Off Topic US attacks Syria...

US launches 50 missiles at Syrian military airfield...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.ed7fb57c14dd

I guess this is just the start of dangerous times.

 

You know something. In this Trump is totally right and to be honest he needs congratulating on being willing to back his mouth up. Remember Obama's red line that he then ignored?
The Assad regime cannot keep doing crap like they did on Tuesday whilst hiding behind Russia. This may actually make them think again.

Assad has been bombing the living hell (which exactly the term to be used) out of its own civilians including hospitals for far, far to long.

 

Saudi Arabia has been using white phosphorous supplied by the US in Yemen to kill innocent civilians. It's been using American and British weapons to kill innocent civilians. US airstrike in Mosul recently killed hundreds of innocent civilians.

Assad's a murderer and a brutal, ruthless dictator but it's up to the Syrian rebels to oust him. My support is for the SDF. Western intervention in the Middle East never ends well. Never. Not in Iraq, not in Libya and won't be in Syria. If the US follow up this attack against the SAA with boots on the ground, Assad will invite Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the Artesh to fight against the Americans. It seems Putin has stabbed Assad in the back.

 

Oh, and the Americans declared war on the German Empire exactly 100 years ago.

 

Nip this in the bud ...

 

So we sit there and do nothing apart from wagging a finger then? Like Obama did. That worked well didn't it.

 

Do you think Iran, North Korea and Russia should bomb the US because the US killed over 300 innocent people in Mosul?

No, we shouldn't do anything at all without a UN mandate. Saudi Arabia's doing far worse in Yemen and we haven't acted so I see no reason to take action against Assad. Let the FSA and SDF take Assad down in due time. Just because Assad's a brute doesn't mean American cowboys should go in and blow **** up.

Have you actually not learned anything since 2003? At all?

 

A UN mandate? Have you not been paying attention? That is impossible currently due to Russia's stance. In the mean time Syria are chemical bombing their own civilians.

Also I pretty sure the US didn't delibrately target civilians, never mind bomb them with chemical weapons.

 

Oh, and the US attack on Assad's airbase has allowed Ahrar al Sham and al-Nusra (both al-Qaeda affiliates) to fight against the regime and Islamic State to launch an offensive near Furqlus.

So the Americans literally provided air support to terrorists.

 

You are aware that the only reason that the US are in the area is due to their fight AGAINST ISIS right? That doesnt mean they should just say 'Sorry but we don't like the guys Assad is fighting so we wont get involved and even if we wanted to Russia are forcing us to sit our hands' whilst Assad chemical bombs his civilians.

 

The US has been calling for Assad's removal since before ISIS had any territory in Syria. They've been supporting rebel groups as early as 2012 and ISIS wasn't active until 2013. I'm opposed to Assad and think he should be toppled, by Syrians, not NATO or anyone else for that matter. The US destroying a regime airfield is an act of war and could very likely be followed up with American ground troops invading and occupying Syria like Iraq in 2003. I don't want that because whenever the Americans (and the British) put their grubby hands on the Middle East, they make things a thousand times worse. And the Russians should **** off and leave the Middle East as well.

 

I think you are making a major leap here. I have seen no evidence of the following up with troops you are talking about. In fact the pentagon have just stated that this is a one off.
This for me is a 'Leave the chemical weapons out of this' stance.

Also remember that the UN are STILL waiting for the report on Assad's chemical weapons availability.

 

It's a possibility. The US already has special ops and military advisors in Syria, as do we. Their attention until now has been on ISIS, particularly in northern Syria by providing airstrikes against ISIS and supplying some (not enough) weaponry to the Kurdish militias. I actually have no problem with any country supplying the Kurds in Syria because they have no allies and are taking the fight directly to ISIS but if Assad falls now, ISIS and al-Nusra will focus their full attention on the Kurds, Shias, Sunnis and Assyrian Christians in the north because they won't have to worry about Assad anymore.

It's happening as we speak. Like I said, Islamic State have taken advantage of the US airstrikes on Assad's base to launch an offensive. Jihadi groups and al-Qaeda affiliates are doing the same. The US just provided air support for a terrorist counter-offensive. The chemical attacks are disgusting but tonight wasn't the time to start launching more than 50 tomahawk missiles at the regime.

 

Where has anyone said Assad needs removing right now? It would make no sense for that to happen.
If not now then when? Next time? The time after that? In the mean time civilians are dying in the host horrid of ways. This is about Syria using BANNED chemical weapons. End Of.

 

So, just bomb Assad's aircraft and then what? What's the next step in the US' grand master plan? Aside from providing ISIS the opportunity to gain more ground, despite the fact they were on the run from both Assad and the Kurds. It's a civil war, it's not some ****e Mel Gibson American war film where the bad guys lose and and the good guys win and the credits roll. There are so many different factions that all have different interests and goals and the US just allowed the worse one out of all of them the opportunity to go on the offensive. Assad's a ****; ISIS are worse. Assad has suffered because of this; ISIS and other jihadi groups have prospered.