Will a False Flag start WWIII?

[Mr.United_Nations]

On 6/27/2017 at 8:09 AM, and then said:

Sources?  There have been a few spankings given when Syrian soldiers drop ordnance on the Israeli side of the border, that's all.  Seeder, I think you have no real concept of what Israel is capable of, militarily.   They could storm into Syria and remove Assad AND the Russians in a matter of days if they had to do.  Of course, they'd risk a nuclear exchange but that's going to happen somewhere in the M.E. eventually.  The one way to GUARANTEE aggression against one's country is to give off signals that you aren't ready for conflict or are too craven to use force.

Israel has bombed convoys and tanks recently in Syria, I do believe they bombed a facility that they believe was weapons for Hezbollah

[Mr.United_Nations]

20 hours ago, The Russian Hare said:

I do not claim to know the truth, but the idea that they would launch a second chemical attack makes even less sense to me than the first attack

Why attack with banned weapons when no tactical situation warrants it, knowing the condemnation will follow? Then why attack a second time, knowing exactly the consequences?

What consequences? Russia has turned a blind eye and failed to protect Assad from any Western attack

[The Caspian Hare]

2 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

What consequences? Russia has turned a blind eye and failed to protect Assad from any Western attack

I think we are talking two different things, I meant why would Syria use chemical weapons a second time knowing for sure it will get cruise missiles coming down on it again (assuming it was the attacker in the first case in April, which is not entirely clear to me)

 

[The Narcisse]

The flag that will start WWIII is very real...and it's American.

[The Silver Thong]

8 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

What consequences? Russia has turned a blind eye and failed to protect Assad from any Western attack

Wrong, russia has supplied Assad with the s-500 don`t mess with it.

[Only_]

Quote

In pictures: Syrian Army confiscates Israeli armaments left behind by rebels in Homs

''DAMASCUS, SYRIA (1:20 A.M.) – Weapons produced in the Jewish nation were seized by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the city of Homs on Wednesday after security forces discovered secret ammunition stockpiles across the former rebel stronghold of Al-Waer, an outer suburb located on the northwestern perimeter of the provincial capital.

According to photos obtained by Al-Masdar News, the SAA captured dozens of anti-tanks missiles along with tons of ammunition and explosives which had been abandoned by evacuated Islamist insurgents. Some of the weapons bore Israeli inscriptions, an indication that Tel Aviv may have smuggled armaments to opposition forces in Homs.''

LINK

 

[bee]

 

Apparently the warning prevented Assad's forces doing a chemical attack ---- 

or maybe it was the response from Russia that stopped a false flag chemical release somewhere in Syria and the inevitable escalation -- ?

at least for now....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-mattis-idUSKBN19J1OF

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday that Moscow will respond if the United States takes measures against Syrian government forces.

"We will react with dignity, in proportion to the real situation that may take place," he said at a news conference in the city of Krasnodar.

Lavrov said he hoped the United States was not preparing to use its intelligence assessments about the Syrian government's intentions as a pretext to mount a "provocation" in Syria.

 

 

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, bee said:

 

Apparently the warning prevented Assad's forces doing a chemical attack ---- 

or maybe it was the response from Russia that stopped a false flag chemical release somewhere in Syria and the inevitable escalation -- ?

at least for now....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-mattis-idUSKBN19J1OF

 

 

So long as the Syrian civilians aren't attacked and killed like insects again, I don't much care who was responsible for stopping it.  Putin is playing a very dangerous game here, bee.  The U.S. or Israel could expunge his forces from the region in a few days with minimal losses.  His generals have surely made him aware of this, yet he has made no move to reinforce his boots yet.  He is building bases and moving hardware but has made no serious moves toward defending his people there, IMO.  He assumes no one will attack them because of his nuclear bluster.  You can only play that card in a limited way before you have to back it up with action.  That said, if he lights up a U.S. aircraft with fire control radar and then launches on them, the chances are really good that either the plane or the AA missile site is going to be destroyed.  Then what?  Think of a small guy trying to be a bully.  He pushes too far and gets his tail kicked by a bigger guy so he then goes and gets a gun... do you see where this can go?  It doesn't really matter which guy you choose in the bully's role.  Between the U.S. and Russia, NUKES have not been used as an offensive threat. Until Putin.  THIS is dangerous.  It relies totally on the rationality of Putin and Trump.

[ExpandMyMind]

Yeah, I thought there was something fishy about a predicted second attack. It would be far more stupid and detrimental to Assad than even the first. 

[+and-then]

On 6/28/2017 at 2:02 AM, The Silver Thong said:

I don`t think we should mess with Russia.

 

You can't effectively kill what you don't SEE.  The idea here is that the F-35 can target and kill without being seen.  It's hard to really beat that kind of an enemy.  Israel has a few now so we will soon enough see this aircraft tested against Russia's S series AA systems.

