• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

False Flag Chemical Weapons attack in Syria imminent

Rogue Valley said:
1000w_q95.jpg


The USMC mini-aircraft carrier and amphibious assault ship USS Essex (LHD 2) loaded with F-35B stealth jets and MV-22B Osprey assault/support VTOL helicopters is now on station.

This will serve as a QRF for the Marine garrison at At Tanf, Syria that has been threatened by the Russian military.
Click to expand...

Why would they send in the f-35 that is plagued with software and maintenance issues as qrf? This is especially puzzling since the f-22 has been barred from use in syria after it got intercepted by a su-35, and not only did the first su35 detect the f-22 but the f-22 did not detect the su-35 until it was so far up it's ass that it qualified as rape. Both countries send those jets in 2's, and neither the second su-35 nor the second f-22 knew where the other was. If the f-22 with a longer functional history can be intercepted, why send in f-35 which many of can not even see combat due to software and programming issues affecting their targeting systems. So far the only country to use one in combat is israel, and truthfully israel likes to strip much of the advanced stuff out and only leave in what they feel they need.
 
Westphalian said:
The US is desperate to preserve the terrorist haven of Idlib where some of its best trained Islamists have taken refuge.

Syria meanwhile has no need to resort to chemical attacks. It doesn't need to.

It's only the West and its ghoulish Frankenstein monster of jihadists who have an interest in chemical attacks. After all, the US has promised to act as an Al Nusra Front Air Force if such an attack occurs.

So, as the anniversary of 9/11 is now today, there's an irony about the US seeking to preserve those who despise it and would love a 9/11 encore given half a chance.

You fools never learn. Whatever you touch in ME turns into a self harming disaster
Click to expand...

Any comment on the past and likely future use of Chlorine by Assad?
 
oneworld2 said:
The source you used refers to " US military/government " sources. The same sources that told everyone Iraq had WMDS and that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda etc etc

You have to ask yourself the question.................. why would Assads coalition forces need to resort to chemical attack now ?

It's okay slagging off state controlled media but you only have to look at what sources and spin western media outlets use put out to see that they are different cheeks of the same bum
Click to expand...

First off, Assad is no genius but the idea of his using chemical weapons to finish off the
already beaten Islamic Fundamentalists is being ridiculous. If any combatant uses chemical
weapons it will be the terrorists who are such fanatics that they will fight Assad to the last man.
I hope the US people in charge are smart enough to realize that & don't listen to the
fairy tales of Nikki Haley & John Bolton, neocons to the core!

I liked Trump's initial policy of staying clear of these idiotic conflicts only those who are part of
the military industrial complex love to indulge in. I prey the war mongers will not persuade Trump
to do something stupid. We don't win those type of conflicts.
 
slick said:
First off, Assad is no genius but the idea of his using chemical weapons to finish off the
already beaten Islamic Fundamentalists is being ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I was saying, you seem to think I was saying the exact opposite for some strange reason


If any combatant uses chemical weapons it will be the terrorists who are such fanatics that they will fight Assad to the last man.
Click to expand...

That's how I see it but not because they are fanatics which they are btw but because if they and their allies can convince/dupe into believing that any use of chemicals was/is the work of Assad and co a Western " intervention " is much more than a strong possibility. They have no chance of defeating Assads coalition and thus their only chance is to create a situation whereby the West gets involved , such as a false flag chemical incident

I hope the US people in charge are smart enough to realize that & don't listen to the fairy tales of Nikki Haley & John Bolton, neocons to the core!
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a case of being smart. The US people in charge , I assume you mean the head of government military agencies and such , have their geopolitical interests at play and have long sought to oust the Syrian regime
I liked Trump's initial policy of staying clear of these idiotic conflicts only those who are part of the military industrial complex love to indulge in. I prey the war mongers will not persuade Trump
to do something stupid. We don't win those type of conflicts.
Click to expand...

It's a populist position that might have duped many people but Trump has proven to be an erratic and dangerous leader as you would expect from someone who probably needs to be physically pulled away from every full length mirror he passes.

I feel you have totally misunderstood my post and don't realise you are preaching to the already converted
 
Rogue Valley said:
The US Marines sent a 'strong message' to Russia last week, and these awesome combat photos show what it looked like

Despite threats and posturing, Russia and her allies (Damascus/Tehran) have decided not to test US Marines in the Al Tanf deconfliction zone (a half-circle area with a radius of 55 KM and the Tanf Base as its center) in southern Syria.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow you will most likely put a whole host of posts on about Russian " aggression " so you should consider perhaps to congratulate them on this occasion for not taking the bait of US threats and posturing.......... of which you seem to be preening about.........strange but true
 
Rogue Valley said:
A Marine F-35 Carrier Just Rolled Up In The Middle East Amid Rising Syria Tensions

Doesn't much matter. The Kremlin can issue all the warnings they want, but the Russkies aren't about to attack the US Marine garrison at At Tanf, Syria.
Click to expand...

