Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Trump: U.S., France and UK will strike Syria

290 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

Trump just announced that a strike IS underway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

What a truly awful decision. Nothing good can come of this.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Chemical weapons have been banned since WWI. Assad has ignored this banning and this is the result.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Agence France Press - Large explosions being heard in Damascus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon

We the Sheeple!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

My guess is that after the smoke clears, he will announce that the troops will be out within 6 months.  I'm not going to worry about a troop build-up because I just don't believe he wants that.  Israeli sources that I read are very concerned about him striking and walking away and I think they are probably correct.  This whole issue is probably really about Iran as much as it is the use of chemical weapons.  If Iran isn't stopped or at least reined in by Russia, Syria, and Lebanon are going to pay a heavy price.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky

Trump:

"the nations of the worlds can be judged by the friends they keep"

true for both sides ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
1 minute ago, and then said:

My guess is that after the smoke clears, he will announce that the troops will be out within 6 months.  I'm not going to worry about a troop build-up because I just don't believe he wants that.  Israeli sources that I read are very concerned about him striking and walking away and I think they are probably correct.  This whole issue is probably really about Iran as much as it is the use of chemical weapons.  If Iran isn't stopped or at least reined in by Russia, Syria, and Lebanon are going to pay a heavy price.

actually I'm listening to his speech right now live on CNN. Great speech. balanced and calm. the impression i get is that he's offering Iran and Russia a way out and friendship so thats what the Israelis won't like very much. no mention of removing Assad just punishing him and telling Iran and Russia to stop supporting him.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
25 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Chemical weapons have been banned since WWI. Assad has ignored this banning and this is the result.

Assad attacks citizens so the response is attacking Syrian cities where countless more innocents will die.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Assad attacks citizens so the response is attacking Syrian cities where countless more innocents will die.

apparently dying by arial released bombs is more humane than gas. 

Edited by Captain Risky
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clockwork_Spirit
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Chemical weapons have been banned since WWI. Assad has ignored this banning and this is the result.

I suppose you don't have any proof to offer?

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

apparently dying by arial released bombs is more humane than gas. 

Better to be vapourised than gassed with an agent from an unknown source.

Edited by A rather obscure Bassoon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon
2 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I suppose you don't have any proof to offer?

I was of the understanding the world was still waiting for said proof.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 minute ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I suppose you don't have any proof to offer?

Of course I don’t. However, Great Britain, France and the United States obviously had sufficient intelligence to come together and mount a strike against Assad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clockwork_Spirit
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

I was of the understanding the world was still waiting for said proof.

U.N. inspectors have not even reached the site yet. But Western leaders and media had already condemned the Syrian regime based on dubious information from pro-opposition sources. Now France and U.S. intelligence have ''proof'', that can't be examined. Yeah right...

 

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Better to be vapourised than gassed with an agent from an unknown source.

depends on what type of gas is being used. in 2013 the Assad government was given a list of chemicals it was not allowed to use. Chlorine was not on that list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
4 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Of course I don’t. However, Great Britain, France and the United States obviously had sufficient intelligence to come together and mount a strike against Assad.

that's funny since they can't even categorically state what type of chemical Assad used. 

Share this post


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

I suppose you don't have any proof to offer?

I was and am skeptical, but this guy makes a fairly convincing case that is leading me to reassess my beliefs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clockwork_Spirit
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Of course I don’t. However, Great Britain, France and the United States obviously had sufficient intelligence to come together and mount a strike against Assad.

I'm surprised that, after the whole 2003 Iraq fiasco, people still buy into what those intelligence agencies claim without the least bit of critical thinking. From what we know now, intelligence can be fabricated and lies told to fit one's agenda. That's why we need independant, unbiased investigations.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon
6 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Of course I don’t. However, Great Britain, France and the United States obviously had sufficient intelligence to come together and mount a strike against Assad.

We all know how intelligence was cooked up in the Past.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

If Assad didn’t do this then who did and how come Assad let it happen?

And we are not bombing cities. We are targeting certain facilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A rather obscure Bassoon
1 minute ago, F3SS said:

If Assad didn’t do this then who did and how come Assad let it happen?

And we are not bombing cities. We are targeting certain facilities.

Turkey is my main Suspect.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
1 minute ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Turkey is my main Suspect.

Middle eastern affairs aren’t my strong suit by any means but if you think that then I would guess that Syria would know it and so why aren’t they (Syria) lighting up Turkey right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
12 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Better to be vapourised than gassed with an agent from an unknown source.

Dunno. I think I'd take the gas over suffocating under rubble, starving to death or burning to death.

There aren't really any good choices here, but I think people are getting hung up on the method of death when the issue should be more about the people targeted: innocent civilians.

We're okay to ignore it when they're "civilised" deaths?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.