[bee]

14 hours ago, and then said:

So long as the Syrian civilians aren't attacked and killed like insects again, I don't much care who was responsible for stopping it.  Putin is playing a very dangerous game here, bee. The U.S. or Israel could expunge his forces from the region in a few days with minimal losses.  His generals have surely made him aware of this, yet he has made no move to reinforce his boots yet.  He is building bases and moving hardware but has made no serious moves toward defending his people there, IMO.  He assumes no one will attack them because of his nuclear bluster.  You can only play that card in a limited way before you have to back it up with action.  That said, if he lights up a U.S. aircraft with fire control radar and then launches on them, the chances are really good that either the plane or the AA missile site is going to be destroyed.  Then what?  Think of a small guy trying to be a bully.  He pushes too far and gets his tail kicked by a bigger guy so he then goes and gets a gun... do you see where this can go?  It doesn't really matter which guy you choose in the bully's role.  Between the U.S. and Russia, NUKES have not been used as an offensive threat. Until Putin.  THIS is dangerous.  It relies totally on the rationality of Putin and Trump.

 

we see this differently -- re underlined I think the US is playing a dangerous game with the ME region and World Peace -

but thank goodness it looks like they have pulled back from the brink for now - until the next time because this determination
to remove the Assad Regime isn't going to stop - 

as far as I'm concerned the so called intelligence that Assad forces were going to use chemical weapons is just transparent BS -
but it will be brought up again no doubt, when the next attempt to create an excuse for US and allies to attack Syrian forces
comes up - 

I don't think either Putin or Trump will want all this to escalate but how successfully Trump can reel in those in the US military
who want it to is anyone's guess...

 

 

[RoofGardener]

Bee, what would your ideal solution be ? Should Russia and "The West" simply pull out ? Would you have preferred that we didn't get involved in the first place ?

Edited July 3, 2017 by RoofGardener

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, bee said:

 

we see this differently -- re underlined I think the US is playing a dangerous game with the ME region and World Peace -

but thank goodness it looks like they have pulled back from the brink for now - until the next time because this determination
to remove the Assad Regime isn't going to stop - 

as far as I'm concerned the so called intelligence that Assad forces were going to use chemical weapons is just transparent BS -
but it will be brought up again no doubt, when the next attempt to create an excuse for US and allies to attack Syrian forces
comes up - 

I don't think either Putin or Trump will want all this to escalate but how successfully Trump can reel in those in the US military
who want it to is anyone's guess...

 

 

As I said, choosing which side is the bully is immaterial in this game.  I don't pretend to know what the purpose of it all may be but what I do sense is that it appears to be important enough to risk a devastating war over.  Some say this is economics and pipelines but the aspect of it all that seems of paramount risk is the land bridge that Iran wants into the Syrian Golan.  If they are allowed to have this then it will set up a regional conflagration between Iran, Israel and probably Russia.  THAT means a very high potential for a nuclear weapon to be used.  Regardless claims to the contrary, Iran wants Israel GONE.  It is irrational at its core and very dangerous.  Hezbollah has about 50K missiles in southern Lebanon now.  They are mostly dispersed into homes and businesses as well as schools and hospitals.  Iran wants to build up its own IRGC forces in Syria next to the Israeli border and Israel has clearly told Russia that this will NOT be allowed.  So Russia will either deal itself out and allow Iran and Israel to fight or it will try to restrain both of them or it will aid its ally, Iran.  I don't imagine the U.S. would send ground forces into Syria but we would aid Israel if it comes down to a war.  This is dangerous stuff.

[preacherman76]

23 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Bee, what would your ideal solution be ? Should Russia and "The West" simply pull out ? Would you have preferred that we didn't get involved in the first place ?

I think a pretty good argument could be made that the world would be far better off if we had never invaded any of the country's in the Middle East. 

[AnchorSteam]

On 7/4/2017 at 4:07 AM, preacherman76 said:

I think a pretty good argument could be made that the world would be far better off if we had never invaded any of the country's in the Middle East. 

That's in the past, as is 9/11.

But to learn a lesson; it would have been far better to send in teams of commandos and assassins to kill Osama and all of his contacts, all of his Lieutenants and all of his supporters, as well as all of the Mullah's who's sermons were supportive of Jihad and were preaching hate against us.

Far more economical and effective. 

Live and learn, right?

[+and-then]

53 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

That's in the past, as is 9/11.

But to learn a lesson; it would have been far better to send in teams of commandos and assassins to kill Osama and all of his contacts, all of his Lieutenants and all of his supporters, as well as all of the Mullah's who's sermons were supportive of Jihad and were preaching hate against us.