You say they aren't, but they are illegally occupying an allied nation of russia, which with russia invited into military action by their ally and legitimate leader and un member technichally would mean if russia attacked at tanf they would be in their full rights by international law.
 
beerftw said:
You say they aren't, but they are illegally occupying an allied nation of russia, which with russia invited into military action by their ally and legitimate leader and un member technichally would mean if russia attacked at tanf they would be in their full rights by international law.
Click to expand...

Syria has no valid government.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Syria has no valid government.
Click to expand...

So you think a un recognized govt is not valid? Does this mean russias occupation of crimea is legal if they claim ukraine has no valid govt?
 
Rogue is tangling himself in brazen double standards and hypocrisy.

Boiled down his position amounts to - international law and righteousness are what the US says they are.

Personally I think Syria should issue an ultimatum to US forces in Syria - leave within 48 hours or face attack as an enemy combatant and occupation force.

Or is it only Russia which 'invades'?
 
Westphalian said:
Rogue is tangling himself in brazen double standards and hypocrisy.

Boiled down his position amounts to - international law and righteousness are what the US says they are.

Personally I think Syria should issue an ultimatum to US forces in Syria - leave within 48 hours or face attack as an enemy combatant and occupation force.

Or is it only Russia which 'invades'?
Click to expand...

In Crimea and Donbass they did.

And why would a false flag be needed. Assad being Assad will likely lead to another chemical strike.
 
Westphalian said:
Rogue is tangling himself in brazen double standards and hypocrisy.

Boiled down his position amounts to - international law and righteousness are what the US says they are.

Personally I think Syria should issue an ultimatum to US forces in Syria - leave within 48 hours or face attack as an enemy combatant and occupation force.

Or is it only Russia which 'invades'?
Click to expand...

Assad can do nothing about US Forces in Syria, to attack them would amount to suicide, and you Russians would not do a thing unless they want to lose you little fleet . Huff and Puff all you want but in a real fight Russia would get their butt kicked and the Russian military know it.
 
beerftw said:
You say they aren't, but they are illegally occupying an allied nation of russia, which with russia invited into military action by their ally and legitimate leader and un member technichally would mean if russia attacked at tanf they would be in their full rights by international law.
Click to expand...

The Russian military has backed down after the US Marine Corps called its bluff in Syria

The Russians appear to have backed off their earlier threats after the US Marine Corps sent them a clear message. The Pentagon, US Central Command, and Operation Inherent Resolve have all confirmed that Russia has stayed out of the deconfliction zone and is no longer insisting on conducting operations or launching precision strikes in the area near the At Tanf garrison, where US Marines are based. Russia warned the US twice on September 1 and again on September 6 that the Russian military, together with Syrian and pro-regime forces, planned to carry out counterterrorism operations inside the 55-kilometer deconfliction zone. It accused the US and its coalition partners of harboring terrorists. Immediately following Russia's threats, the US Marine Corps conducted a live-fire demonstration at the At Tanf garrison to drive home the point that the US military did not need Russia's help eliminating terrorists.

"The United States does not seek to fight the Russians, the government of Syria, or any groups that may be providing support to Syria in the Syrian civil war," the US Central Command spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown previously told Business Insider, adding: "The United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition, or partner forces as we have clearly demonstrated in past instances." "The US does not require any assistance in our efforts to destroy ISIS in the At Tanf deconfliction zone, and we advised the Russians to remain clear," he added. In the nearly two weeks since, the Russians have not contacted the US military about operations inside the deconfliction zone, an area the Syrians and the Russians want to access to build a strategic land bridge between Tehran and Damascus.
Click to expand...

The Corps doesn't play your amateur lawyer games. The Russians analyzed the situation quite a bit better than you did.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Russian military has backed down after the US Marine Corps called its bluff in Syria



The Corps doesn't play your amateur lawyer games. The Russians analyzed the situation quite a bit better than you did.
Click to expand...

You are saying they backed down however there are not enough marines or equipment to stop them at that base, the only thing that would stop them is the greater conflict which would be world war. If russia really wanted at tanf gone that bad they could launch kh101 missiles from tu-160 bombers from within russian territory and level the base before the marines could blink. That would however cause a greater conflict, and wiping out a single base and fighting a world war are two different things, the latter no sane person would go into unless they had to.


