at us. Whether Russia was aware of the full nature of the attack prior is also a question.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

StratMaster said:


> I feel like we've been through this once, but I'll say it again: IF there were boundaries in place which were_ universally accepted as unacceptable (to cross)_ then there would be no need for strong or severe consequences, as we would all universally respect those boundaries. Your premise is directly contradicted by your following assertions. It is, again, a very lofty platitude which is not now nor ever has been true.
> 
> Ever hear of a little town named Dresden? How about Hiroshima or Nagasaki?


I dont really want to get into philosophy or religion here but your premise that because boundaries are overstepped in the world today, these boundaries weren't really there in the first place is both untrue and indefensible.

You are talking about living in a perfect world where their is no consequence because there is no violence because everyone naturally accepts the boundaries. We of course live in an imperfect world full of violence, with people trying to "blur the line" and "muddy the waters" everyday. While it is true there is variation to a degree of what is acceptable in one culture may differ from another, there are indeed universally accepted boundaries that occur throughout humanity regardless of culture. Murder of an innocent as being wrong, is one of these universal truths that occurs throughout mankind. Does this mean that innocent people will not still be murdered? Of course not. Does this mean that because these innocent people were murdered then their doesn't truly exist a universal truth of murder of an innocent is wrong? Of course not. That is a silly thing to say and a silly argument to make.

Regardless of if you want to "muddy the waters" and make the argument that everything is naturally a grey area and there really is no acceptable line, this argument goes out the window completely when all parties are presented the stance of "X is a redline" and if "X" is crossed, then "X" will be a consequence. Then when one of those parties crosses that "X" redline, the defense of, "well, I didnt know better" or, "its acceptable to me" goes out the window. Murder of innocents is a universal Redline and it has been stated as such, to clear it up for people who like to "muddy the waters" like you appear to be doing. The boundary has been laid out and all parties are aware of it and can not claim ignorance, just as I can not claim ignorance to the speed limit when I pass by the speed limit sign and the officer pulls me over.

The boundary/redline has been set. The boundary/redline has been crossed. Over and over and over again. Finally, there needs to be biting consequences, just as their should have been from the start. Failure to enforce these consequences sends a terrible message and emboldens further bad behavior. Behavior that usually continues to escalate until true boundary are set and consequences for crossing them are eventually enforced.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

SanAntonioPrepper said:


> I dont really want to get into philosophy or religion here but your premise that because boundaries are overstepped in the world today, these boundaries weren't really there in the first place is both untrue and indefensible.
> 
> You are talking about living in a perfect world where their is no consequence because there is no violence because everyone naturally accepts the boundaries. We of course live in an imperfect world full of violence, with people trying to "blur the line" and "muddy the waters" everyday. While it is true there is variation to a degree of what is acceptable in one culture may differ from another, there are indeed universally accepted boundaries that occur throughout humanity regardless of culture. Murder of an innocent as being wrong, is one of these universal truths that occurs throughout mankind. Does this mean that innocent people will not still be murdered? Of course not. Does this mean that because these innocent people were murdered then their doesn't truly exist a universal truth of murder of an innocent is wrong? Of course not. That is a silly thing to say and a silly argument to make.
> 
> ...


No, I am not talking about living in a perfect world, I was asserting quite the opposite. And NO, I do not wish to muddy any waters, but rather to clarify. Neither do I acknowledge "grey areas"... I agree with Aristotle in that A=A.
I would argue that it is indeed YOU offering an improvable premise, and one that could only exist in a non-existent "perfect world". You are not even arguing theory, but are rather making an emotional decree from what you consider a moral position. Despite your obvious emotional attachment to the aforementioned boundary/redline, my previous argument including Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima demonstrates that we, as a country AND a species, do not universally respect those boundaries. THAT is not an emotional decree... that is historical fact. It's certainly OK for you to be angry about that, but you simply cannot assert your premise as _universal._ I doubt that any of those killed in those bombings would find it a silly argument.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

StratMaster said:


> No, I am not talking about living in a perfect world, I was asserting quite the opposite. And NO, I do not wish to muddy any waters, but rather to clarify. Neither do I acknowledge "grey areas"... I agree with Aristotle in that A=A.
> I would argue that it is indeed YOU offering an improvable premise, and one that could only exist in a non-existent "perfect world". You are not even arguing theory, but are rather making an emotional decree from what you consider a moral position. Despite your obvious emotional attachment to the aforementioned boundary/redline, my previous argument including Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima demonstrates that we, as a country AND a species, do not universally respect those boundaries. THAT is not an emotional decree... that is historical fact. It's certainly OK for you to be angry about that, but you simply cannot assert your premise as _universal._ I doubt that any of those killed in those bombings would find it a silly argument.