Far more economical and effective. 

Live and learn, right?

This precisely what needs to happen in the U.S. and UK today.  The hate preaching Imams need to just disappear.  Those on the dole who openly speak against the government should be deported at least.  If they resist, shoot them.  No country owes its citizenry the right to treason.

[AnchorSteam]

As for how it might be started -

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSfU-Qhl6M4

 

They wrote the book on it. 

[Obviousman]

21 hours ago, and then said:

This precisely what needs to happen in the U.S. and UK today.  The hate preaching Imams need to just disappear.  Those on the dole who openly speak against the government should be deported at least.  If they resist, shoot them.  No country owes its citizenry the right to treason.

I kinda sympathise with you, but step back and have a look at what you have said. Making people disappear. Shoot the resistance. If that were enacted, wouldn't that be a little too close to what fascist nations might do?

[Tatetopa]

On 7/3/2017 at 2:32 AM, bee said:

I don't think either Putin or Trump will want all this to escalate but how successfully Trump can reel in those in the US military
who want it to is anyone's guess...

 

 We have some experienced and cautious leaders commanding our military now.  They may be the ones guiding inexperienced President Trump to caution.  James Mattis is someone who has experience how bad war can be for both sides.  I think he will be absolutely certain there is no other choice before he commits the military.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Obviousman said:

I kinda sympathise with you, but step back and have a look at what you have said. Making people disappear. Shoot the resistance. If that were enacted, wouldn't that be a little too close to what fascist nations might do?

It's a risk, yes.  But when the politicians have shown that they will NOT protect the people and when the laws are being used to shield those who want to subjugate the nation under their own legal system, it's a risk that should be taken with eyes wide open.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, and then said:

It's a risk, yes.  But when the politicians have shown that they will NOT protect the people and when the laws are being used to shield those who want to subjugate the nation under their own legal system, it's a risk that should be taken with eyes wide open.

First They Came

You just cant do that man.  

[+and-then]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

First They Came

You just cant do that man.  

When you are fighting for your freedom from a hellish, dark ideology that others would force on you, each individual has to decide how much their liberty means to them and act accordingly.  When I see someone like yourself refusing even the idea of fighting back I realize that not everyone is willing to do what is necessary to be free.  If you think it more moral bend the knee to people who do what these have shown they'll do then I wonder if you couldn't be considered complicit.  That poem you cited has NOTHING to do with today's reality.  Friend it is THEY who are the ones who are "coming"... not us.  Nevertheless, live how you have to and I'll do the same.

[Farmer77]

Just now, and then said:

When you are fighting for your freedom from a hellish, dark ideology that others would force on you, each individual has to decide how much their liberty means to them and act accordingly.  When I see someone like yourself refusing even the idea of fighting back I realize that not everyone is willing to do what is necessary to be free.  If you think it more moral bend the knee to people who do what these have shown they'll do then I wonder if you couldn't be considered complicit.  That poem you cited has NOTHING to do with today's reality.  Friend it is THEY who are the ones who are "coming"... not us.  Nevertheless, live how you have to and I'll do the same.

Im all for fighting back amigo. What im saying is that what you want to do would harm freedom for everyone.  I just think its extremely short sighted to give the government that kind of power. Hell you're a christian man think about how quickly those on the far left would pounce on the chance to turn that around and start 'disappearing' preachers who speak against gays once they took power. 

Once you hand the government the tools of tyranny there's no taking them back. 

[Obviousman]

2 hours ago, and then said:

It's a risk, yes.  But when the politicians have shown that they will NOT protect the people and when the laws are being used to shield those who want to subjugate the nation under their own legal system, it's a risk that should be taken with eyes wide open.

I agree, but it is a very dangerous path to follow.

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Im all for fighting back amigo. What im saying is that what you want to do would harm freedom for everyone.  I just think its extremely short sighted to give the government that kind of power. Hell you're a christian man think about how quickly those on the far left would pounce on the chance to turn that around and start 'disappearing' preachers who speak against gays once they took power. 

Once you hand the government the tools of tyranny there's no taking them back. 

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough, sorry.  I absolutely wouldn't want to officially, legally empower a government to do such things.  The whole reason for the approach I mentioned is due to our governments being unable or unwilling to do ANYTHING of consequence to stop the influx and dissemination of this ideology.  In fact, some parts of the U.S. are already starting down the path that France and the UK have followed to their great harm.  What I'm saying is that if the laws are failing to protect the citizens then the citizens have an obligation FIRST, to try and get those laws changed.  That is nearly impossible these days so free men and women reach a point where they have to take their safety into their own hands.  If I truly felt that my wife and daughter were seriously threatened by this ideology moving into my area, I would willingly trade my freedom for their safety.  Do you understand, now?