Keep in mind russia is there legally by international law, they could reserve the right to declare them invaders, but america really does not care about international law, america is by far the largest violator of international law in the world, and gets away with it much like russia and china get away with it simply because the un only enforces international law on weak and poor countries, while letting rich and powerful countries do as they please.
 
beerftw said:
You are saying they backed down however there are not enough marines or equipment to stop them at that base, the only thing that would stop them is the greater conflict which would be world war. If russia really wanted at tanf gone that bad they could launch kh101 missiles from tu-160 bombers from within russian territory and level the base before the marines could blink. That would however cause a greater conflict, and wiping out a single base and fighting a world war are two different things, the latter no sane person would go into unless they had to.


Keep in mind russia is there legally by international law, they could reserve the right to declare them invaders, but america really does not care about international law, america is by far the largest violator of international law in the world, and gets away with it much like russia and china get away with it simply because the un only enforces international law on weak and poor countries, while letting rich and powerful countries do as they please.
Click to expand...


Yes, this very nicely summarises the calculation in Moscow.

Sadly, a number of our fellow contributors still seek to pretend that the US is the world's serial protector of international law. This position is obviously absurd, but these are not reasonable people.

Regarding Al Tanf, it's another totally illegal invasion of sovereign territory. In many react Putin is too timid. He is under pressure doe estimable to respond more directly to the Israeli provocation, or Al Tanf, or in Ukraine, or indeed indirectly to the attack on the Russian mercenaries in Syria.

At some point Moscow's cautious approach will need to show some real steel. We don't want a nuclear war, but neither does Uncle Sam. The pressure is building in Russian military and political sources. At some point something will happen - accidents don't just happen to Russian forces.
 
beerftw said:
You are saying they backed down however there are not enough marines or equipment to stop them at that base....
Click to expand...

The fact remains, Russian forces are not messing with the US Marines manning the At Tanf garrison and their 55-kilometer deconfliction zone.

The Russkies learned a bloody lesson at Deir ez-Zor last February.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The fact remains, Russian forces are not messing with the US Marines manning the At Tanf garrison and their 55-kilometer deconfliction zone.

The Russkies learned a bloody lesson at Deir ez-Zor last February.
Click to expand...

In february it was some russian pmc personel as ground forces against air support, an actual russian military situation would be far different as russia would have their own air support, as well as air superiority fighters and armored vehicles in such an assault if it was a traditional assault.

If they go missile they could just fire kaliber cruise missiles or kh101 standoff cruise missiles from well outside the range anyone at that garrison could attack. You need not confuse private military contractors on ground with almost no support with the actual russian military.
 
Westphalian said:
Yes, this very nicely summarises the calculation in Moscow.

Sadly, a number of our fellow contributors still seek to pretend that the US is the world's serial protector of international law. This position is obviously absurd, but these are not reasonable people.

Regarding Al Tanf, it's another totally illegal invasion of sovereign territory. In many react Putin is too timid. He is under pressure doe estimable to respond more directly to the Israeli provocation, or Al Tanf, or in Ukraine, or indeed indirectly to the attack on the Russian mercenaries in Syria.

At some point Moscow's cautious approach will need to show some real steel. We don't want a nuclear war, but neither does Uncle Sam. The pressure is building in Russian military and political sources. At some point something will happen - accidents don't just happen to Russian forces.
Click to expand...

Moscow is actually not too cautious at all unless it involves conflicts with nato or any other world war/nuclear war scenario, which they have no intention of fighting unless it was absolutely necessary. When it comes to smaller conflicts they are just fine doing the opposite of cautious, or even copying the american playbook of arming opposition in a foreign country like they have in ukraine.
 
beerftw said:
In february it was some russian pmc personel as ground forces against air support, an actual russian military situation would be far different as russia would have their own air support, as well as air superiority fighters and armored vehicles in such an assault if it was a traditional assault.

If they go missile they could just fire kaliber cruise missiles or kh101 standoff cruise missiles from well outside the range anyone at that garrison could attack. You need not confuse private military contractors on ground with almost no support with the actual russian military.
Click to expand...

Russia is going to war with the US over 55 square miles of Syria?

Lol. You're more delusional than I imagined.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Russia is going to war with the US over 55 square miles of Syria?

Lol. You're more delusional than I imagined.
Click to expand...

You would be surprised what people will go to war over, for russia it has plenty to do with syria being an ally since the early 70's, they can get by with what assad has now, however russia just letting the country disinigrate would look bad for them, as more countries have looked to russia since their syria intervention for the simple fact russia has been defending it's allies, russia also did the same for armenia by stationing troops there to revent a turkish invasion in the 90's.

However you should think of it this way, america is willing to go to war with russia over 55 square miles of land, that is syrian land that was unlawfully invaded. I somehow doubt america would standby and do nothing if russia illegally invaded england and set up military bases, while using every excuse in the book to explain their illegal occupation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom