Here we go. Bombs Away.

theiioftx said:
Rand Paul is an attention freak like Chuck Schumer. Kentucky is the worst representative state in the Union.
Click to expand...

I get criticizing poor Ron Paul because, unable to get into law school, he was forced to go to medical school. Nonetheless, he raises some good questions about US law and the Constitution that I wish were put before the American public more often. If he did not do this, what other politician would?
 
Joe Fan said:
My understanding is that the Israelis aided the CW site targeting. They've been studying what the Syrians have been doing up close for decades.

Further, you were predicting a full-scale destruction of all Syrian infrastructure.
-- Are you ready to admit this prediction was wrong?
-- If so, how do you account for that?
Click to expand...
I never "predicted" such. I did state several possibilities, of which this would have been the most aggressive, unrestrained, and stupid.
 
Joe Fan said:
My understanding is that the Israelis aided the CW site targeting. They've been studying what the Syrians have been doing up close for decades.
Click to expand...
The chemical inspectors are now in Damascus. By targeting the CW sites, the US can say, "that's where Assad had secretly been continuing his program" but now perhaps it will be impossible to say, "No, we checked that out and there is no program."
 
Russian military briefing.

The US alongside its allies conducted a missile strike by its air and naval carriers targeting military and civil facilities of the Syrian Arab Republic on April 14 in the period from 3.42 am till 5.10 am (MSK).

The Russian air defence systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus air base timely located and controlled all naval and air launches made by the USA and the UK.

Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.

It is reported that the B-1B, F-15 and F-16 aircraft of the USAF as well as the Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF over the Mediterranean Sea, and the USS Laboon and USS Monterey located in the Red Sea were used during the operation.

The B-1B strategic bombers approached the facilities over the Syrian territory near al-Tanf illegally seized by the USA.

A number Syrian military airfields, industrial and research facilities suffered the missile-bomb strike.

As preliminary reported, there are no civilian casualties and losses among the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Information will be further specified and made public.

As evident by the available data, 103 cruise missiles have been launched, including Tomahawk naval-based missiles as well as GBU-38 guided air bombs fired from the B-1B; the F-15 and F-16 aircraft launched air-to-surface missiles.

The Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF launched eight Scalp EG missiles.

The Syrian air defence systems, which are primarily the USSR-made AD systems, have successfully countered the air and naval strikes.

In total, 71 cruise missiles have been intercepted. The S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat, and Osa Syrian AD systems were involved in repelling the attack.

It proves high efficiency of the Syrian armament and professional skills of the Syrian servicemen trained by the Russian specialists.

Over the last eighteen months, Russia has completely recovered the Syrian air defence systems, and continues its development.

It is to be stressed that several years ago given the strong request by our western partners, Russia opted out of supplying the S-300 AD systems to Syria. Taking into account the recent incident, Russia believes it possible to reconsider this issue not only regarding Syria but other countries as well.

The strike targeted Syrian air bases as well. Russia has registered the following data.

Four missiles targeted the Damascus International Airport; 12 missiles – the Al-Dumayr airdrome, all the missiles have been shot down.

18 missiles targeted the Blai airdrome, all the missiles shot down.

12 missiles targeted the Shayrat air base, all the missiles shot down. Air bases were not affected by the strike.

Five out of nine missiles were shot down targeting the unoccupied Mazzeh airdrome.

Thirteen out of sixteen missiles were shot down targeting the Homs airdrome. There are no heavy destructions.

In total 30 missiles targeted facilities near Barzah and Jaramana. Seven of them have been shot down. These facilities allegedly relating to the so-called “Damascus military chemical programme” were partially destructed. However, the objects have not been used for a long time, so there were no people and equipment there.

The Russian air defence systems have been alerted. Fighter jets are on combat air patrol now.

There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.

Russia considers the strike to be a response to the success of the Syrian Armed Forces in fighting international terrorism and liberating its territory, rather than a response to the alleged chemical attack.

