|
Libs are gonna look at these bombings and complain about it not being enough war.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:obama officials are all brain geniuses that's a hell of a take
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Libs are gonna look at these bombings and complain about it not being enough war. The line, already, is that Trump told Russia the attacks were coming and its just More Proof; the alternative, that we should have outright killed as many Russian soldiers in Syria as possible, would be bad of course, but that we DIDN'T is proof the piss tape is real, you see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
It's impossible to even say if any of the targets which were struck had anything to do with Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. Like the Science & Research Center in Damascus is billed as being a government agency responsible for digitizing the country and bringing everyone the internet, but Western security experts have been insisting for years that they were the ones developing the chemical weapons program. It reminds me of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing in 1998 when the Clinton administration insisted they were making VX nerve agent for Al Qaeda, but it really was just a pill plant and they caused an epidemic in Sudan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
this illegal, useless attack was great. i'm a foodie and a mother and i'm doing my part! \ \ \ \ \ 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:The line, already, is that Trump told Russia the attacks were coming and its just More Proof; the alternative, that we should have outright killed as many Russian soldiers in Syria as possible, would be bad of course, but that we DIDN'T is proof the piss tape is real, you see. The Pentagon said they told the Russians that the attack was coming so they'd clear air space, but they didn't consult the Russians on what was going to be hit. I'm not even certain they made sure that none of the targets they were going to hit were Russian. e: https://twitter.com/sovietfuntime2/status/984996679454687233 Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 16:28 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/walid970721/status/984556695941734400
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's impossible to even say if any of the targets which were struck had anything to do with Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. Like the Science & Research Center in Damascus is billed as being a government agency responsible for digitizing the country and bringing everyone the internet, but Western security experts have been insisting for years that they were the ones developing the chemical weapons program. It reminds me of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory bombing in 1998 when the Clinton administration insisted they were making VX nerve agent for Al Qaeda, but it really was just a pill plant and they caused an epidemic in Sudan. bombing one of the few remaining scientific institutions in syria really pisses me off. chlorine gas is wwi technology, people make it at home accidentally all the time by mixing cleaning fluids. it is easy to make, doesn't require a huge research center or chemical plant. this did nothing except damage civilian industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
why was Assad launching a chemical attack when the war was nearly over
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Yandat posted:why was Assad launching a chemical attack when the war was nearly over They really needed Jaish al-Islam to leave Douma without a fight, and probably figured the Western retaliation wouldn't matter. If what they claim about shooting down cruise missiles is even partially true, it'd also be a good test of their AA defenses and Russian weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:They really needed Jaish al-Islam to leave Douma without a fight, and probably figured the Western retaliation wouldn't matter. If what they claim about shooting down cruise missiles is even partially true, it'd also be a good test of their AA defenses and Russian weapons. yeah maybe. i'm not buying the conspiracy angle but it just seems weird when you can slowly win. maybe if you've been doing it for four years a chemical attack looks rational but it's strange
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/anarchimedia/status/985016552226508806?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:obama officials are all brain geniuses here's an article explaining the legal aspect of the strike: https://www.lawfareblog.com/downsides-bombing-syria
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
the american foreign policy establishment is insanely dumb and bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
the syria strikes are done already? what happened to the Invasion And Occupation of Syria that ppl were so hyperventatingly about
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:the syria strikes are done already? what happened to the Invasion And Occupation of Syria that ppl were so hyperventatingly about trump
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Being against American strikes is one thing, but saying "um actually chemical warfare is good" is pretty lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Being against American strikes is one thing, but saying "um actually chemical warfare is good" is pretty lol im sorry but its one or the other
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
fwiw i don't think syrian and russian AA had much to do with the lack of real damage so much as the strike being extremely short notice which meant there wasn't a lot of time to pick targets and plan. what should worry people is what happens the next time trump gets in deep poo poo and orders another strike. bolton is absolutely screaming in his ear to do more
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
bashar al-Assad is good and will win
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:bashar al-Assad is good and will win liberals: ironic racism leftists: ironic assadism
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:fwiw i don't think syrian and russian AA had much to do with the lack of real damage so much as the strike being extremely short notice which meant there wasn't a lot of time to pick targets and plan. what should worry people is what happens the next time trump gets in deep poo poo and orders another strike. bolton is absolutely screaming in his ear to do more It was the Russians who said they shot down the missiles, not the SyAAF. And while that's technically possible, it's nearly impossible to believe because the Russians just blatantly lie whenever it's in their interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:the syria strikes are done already? what happened to the Invasion And Occupation of Syria that ppl were so hyperventatingly about kill yourself
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
