[Political Interest]

Oh, poor you.

Yes, it will be "poor me" because it will be people like me having to fight such a war.

And, it's hardly any surprise most Americans support these actions. They are hardly the most politically literate people in the world, and are generally poorly educated about most of the humanities.

Will you go to take up arms against Russia? Are you willing to risk nuclear war?!?

[maz]

Former Syrian ambassador from just one year ago.

He said last year that the radical Muslim terrorists would stage more "fake flags" in order to go into Syria.

He's saying the exact same thing about this last attack. Well maybe he went a bit too far this time when he said the terrorists probably made fake images and it is possible that the attack never even happened.

But that's probably as good an explanation as any as no one has done any investigation whatsoever yet.

[Albert]

Update

[Zamuel]

If what you say is true, then why is it that people didn't turned away from him when he nominated Bolton?

There aren't any to turn away. No one who disparages Bolton's views supported Trump.

RT shows a video of a scientific facility in Barzeh, north of Damascus, which was destroyed by the missile attack. In the video, there are people walking right in front of the destroyed building. If the building contained stockpiles of chemical weapons, as claimed by the allies, how is it that these people are not poisoned?

It's already been clarified that the targets were announced and obviously cleared before the strikes. It's equally obvious that Assad won't be using this facility again.

EXCLUSIVE: View of science center in Syria targeted by US-led strikes (VIDEO)

[Rugoz]

Ah, the subtlety of influencing people.
Why was it necessary for the question to say ‘Trump’? Why did it not ask if you agreed with ‘the’ missile strike? Yes, it is correct, but we know it is not totally accurate. It biases the question and insinuates blame.

Are you trying to say that Republicans are dumb as fuck? I agree.

In 2013:
38% of Democrats back Obama's plan for strikes as a response to Assad's chemical attacks (didn't happen).
22% of Republicans do.

In 2017 (Edit: apparently I posted the 2017 poll in my previous post):
37% of Democrats back Trump's plan for strikes as a response to Assad's chemical attacks (happened both times).
86% of Republicans do.

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... 202&wpmm=1

Yes, it will be "poor me" because it will be people like me having to fight such a war.

And, it's hardly any surprise most Americans support these actions. They are hardly the most politically literate people in the world, and are generally poorly educated about most of the humanities.

Will you go to take up arms against Russia? Are you willing to risk nuclear war?!?

You're paranoid, PI. I don't think very highly of Putin, but even I know he won't start WW3 over some limited air strikes in Syria the French informed him about.

[One Degree]

A huge difference from the posts of the Russian view.

@Rugoz Where did I say this only applied to Trump? You are assuming meaning in my post that was not there. I was simply pointing out the subtlety of propaganda as it has been a major discussion issue. It also points out how surveys can be influenced when appearing innocuous at first glance.

[Rugoz]

Where did I say this only applied to Trump? You are assuming meaning in my post that was not there. I was simply pointing out the subtlety of propaganda as it has been a major discussion issue. It also points out how surveys can be influenced when appearing innocuous at first glance.

"subtlety of propaganda"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There's no "subtlety" here, only clear evidence that Republicans would follow their beloved Führer off a cliff because they are too fucking ignorant/lazy/dumb to form their own opinion.

[Zamuel]

"subtlety of propaganda"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There's no "subtlety" here, only clear evidence that Republicans would follow their beloved Führer off a cliff because they are too fucking ignorant/lazy/dumb to form their own opinion.

That's silly, there are plenty of highly intelligent Trump supporters (may they burn in hell. )

As to subtlety, yes, there's a lot of it on both sides ... it's very deceptive. Polls are definitely part of it, how questions are phrased can make an immense difference in results. We may have seen a bit of this recently with the supposed "rise" in Trump's approval ratings.

Zam

[One Degree]

"subtlety of propaganda"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? There's no "subtlety" here, only clear evidence that Republicans would follow their beloved Führer off a cliff because they are too fucking ignorant/lazy/dumb to form their own opinion.

Both sides have blind followers. Including Trump’s name encourages more of his supporters to agree and more of his detractors to disagree than they might have without his name. The question clearly makes it a ‘Trump issue’ instead of a ‘missile strike issue’. It also clearly tells you who to blame if you disagree. These are ‘subtle’ propaganda techniques. Whether they were done intentionally or out of incompetence, I have no idea.
A person knowledgeable in surveys should be well aware of these influences.
Back on topic, this means you can not trust the survey to be as accurate as it pretends to be.

[Rugoz]

The question clearly makes it a ‘Trump issue’ instead of a ‘missile strike issue’. It also clearly tells you who to blame if you disagree.

No it doesn't. Republicans with their tiny brains make it a "Trump issue".

[One Degree]

No it doesn't. Republicans with their tiny brains make it a "Trump issue".