Besides, the attack took place on a day when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) special mission was to start working on investigating incident in the city of Douma where chemical attack allegedly occurred.

It is to be stressed that there are no facilities on producing chemical weapons in Syria, and this has been documented by the OPCW.

The American aggression proves that the USA is not interested in objectivity of the ongoing investigation, seeks to wreck peaceful settlement in Syria and destabilize environment in the Middle East, and all these have nothing to do with declared objectives of countering international terrorism.

Currently the situation in Damascus and other settlements is assessed to be stable.The environment is being monitored.
 
Joe Fan said:
Haley at UN today: If Assad uses chemical arms again, the US is locked and loaded

Click to expand...

http://www.theblogmire.com/from-skr...w-realities-are-reaching-the-end-of-the-road/

This is where Haley and the US led Neocons are coming from. Article follows the quotation.

“That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Thus spake Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff in the Government of George W. Bush.
​
I do wish people would study Rove’s words more carefully. Judiciously study them. If they did, then whenever the next alleged atrocity occurs and the United States, together with its coalition of supine vassals, starts yelling and hollering 10 minutes later for action to be taken, on the basis of a test-tube full of washing powder, or pictures of injured women and children in a war zone, and the entire media of dutiful stenographers shrieks that “something must be done”, then perhaps we might pause and wonder if we are being played. Instead of falling into an emotional spasm, maybe we would instead reject the deafening drumbeats of war – wars that have a habit of killing immeasurably more women and children than the alleged incidents on which they are based, by the way — and ask ourselves whether “Rove’s Law” has come into play.

As an aside, the West’s interventionist wars remind me of that wonderfully cynical exchange in the film, The Man With Two Brains:

Dr. Hfuhruhurr: “The only time we doctors should accept death is when it’s caused by our own incompetence!”

Dr. Necessiter: “Nonsense! If the murder of twelve innocent people can help save one human life, it will have been worth it!”

Here’s Dr. Necessiter selling us into war in Iraq: “Nonsense! If it costs us the deaths of 500,000 people to topple the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, it will have been worth it!”

Here he is selling us bombs on Libya: “Nonsense! If turning Libya into a failed state, a terrorist’s playground, and causing a mass exodus of refugees is the price for getting rid of Gaddafi, it will have been worth it.”

And here’s Dr Necessiter again, this time trying to sell us into bombing Syria: “Nonsense! Risking a catastrophic clash with a country armed with thousands of nuclear weapons is worth it in order to respond to the alleged deaths of less than a hundred people in a totally unproven chemical weapons attack.”

Behold, the “logic” of the interventionists!

But back to Rove. What was he saying? Three things:

Number one: We – that is the Globalist Deep State, centred in Washington DC – are sovereign over the entire globe and we will do as we please.

Number two: That we don’t follow reality, we create it.

Number three: That we are prepared to do things that will make your jaws drop, your hair stand on end, and your eyes boggle as you wonder what is going on, and while your jaws, your hair and your eyes are busy doing their thing, we will have moved onto create our next reality.

In other words – we are God – and not a kind and merciful God, but a God who lords it over all peoples’, nations and tongues, who tells lies, and then tells more lies to cover up those lies and – when you poor saps are trying to work out what it is we’re really up to – before you know what has happened, those lies and those lies to cover up lies will have become the new reality. We’ll have moved on and the world with it, and the narrative we have created will have been written in the history books, which we ourselves shall write.

The cases of Sergei Skripal and the alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta seem somehow to represent the zenith of this ideology.

I do not know who poisoned Sergei Skripal or for what reason. It could be that the Russian Government was behind it, although this would mean accepting the highly improbable thesis that they decided to target a has-been MI6 spy, who they released from prison eight years ago, using perhaps the dumbest assassination method in the history of the world – an ineffective, slow-operating, “military-grade” nerve agent, which could be traced back to them, and which they smeared on a door handle in rainy Salisbury –, a week or so before a Presidential election, and less than 100 days before they are due to host the World Cup. In other words, the official narrative does not rest on accepting that the Russian state is the epitome of pure evil; it rests on accepting that it is the epitome of insanity and bumbling incompetence.