Again, without derailing this thread much more then it is starting to get derailed, a party can not claim something is not a Redline/Boundry when they are explicitly told it is a Redline. That it is a Redline and that there will be consequences.

I can argue with the police officer till Im blue in the face that, some others (humanity) doesn't respect the speed limit, now or in the past, so why should I? Or, because some others dont respect the speed limit I dont really think its a boundary/limit. Or, did the speed limit really mean the speed it was posted because I dont think it did? I knew the limit. It was told/shown to me. I crossed it. There will be consequences for it.

Take philosophy and morals and everything else out of it except for one fact. The people who chemically gassed innocents, regardless of who they were, knew that gassing innocents was crossing a boundary. It was deliberately stated as such. Many, many times. The crossed it. Multiple times. Now needs to come the consequences. Severe enough to where either the crossing of this red line competently stops (hopefully) or that the true perpetrators give significant pause the next time they are considering it, which, if they still crossed the stated red line, there would incure a more significant consequence each additional time, until the behavior stops because it becomes to costly.

I dont really have anything more to say to you on this matter.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> This happens right after Trump suggests the U.S. leaves Syria.
> Would Assad benefit from the chlorine gas release? No. Would Russia? No. Who would benefit from the U.S. remaining? They are the ones who are responsible for the gas release.
> ...


One of the reasons that Saddam invaded Kuwait was he believed the United States wouldn't intervene. I have to wonder if Assad did it because he thought he could get away with it.

I do agree with the notion that there are people with agendas that would try to create a false flag such as this incident but on the other hand I believe that Assad is an evil dickhead who has no problem indiscriminately killing his own people. I would like to see a legitimate investigation and if he did use chemical weapons then take him out along with any other leader that uses them. There is no place in this world for those that indiscriminately kill others.

Bottom line if this happened, I put this on the Obama Government and the Russian Government. Obama made a big deal about a "red line" and never enforced it but instead negotiated a deal with Russia for the removal of the weapons. If chemical weapons where used again Russia obviously hasn't held up their end of the bargain and has left him armed.


----------



## Ragnarök (Aug 4, 2014)

My question is..Why use Chlorine gas if you truly want to kill rebels and don’t care about civilian casualties?

Chlorine gas is one of the least deadly chemical weapons that exist. In fact you need to inhale 1000ppm to be fatal. Not only that The cause of death is suffocation from prolonged inhalation. Why not use a nerve agent that is less dense and can spread and kill rebels and civilians indiscriminately? Why not Sarin or VX? Why pick a fight with the rest of the world? 

The answer is profoundly apparent. It’s a set up..

Look at the amount of chorine gas used in the attack. Look at the concentration of gas in areas. My reasoning here is... Assad would not use Chlorine gas to start a war between Russia and the US because Putin is his master. Putin does not want a war with any large nuclear power because Putin is not a fool.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

SanAntonioPrepper said:


> Again, without derailing this thread much more then it is starting to get derailed, a party can not claim something is not a Redline/Boundry when they are explicitly told it is a Redline. That it is a Redline and that there will be consequences.
> 
> I can argue with the police officer till Im blue in the face that, some others (humanity) doesn't respect the speed limit, now or in the past, so why should I? Or, because some others dont respect the speed limit I dont really think its a boundary/limit. Or, did the speed limit really mean the speed it was posted because I dont think it did? I knew the limit. It was told/shown to me. I crossed it. There will be consequences for it.
> 
> ...