You are right. I forgot Republicans and Democrats are genetically different.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I'm going against opinion here and actually support this action. Why? Because of the objective of this mission. It was to deter chemical weapons being used in a civil war and not regime change. It is (and hopefully remains) a solo mission. Assad should know better than to attack his own people. I always knew Macron was level headed. If he involved France in this, the evidence must have been absolute.

Nonetheless we should not be changing the world to a Western imprint but it is also important we do not ignore international law and the rights of our fellow man. So for once May and Trump have my support - but only if they stay true to their word and not continue attacks unless Assad ignored international law again.

It seems to me you are putting too much faith in the individual Macron. As far as I can see, he's acting like most French presidents would.

------------------------------------------------

I'll also go against majority opinion here and especially the suggestion that the chemical attack was a false flag or something.

The outrage at the use of chemical weapons seems to be a distinctly western phenomenon, probably starting with WWI and solidifying during the Cold War. As far as I can tell, in the rest of the world using them isn't considered as big a deal as in the west and it seems that this was an effective strike taking out the opposition. Add to that the Russian presence which makes Assad's position much safer and restricts the western response, as it was extremely likely - and is now confirmed - that the west would be very careful not to get in a direct conflict with Russia. From a Syrian perspective, this could even be seen as demonstrating the impotence of the west in actually doing anything decisive.

[One Degree]

@Kaiserschmarrn
What does Russia’s willingness not to respond say in your opinion?
They are still keeping up the rhetoric, but no action so far. Did not want to risk exposing inability to defend?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

@Kaiserschmarrn
What does Russia’s willingness not to respond say in your opinion?
They are still keeping up the rhetoric, but no action so far. Did not want to risk exposing inability to defend?

As long as the west strikes Assad only, the Russians will try and stay out of a direct conflict with the west. I don't think that Russia is unable to defend itself - although obviously no match to the west strictly speaking - but hitting back would almost certainly lead to escalation and both sides know that this means everybody loses. The way this has played out is just representative of the power dynamics - the west is more powerful than Russia overall and even with a Russian presence in Syria they can "punish" Assad, as long as Russia is not involved directly. This wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed.

The main danger, in my view, is escalation by mistake and/or putting Putin in a position where he might feel he has to do something to save face. In a way this was the position of Trump in response to the chemical weapons attack. I thought it was unlikely that he would let this slide as Obama did. However, as mentioned earlier, the response is limited enough to be spun against the west by Assad if he chooses. It looks like Assad is pretty safe in his position at the moment and he knows that regime change is off the table.

[Zagadka]

Soooooo... that was pointless.

[annatar1914]

Soooooo... that was pointless.

It hasn't been pointless to me, as a political and meta-historical reflection. I recall this quote of mine from before my hiatus from PoFo, on the ''Rise of the Islamic State'' thread;


"Assad's Regime will fall, ISIS will eventually take Damascus and get Islamic street cred for seizing the capital of a former Caliphate. They're pretty serious, their enemies are not, and the Islamic State operates under an eschatological paradigm that renders their strategic and tactical logic inpenetrable to modern political and military minds.

In other words, what many of us here on PoFo were saying far earlier and much more emphatically."

The enemies of the Islamists are not serious. We use them in our political games, we fight each other more than we fight them, and when the least amount of pressure is released, they start coming back. Everything tells me that nobody in the modern world, not Trump or his foes in the Western World, not the Israelis, not even Assad or Putin, gets the real dynamic here.

This is the End of the Modern Age. This is the End of the Nation State as we have known it for about 300 years now. ISIS is the future of the Middle East. When they first rose up a few years ago, they destroyed Iraq and Syria for good, permanently shattered the borders drawn by Sykes-Picot. What they unleashed has rocked the foundations of what we moderns considered normal. Slavery had come back, executions by beheading, all the surface ephemera of a much deeper crisis.

[B0ycey]

It seems to me you are putting too much faith in the individual Macron. As far as I can see, he's acting like most French presidents would.

Too right I put my faith in Macron. He is a new bred of Politician and isn't a weasel like the class of Westminster. There is no way he would have used French missles unless he was certain. Blind faith I know, but I do trust him.

Plus I also believe the only reason this was an isolated attack and not a "shock and awe" continuing campaign was probably down to Macron too. I am pretty sure Trump would be more than happy to level Damascus to the ground if it meant protecting the Petro-Dollar.

The outrage at the use of chemical weapons seems to be a distinctly western phenomenon, probably starting with WWI and solidifying during the Cold War. As far as I can tell, in the rest of the world using them isn't considered as big a deal as in the west and it seems that this was an effective strike taking out the opposition. Add to that the Russian presence which makes Assad's position much safer and restricts the western response, as it was extremely likely - and is now confirmed - that the west would be very careful not to get in a direct conflict with Russia. From a Syrian perspective, this could even be seen as demonstrating the impotence of the west in actually doing anything decisive.

Western phenomena? Only the same way using nuclear weapons are. Anyone caught using such weapons shouldn't be immune from such attacks because they are best buds with Putin. Is Assad too lazy to attack his opponents using bullets and feels the need to kill children in such a way as they are pawns in the way of a pissing contest?