I do not know what happened in Eastern Ghouta. It could be that the Syrian Government was behind what is alleged to have happened (if it indeed did happen), but this would mean having to accept the thesis that just 24 hours away from completely liberating the last pocket of resistance in Damascus, after the US, the UK and France had all warned that they would attack if chemical weapons were used, just a week or so after the US President, Donald J. Swamp, announced that the US would be pulling out of Syria (which they occupied illegally, by the way), they made the decision to use a weapon that gave them no military advantage whatsoever, but which was practically guaranteed to be used as a pretext for airstrikes against them. In other words, like the Skripal case, the theory does not stand on accepting that the Syrian state is the epitome of pure evil; it stands on accepting that it is the epitome of self-defeating stupidity on an epic scale.

But you see what I’ve done? I’ve fallen right into Karl Rove’s trap, haven’t I? I’m asking questions about whether the narratives in these cases stack up. In the Skripal case, I’ve been judiciously studying reality by asking lots of questions that ought to have occurred to anyone with a keen interest in arriving at the truth (here and here, for instance). I could do the same with the Syrian case, if I had the time.

Yet while I’m doing so, the narrative is moving on. I’m falling into exactly the trap that Karl and his disciples have laid. They want two sorts of people: those who just blindly accept that it was the Russians wot did it, or that it was Assad wot did it; and those who spend their time asking questions about the official explanations. The first group call the second group conspiracy theorists and nutters. The second group call the first group dumb sheeple. And the Globalist Deep State laughs and laughs and laughs as the two groups battle it out to make sense of what has happened, leaving it free to march on to create the next reality. Truly I tell you, these Bolsheviks have learnt their Hegelian Dialectics well.

Now, this is not to rule out that in the Salisbury and Eastern Ghouta cases the official narratives might – just might – be the correct ones. That both Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad might be the Laurel and Hardy of Geopolitics. Yet it has to be said that whatever else you think about them, neither of them tends to come across in interviews as being what you might call dumb or inept. Nor do either of them give the impression that they have sudden insane impulses to do things which have absolutely no benefit to them, but which hand their enemies massive PR victories.

But this is besides the point. The point is not whether these particular incidents are what the official narrative says they are, or whether they are provocations. It suffices for the “new reality creators” to create their realities on occasion, or perhaps to distort occurrences which they didn’t create, and before you know it you have your two groups battling over events which may be real or fake: the conspiracists – who are studying every event to try to work out the details and the inconsistencies – and the sheeple – who believe that their Government is full of good hearted, white hatted chaps and lasses who would never, ever do anything bad – unlike those orcs over in Mordor.

Rove and Co have basically created a “reality” where truth is no longer discernible, where assertions of guilt are taken as fact, and where holes in these kinds of incidents only serve to divide the people further, so that the Globalist Deep State can move on to create their next reality.

But let’s not get gloomy. The good news is that although they clearly think they can get away with it indefinitely, they can’t. No kingdom or empire built on a mountain of lies can stand indefinitely. They all fall. And can’t you start to sense the signs that the empire’s “new realities” – or what are known as lies in laymen’s terms – are reaching boiling point? Don’t you sense that they have just got too confident and in doing so have begun to get careless? They are making mistakes. And as they do, they are having to resort to bigger and bigger lies to cover up the ones they’ve already told.

Sadly for Rove and Co, but happily for the rest of us, the world doesn’t actually work the way they think it does. Reality — I mean real reality, rather than the phoney reality they have created — will catch up sooner or later. I sense that it’s on its way even now. And when it finally comes, the whole rotten edifice that these “history’s actors” have tried to create will crash and burn. Bringing much rejoicing.


 
You do realize that it is unlikely that anyone reads the lengthy propaganda you post due to your incessant falsehoods.
 
Most people resort to alcohol to self medicate. You save bandwidth and contribute to the economy. Just don’t drive drunk.
 
Musburger1 said:
My recollection of Trump’s bellicose tweet was that Russian assets would be targeted. Mattis states the strikes were limited and no Russian assets were targeted. Looks like Trump is all bark and no bite, but then everybody knows that.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the reason for the chemicsl attack. Force the US hand to test our willingness to fight in the ME.
 
"Mission Accomplished"? Oh, Donald, good thing that phrase brings no baggage.
Out of all the words out there you could have used, (and it's a bigly amount,) you chose those 2?
Could no one stop him? >sigh<
 
TaylorTRoom and iatrogenic, no one hacked my account. I am simply against US involvement in Syria. Everything I asserted in my previous post I have seen reports of from either video or direct reports from the ground in Syria.

It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons in the context of how the war is going and it contradicts reports I hear from Syrian civilians. Not detailed civilian reports, but I mean how they have been more positive towards Assad than rebels.

It may sound crazy. It is crazy. Not what I say but the fact that it is reality. There have never been "moderate" rebels in Syria. The rebels were Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Any reports that the US was working with "moderate" rebels was simply a cover for working with Al-Qaeda and ISIS. It is crazy but it is true. Literally the week after Trump sent the first missile strike last year, the rebels blew up a commuter bus and killed dozens of people. The US media never reported it. But I saw it on a video from a reporter that was there.

Plus, no President should send troops to a blow up stuff in a foreign country without Congress approval. It is unconstitutional and a precedent that has gone on far too long. The President should only unilaterally be able to command the military when there is an urgent threat on US soil. Anything other than that we as citizens should all be up in arms about. The fact that very few people means the US as it was founded is all but gone. I know that sounds way too far, but it is where my head is at right now.
 
Hollandtx said:
"Mission Accomplished"? Oh, Donald, good thing that phrase brings no baggage.
Out of all the words out there you could have used, (and it's a bigly amount,) you chose those 2?
Could no one stop him? >sigh<
Click to expand...

There are a bigly amount of words he could have used, but people who use words like "bigly" as a normal part of their vocabulary usually don't usually know a bigly amount of words.
 
Mr. Deez said:
There are a bigly amount of words he could have used, but people who use words like "bigly" as a normal part of their vocabulary usually don't usually know a bigly amount of words.
Click to expand...
Defenestration of the word bigly should be on the itinerary.
 
Monahorns said:
Plus, no President should send troops to a blow up stuff in a foreign country without Congress approval. It is unconstitutional and a precedent that has gone on far too long. The President should only unilaterally be able to command the military when there is an urgent threat on US soil. Anything other than that we as citizens should all be up in arms about. The fact that very few people means the US as it was founded is all but gone. I know that sounds way too far, but it is where my head is at right now.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and oppose the strike on Syria. However, I'm not sure why this particular act is getting a lot of flack on this basis. For the last 70 years, there has largely been a bipartisan consensus that the President is going to do what he wants and that Congress is going to complain but usually not do anything. Until Congress is ready to impeach a President for using force without approval, that dynamic isn't going to change. We have a system of checks and balances. The President has asserted his authority on this. It's up to Congress to check him with the purse or with impeachment, or they should shut up.

Also, Congress doesn't have clean hands. What the hell is an "authorization for the use of military force?" That's Congress saying, "we don't mind you sending troops, but we haven't got the balls to invest political capital in it by committing the country to war." Well, I don't see an Art. I, Sec. 8 power to "authorize the use of military force." That force isn't theirs to authorize. I do see an Art. I, Sec. 8 power to declare war. So while Congress is lamenting the President stepping on their authority, they haven't properly used their authority since WWII. They have little right to complain.
 
This is all unfolding as it should.