 I'm sorry you're so upset.
Please understand that you have made assertions in this thread (and others) in which you include ALL of us, America and the "International community", and are not just speaking for yourself. You are advocating action which would necessarily include others, and justifying said action under a moral premise. You therefore have to expect to be challenged&#8230; because a great many of us won't have our sons and daughters die for what amounts to your ill-conceived view of global morality. 
It is also entirely insufficient to simply dismiss those who disagree with your position as mere "isolationists" or "NIMBY". I object most strenuously to your attempts to do so.
Perhaps the answer is just this simple&#8230; that maybe you don't really understand the concept of "universal". I find it unlikely, however, and so must continue.
My position is not isolationist, but rather an example of my own (and, I am sure, that of many others) moral epistemology. To be clear: I find the actions you advocate to be immoral, rather than moral as you assert. I'll explain.
I have adhered to two simple moral axioms which have served me well over my long life.
1)	*I was not born chained to your ankle or the metaphorical ankle of humanity&#8230; nor would I ever choose to be*. This humanity idea is a point you try to drive home with enthusiasm, presenting it as nothing less than a moral obligation. The immoral concepts of socialism, communism, "social contracts", The United Nations, and even the welfare state all bloom from this poisoned soil. Your "call to arms" for a global group hug that has the U.S. singing "we are the world" and obligated to police every atrocity planet wide is not just an absurdity&#8230; it is a false moral assertion. You (and others who think as you do) are SURE you need only say the word "children" and we are all then held hostage to your proposed action. A man IS morally responsible for his OWN children's well- being&#8230; and also in preserving the future of the U.S. of A. for them to enjoy. We cannot do that AND look to resolve conflict worldwide. This has severely drained our resources in the past, and continues to do so to the detriment of their future. But wait! Are there not children, perhaps right there in San Antonio, who need assistance? A pair of shoes, a warm coat, a hot meal, a surgery, or sanctuary from an abusive home? Sure, it's not as glamorous: no uniform, no medals, no parades, maybe even no thanks. But it's there needing to be done. Were I to behave and judge as you do, I might call YOU immoral for ignoring need right in front of you to travel 6-7 thousand miles away and indulge in some global group-hug fantasy. I won't, but it's something to consider when posturing from a moral position which may not be as well thought out as you previously thought.
2)	*Don't ask me to care more for your well-being than you do yourself. I think this one is self- explanatory, don't you?*

Here's one of your statements "Should those of us who are isolationist continue to hold the isolationist view in regards to taking out Hitler who was gassing millions of Jews in camps because, after all, it wasn't in our backyard and we are not Jews?" This is myopically looking at WWII from the only angle which supports your argument somewhat. I'll remind you we didn't enter the war because Hitler was gassing Jews. When including not only the three cities I mentioned earlier (Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima) but also every other city we bombed out of existence, one could argue that a great many more innocents/civilians/children lost their lives BECAUSE we entered the war. Did we need to include ourselves in WWII? I would say yes. But in doing so, we crossed those so-called universal boundaries of yours at historical levels... WE meaning the GOOD GUYS, the HOME TEAM. And as others have pointed out, today does not resemble WWII at all.
Here's another: "Turning a blind eye to the atrocities we see is doing nothing, is cowardly and its wrong in my eyes". I don't know how others may feel, but I won't tolerate your referring to me as a coward because I don't agree with your position. Again, this is another emotional statement, posturing from an elevated moral position without actually occupying that high ground..


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> One of the reasons that Saddam invaded Kuwait was he believed the United States wouldn't intervene. I have to wonder if Assad did it because he thought he could get away with it.
> 
> I do agree with the notion that there are people with agendas that would try to create a false flag such as this incident but on the other hand I believe that Assad is an evil dickhead who has no problem indiscriminately killing his own people. I would like to see a legitimate investigation and if he did use chemical weapons then take him out along with any other leader that uses them. There is no place in this world for those that indiscriminately kill others.
> 
> Bottom line if this happened, I put this on the Obama Government and the Russian Government. Obama made a big deal about a "red line" and never enforced it but instead negotiated a deal with Russia for the removal of the weapons. If chemical weapons where used again Russia obviously hasn't held up their end of the bargain and has left him armed.


Hussein not only believed the U.S. wouldn't intervene, he told by the U.S. government it wouldn't intervene. Hussein was pissed over Kuwait's side drilling across the border. Before he attacked, an Iraqi diplomat made contact with a U.S. diplomat to make sure there was no problem. He was set up.

Calling Assad an evil dickhead isn't offering proof of guilt. Asserting that all the globalist-controlled intel agencies isn't proof. What else would you have them say? Russia claiming Assad didn't do it is no proof of innocence - what else would you expect the Kremlin to say?

Look at it logically. Logically, Assad had nothing to gain from releasing gas. Absolutely nothing at all. Not a damned thing. Now, remember, Assad is a doctor. As a matter of fact, he went to post grad training in England. He wasn't meant to be the Syrian leader, but his older brother died in some kind of accident which left him heir apparent, basically.
Point being, the evil dickhead didn't even envision being evil dickhead dictator. Point is, he is no primitive screwhead. He knows Western thought and he knows how to stay in its sights - or how to not be such a target. When Trump is wanting to get the hell out of Dodge, Someone like Bashar al-Assad would know how to play the game.