Don't get me wrong, I do not want regime change. Assad is a much better beast than ISIS and we should be thankful that Russia has protected him from Western foreign policy that would have almost certainly meant the end of him in Syria but the rise of ISIS instead. But if this mission prevents Assad from using such weapons in the future and changes his direction in this civil war, this action that people consider futile would have actually fulfilled its objective - so actually not futile at all.

[Zamuel]

This is the End of the Modern Age. This is the End of the Nation State as we have known it for about 300 years now. ISIS is the future of the Middle East. When they first rose up a few years ago, they destroyed Iraq and Syria for good, permanently shattered the borders drawn by Sykes-Picot. What they unleashed has rocked the foundations of what we moderns considered normal. Slavery had come back, executions by beheading, all the surface ephemera of a much deeper crisis.

No, I don't think so ... Your thesis is well reasoned and there is logic to it. But I don't think you've considered the inertia of western civilization.

Islam is in crisis, it survived for centuries insulated from progress, but since WWI has been under increasing pressure from invasive western concepts. It is a flawed religion to begin with. It was created and evolved (slightly) to unify a plethora of chaotic pagan beliefs. It incorporates elements of these pagan concepts but is modeled on Christianity and Judaism. It justified conflict in order to find (and maintain) unity. Herein lies it's downfall.

Christianity, with all it's faults, maintained the teachings of tolerance and submission. "Turn the other cheek, Love thy neighbor, Render unto Caesar." These allowed the resolution of conflict and resumption of relations between enemies. Islam denies resolution and encourages subjugation, which only leads to further conflict which discourages unity and weakens it's practitioners.

As an example look at the doctrinal splits both systems have suffered. Christianity eventually compromised, based on it's root beliefs. Islam simply cannot do so and remains virulently divided. The establishment of a caliphate would unite Islam, but it requires the eradication/subjugation of half it's adherents.

Trying to fight off Western influence that erodes it's ideals while embroiled in this inner conflict is impossible.

The West's choice is simple. We can absorb the Muslims (as will eventually happen in Europe) or we can contain them until they burn themselves out (the present US policy.) Russia (it seems to me) wishes to harness them and use their energy to gain influence. That didn't work out well in Afghanistan and this Syrian incursion has similar overtones.

So, grab some popcorn ... it's a long movie.

Zam

[Atlantis]

The world seems to be upside down. I find myself agreeing with @Kaiserschmarrn. That is very scary. What on Earth is happening?

I disagree on two points, though.

Firstly, I think the probability that the chemical attack was staged by the Western-backed terrorists is fairly high. There is simply no reason for Assad to invite Western missile strikes the day before he retakes the whole of East Ghouta from the rebels after years of fighting. The terrorists have a strong motive, though.

I also think that the Western missile attack was not justified. In fact it is totally illegal. At the very least, the imperial powers should have waited for the OPCW investigation to come to a conclusion. The haste with which the attack took place is very revealing. That the US, the UK and France are all working on huge arms deals with the Saudis is also very revealing.

Aside from that, I agree that the missile attack was pointless IF we suppose that regime change is off the table. And that is a VERY BIG IF INDEED. The US will never give up on regime change - not in Syria, nor anywhere else. That's just what empires do. Just listen to McCain and you know what I mean. Right now, there is a power struggle in the US between those who want to go on fueling the civil war and those who want to give up. Even the Neocons don't throw a billion's worth of missiles out off the window for nothing. The very fact that the missile attack took place shows that they will continue to aim for regime change. Even if they can't topple Assad right now, they will continue destabilizing Syria.

The war needs to stop. The Syrians have suffered more than enough. The only way for the war to stop is to let Assad/Putin finish off the Western-backed terrorists. No matter what Assad did before the civil war, his secular regime is infinitely more desirable than a Syria run by competing gangs of Islamist head-choppers. That would be far worse than what is happening in Libya. And splitting up Syria would lead to a regional conflict that could very easily escalate into a global conflict.

After more than 15 years of failed Western interventions in the region, which have brought instability and terrible suffering, we don't need more of the same shit. If Putin is winning in Syria, it is not because he is particularly smart, it is because Western Neocons are particularly stupid. Putin is reaping the benefits from Western failure. To continue the strategy of failure is self-destructive and demonstrates incredible cruelty to the people of Syria.

I remember the Vietnam war. I also remember the Iraq war and the bombing of Libya. Never in the living history has there been more lying than we witness today. The lying bastards in power in the West today will be swept away by a whirlwind of anger. They are destroying our society from the inside.

[Patrickov]

No matter what Assad did before the civil war, his secular regime is infinitely more desirable than a Syria run by competing gangs of Islamist head-choppers.

Frankly I don't oppose him winning, but what he did was probably the root cause of the civil war. The West just handled this very poorly.