I'm still learning about it, but I am beginning to understand this is part of the prophesy about Daniel's statue ... the two legs ... the East (led by Russia) and the West (led by the USA)

I'm not saying we couldn't have stopped this particular attack, but the timing is becoming more clear WRT to the re-establishment of The State of Israel.
 
Yes. The Congress has no right to complain because they have the responsibility to do something about it. But citizens should complain. This is the first time I am complaining about this issue because I have a lot over the last 5 years that I didn't realize before.
 
Monahorns said:
But citizens should complain.
Click to expand...

Overwhelmingly, they don't care and aren't sophisticated enough to understand the issue. If you started talking to the average citizen about things like the power to declare war, being commander in chief, the War Powers Resolution, etc. and got specific with what those things mean, they'd fall asleep. Even those who have a superficial understanding (meaning they've read the Constitution) are entirely partisan on the issue. If they like the President, they say he doesn't have to go to Congress. If they don't like him, they say he does have to go.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Overwhelmingly, they don't care and aren't sophisticated enough to understand the issue. If you started talking to the average citizen about things like the power to declare war, being commander in chief, the War Powers Resolution, etc. and got specific with what those things mean, they'd fall asleep. Even those who have a superficial understanding (meaning they've read the Constitution) are entirely partisan on the issue. If they like the President, they say he doesn't have to go to Congress. If they don't like him, they say he does have to go.
Click to expand...
An uninformed citizenry eventually ends up ruled by despots. I think years of complacency within the general public, combined with the capture of the free press by the MIC as well as globalist corporate interests have resulted in the ignorance and apathy described. Thousands will gather in the streets to protest Trump because he is crude, but no one takes seriously issues such as Constitutional authority to wage war and the like. We are ruled by despots.
 
I'd love to narrow this down Constitutionally. Is there anything short a declaration of war by Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8) that authorizes (legal according to our laws; then there's international law as if we care about that) our military to attack another nation?
 
bystander said:
I'd love to narrow this down Constitutionally. Is there anything short a declaration of war by Congress (Art. I, Sec. 8) that authorizes (legal according to our laws; then there's international law as if we care about that) our military to attack another nation?
Click to expand...

The issue is full of ambiguity. Does every use of military force require a declaration of war? Probably not. If Mexico invaded the United States, I doubt that anyone would expect a declaration of war before anyone could for a shot in self-defense.

What about attacks on foreign soil? For example, suppose Russia launched a nuclear missile at the United States. Would it take an act of Congress before we could fire a retaliatory strike? Probably not. What about a full scale invasion? I think so.

What about a firing of some missiles or small scale airstrikes (like what we just did)? Does that rise to the level of being a "war," or is it something short of that? And if it's something short of that, then does it require congressional approval?

We do have a little early guidance from the founders in the Barbary Wars. Jefferson basically told the Marines to go over to Tripoli and start kicking ***. However, he did ask Congress for authorization, which they granted. No declaration of war was issued.

Honestly this is an area in which a constitutional amendment could be in order. However, it takes tremendous national unity to see that, and we don't have that.
 
Mr. Deez said:
The issue is full of ambiguity. Does every use of military force require a declaration of war? Probably not. If Mexico invaded the United States, I doubt that anyone would expect a declaration of war before anyone could for a shot in self-defense.

What about attacks on foreign soil? For example, suppose Russia launched a nuclear missile at the United States. Would it take an act of Congress before we could fire a retaliatory strike? Probably not. What about a full scale invasion? I think so.

What about a firing of some missiles or small scale airstrikes (like what we just did)? Does that rise to the level of being a "war," or is it something short of that? And if it's something short of that, then does it require congressional approval?

We do have a little early guidance from the founders in the Barbary Wars. Jefferson basically told the Marines to go over to Tripoli and start kicking ***. However, he did ask Congress for authorization, which they granted. No declaration of war was issued.
Click to expand...

I get all of that. That's the Tuco rule:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top