Now, as I stated earlier, who would profit by framing him?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Illini Warrior said:


> sorry but Russia agreed that the last gas attack was by Syria - and openly agreed to the retaliation on the air base -
> 
> and mighty arrogant of you if you think a dozen NATO ally country's intelligence agencies are all being hoodwinked by your NeoCon boogymen ....
> 
> ...


Sorry, FREAKING HUGE, JERK-MOUTH, but I couldn't respond at work, but I could spend a few minutes searching for Russia's admission that the last chemical killing was commited by the Syrian government. I couldn't find anything. Could you be less BIG FREAKING MOUTH and more help? 
I know you think you think you are the big asshole on this board, but my nickname in reality world is The Asshole. I am hobbled on this board, which is why I can't call you a MSM-induced dumbass or a Neo-con-fueled dickhead. I'd never consider doing that because Cricket expects me to behave. Were we face to face, things would be different and I could speak in a manner that would not surprise people who know me. As it stands, I can't say those things.
Where was my big mouth with the Obama/Hillary Libya thing? You'd know that if your HUGE FREAKING MOUTH didn't cover up your reading eye. I believe I mentioned Obama's Muslim Spring. Want to know more? Search my posting history to learn more, if you are interested. I can see how you missed my opinion as you are a fly-by member. Don't bother tossing an insult at me until you peruse my history.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

I am reminded of this clip from John Wayne's "Big Jake". At the end of the day, if this goes sideways, who will be around to point the finger at who's fault it is.

I said once before: their troops and ours in such close proximity, both involved in a convoluted FU middle east conflict, is a recipe for disaster. Two super powers coming to blows over a POS country in a POS part of the world.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6034252/donald-trump-twitter-syria-back-pedals/

Donald Trump softens his stance on Syria airstrikes | Daily Mail Online

Trump seems to be backing away from attacking Assad's forces. Excellent!

https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-un-...suspected-chemical-attack-douma/29158183.html

Russian ambassador to the U.N. reiterates Assad did not release the gas and urges Trump not to attack Syria.

It seems we might have dodged a large bullet.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

Welp, Trumps self imposed 24 - 48 hour deadline of "missiles comming" has long passed. These unfulfilled "firely tweets" and threats, continue to make the man appear more uncredible, unhinged and more untrustworthy. 

Trump is so confident of himself that he is one of the only poker players I know who plays with the cards up in the air with the backs of the cards facing him.

Now, in typical fashion, Trump is backtracking the threats and his administration is doing damage control for him.

Sanders told reporters that “there’s a lot there that you can read from” the president’s tweet, but added that Trump had “a number of options at his disposal and all of those options remain on the table.” No final decisions” had been made on a military response to a suspected chemical weapons attack. The administration was still weighing “all options” on its next move."

I see a bit what others are saying on the forum. Others will "support" the US, and using chemical weapons against innocents is not ok but many of our allies are unwilling to get involved and want America to do all the heavy lifting. 

Take a look at this recent statement from Germany, you know, a country that has an interesting history with chemical weapons and civilians.

"Germany is part of the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State in the region, but will not participate in any strikes on the Assad regime, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a video statement on Thursday.

She said that she would support any effort to show that the use of chemical weapons is "unacceptable."

Wow! Its "unnaceptable" but we wont do anything except "support any effort to show that the use of chemical weapons in unacceptable?!

Regardless of who did this, I think its clear and becoming more crystal, Russia, Syria, North Korea, Iran and the world see that threats of significant consequences are usually ultimately empty, there is a ton of red tape among the "policeman of the world", and many of these nations dont have the stomach for imposing significant consequences for punishing attrocities, but they will of course support the US in whatever decision it makes and decides to do. Thanks but no thanks for your support. If you want me on the frontlines you better damned well be fighting right up here alongside me. 

Putin, Assad, Iran, China (South China Sea) and NK are further embolden and fear of true retaliation of doing bad things is increasingly neutered. Escalation and outright boldness of doing what one wants, regardless of who its to is further increased. After all, what are you really gonna do? Sanction me? Pull your diplomats? Ohh, scary (but not really).