i got raised by some assholes and skipped the whole "ethics" thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It was the Russians who said they shot down the missiles, not the SyAAF. And while that's technically possible, it's nearly impossible to believe because the Russians just blatantly lie whenever it's in their interests. i don't think it's out of reason to think the russians shot down a decent amount of cruise missiles (they aren't hard to hit); but this strike WAS limited compared to what president bigmac could really do
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:i don't think it's out of reason to think the russians shot down a decent amount of cruise missiles (they aren't hard to hit); but this strike WAS limited compared to what president bigmac could really do It's definitely possible. They have platforms to do it. We just don't really have any reason to believe they did, because their word is worth nothing and that's all we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
I want Assad to win the war quickly on all fronts
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:I want Assad to win the war quickly on all fronts lmao he is
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/985192241344823299 https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/985198491986165766 https://twitter.com/JakeGodin/status/985152803135021057 Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 19:27 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Honest question - what is the reasoning behind chemical weapons being worse than getting bomb shrapnel embedded in your torso or whatever? I'm not asking this as some rhetorical thing, but because I'm genuinely curious what the rational is because making a clear distinction between them and "conventional" weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, it doesn't have the whole "an entire city destroyed with just one bomb" aspect and I don't think it renders the area uninhabitable for a while afterwards due to radiation or some other reason (though I'm not sure about the latter). I want to be clear that I'm not defending chemical weapons here, and I'm mostly expecting some actual answer to this, but I can't think of one off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Honest question - what is the reasoning behind chemical weapons being worse than getting bomb shrapnel embedded in your torso or whatever? I'm not asking this as some rhetorical thing, but because I'm genuinely curious what the rational is because making a clear distinction between them and "conventional" weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, it doesn't have the whole "an entire city destroyed with just one bomb" aspect and I don't think it renders the area uninhabitable for a while afterwards due to radiation or some other reason (though I'm not sure about the latter). Because they're not actually very useful in a post-WWI battlefield context (things move around too much even in urban warfare), but very VERY effective to use punitively against civilian populations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Honest question - what is the reasoning behind chemical weapons being worse than getting bomb shrapnel embedded in your torso or whatever? I'm not asking this as some rhetorical thing, but because I'm genuinely curious what the rational is because making a clear distinction between them and "conventional" weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, it doesn't have the whole "an entire city destroyed with just one bomb" aspect and I don't think it renders the area uninhabitable for a while afterwards due to radiation or some other reason (though I'm not sure about the latter). Part of it is that chemical weapons don't actually have that much of a proper military use because modern militaries have protective equipment which civilian populations do not. Because of that they're only really useful as a terror weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Honest question - what is the reasoning behind chemical weapons being worse than getting bomb shrapnel embedded in your torso or whatever? I'm not asking this as some rhetorical thing, but because I'm genuinely curious what the rational is because making a clear distinction between them and "conventional" weapons. Unlike nuclear weapons, it doesn't have the whole "an entire city destroyed with just one bomb" aspect and I don't think it renders the area uninhabitable for a while afterwards due to radiation or some other reason (though I'm not sure about the latter). Well, people were horrified by their deployment in WWI, and moved quickly to ban them thereafter. That's about the long and the short of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Well, people were horrified by their deployment in WWI, and moved quickly to ban them thereafter. That's about the long and the short of it. Yeah another often unexamined reason which carries a distressing amount of weight is "because we [the west] said so" pee pee, doo doo, folk don't consider their ideas much, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
 Willie Tomg posted:Yeah another often unexamined reason which carries a distressing amount of weight is "because we [the west] said so" It's mostly because they were horrified that the cream of European aristocracy could be choked to death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
I look forward to visiting Damascus once Assad wins
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
The tactical use for the US and Russian stockpiles had in mind was to basically spray coat behind enemy lines during a hypothetical Fulda Gap conflict with extremely sticky and hard to clean nerve agents that would distrust resupply and medical units and make it basically impossible to support an armored spearhead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
If Syria disagreed they could have not signed the cwc at the expense of their genocide efficiency
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Wild how tankie and alt right commentary ends up looking the same 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Part of it is that chemical weapons don't actually have that much of a proper military use because modern militaries have protective equipment which civilian populations do not. Because of that they're only really useful as a terror weapon. Okay, so basically "there's just no reason to use them in most cases unless they're targeting civilians." That's a pretty good reason to ban their use, though I'm not sure it really makes using them against civilians morally worse than using conventional weapons against the same civilians (though I guess it at least erases all doubt that killing civilians was the intent of the attack). It seems like the issue then isn't so much "people being outraged at the use of chemical weapons against civilians," but rather "people being less outraged at the use of conventional weapons against civilians."
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 19:55
|
|