Chemical weapons use and other brazen conduct, coming to a land near you (or SK or Israel or Japan). Only a matter of time. Putin, Assad, NK, Iran and China are probably laughing in their boots right now and know full well, that nothing significant was going to truly happen to them. Just a lot of wiener waggin. Oh yeah. And fiery tweets.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

@SanAntonioPrepper - You left out a group who might gas a land near you. Those who see false flags as a way to gin up support.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

SanAntonioPrepper said:


> Welp, Trumps self imposed 24 - 48 hour deadline of "missiles comming" has long passed. These unfulfilled "firely tweets" and threats, continue to make the man appear more uncredible, unhinged and more untrustworthy.
> 
> Trump is so confident of himself that he is one of the only poker players I know who plays with the cards up in the air with the backs of the cards facing him.
> 
> ...


I get what you're saying and concur on some of it, however, it's a much more complicated issue.

Of course Germany wants the US to do the dirty work. Where do you think Germany gets about 40% of its gas from? Give you one guess and it rhymes with Hussia. Merkel wouldn't want to go piss ing off Putin now would she?

That's the problem with relying on another for things you really need. We as preppers should full well understand that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

I get the self reliance regardless part part, which is why Im a proactive person and prep and do other things. I just dont understand the "you go to the front lines and fight while we cheer you on from back here part". Its not in my DNA. Fight up here with me! 

Not doing anything when bad stuff happens is also not in my DNA. Too me, it allows the vulnerable to be preyed upon, allows even more bad stuff to happen and sends a terrible, not unified message to perpetrators and further emboldens them. Leading from behind rarely ever works and when employeed little to nothing gets done. 

Yes Germany and other US allies, Im lookin at what you do, not what you say. Unified action, not words is most effective.


----------



## yooper_sjd (May 14, 2017)

I think Trump is just waiting for the Truman to get into the Med, two DDG's by themselves launching would make them targets to russian air capabilities they have in the region. These same two DDG's are part of the missile defense system forward deployed to europe, an asset we can not afford to loose. When the Carrier battle group gets there, sparks will fly. Oh and that carrier can make it across the pond in couple days, she may leave her escorts in her wake, but that carrier can and could be going through the Straights of Gibraltar tonight or tomarrow. Hell, the carrier Air wings could even fly into NATO Airs strips right now and be strike range. Rota Spain, Sigonella Italy, Aviano Airbase in Italy. Just my 2 cents worth, tired of wait if we are gunna strike, do it and get this shit over with. And Russia be damned, they make an attempt to hit our air cover or naval assets wipe them off the map.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Denton said:


> https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6034252/donald-trump-twitter-syria-back-pedals/
> 
> Donald Trump softens his stance on Syria airstrikes | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...


For now. All in and no one has called.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> Trump warns Russia that missiles 'will be coming' to Syria ? 'Get ready'
> 
> President Trump tweets a warning to Russia. "Get Ready."
> 
> ...


I don't believe that Russia can shoot down our missile's; and I don't think that they, can even shoot down a conventional American fighter jet. Our counter-measures are too good and they know it, but they have to save face using bluster. Whatever America does, it will be with impunity, because they can't touch us. And since it looks like Syria used gas, and that is all of the reason that we will need.


----------



## SanAntonioPrepper (Apr 10, 2017)

The redline of chemical weapons use was set by both this administration and the last. This line was crossed repeatedly in both administrations. In short, if chemical weapons continue to be used by anyone and no significant consequences come of it, the United States and all her allied nations look weak, look ridiculous and look like a paper tiger which will further embolden even more brazen conduct both to civilians abroad and local civilians.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SanAntonioPrepper said:


> The redline of chemical weapons use was set by both this administration and the last. This line was crossed repeatedly in both administrations. In short, if chemical weapons continue to be used by anyone and no significant consequences come of it, the United States and all her allied nations look weak, look ridiculous and look like a paper tiger which will further embolden even more brazen conduct both to civilians abroad and local civilians.


Again, you don't know who released the weapons. Period. As a matter of fact, there is no proof about the 2017 sarin gas release. Zero.

AGAIN, there is ample reason Assad would not do it, and plenty of reason his rebel-opponents would do it so the U.S. would attack Assad. This is so painfully easy to understand.

The U.S. would look like a paper tiger? B.S.! The "red line" is stupid, especially if you don't know who released the gas. On top of that, drawing a red line over there is stupid in itself.
Refute this!
Attack Syria Because Western Intel is ?Fairly Confident? ? Denton and Sasquatch

As I already stated, Russia, Turkey and Iran are the powers inside Syria. We are going to risk American lives for what reason? Because you believe the Globalist B.S. we've been fed for how long?

Hell, a dummy like me could write a speech the president should give that would explain why we have no real dog in the Syria hunt but why North Korea shouldn't read much into it.


----------

