Russia to deploy troops in town of supposed chemical attack

[U2Edge]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

 

[Preacher]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

 

[U2Edge]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

 

[Marion Morrison]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

As does the safety of those "average citizens" from foreign jihadist invaders.

 

[U2Edge]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

Diminshing Assad's ability to fight the jihadists and foreign invaders on his own is not the right thing to do.

 

[U2Edge]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

As does the safety of those "average citizens" from foreign jihadist invaders.

Fine, but you don't get to use chemical weapons in trying to save your "average citizens"? Imagine if the Police used nerve gas in Los Angeles to quell the LA riots? Is there any targeted or safe use of Chemical munitions in a city?

 

[U2Edge]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

Diminshing Assad's ability to fight the jihadists and foreign invaders on his own is not the right thing to do.

Enforcement of the worldwide ban on the use of Chemical Weapons trumps that by a mile. Without consequences for the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield and against civilians, future potential advisory's will develop and use such weapons in the future. That makes it more likely that chemical weapons will be used on US troops and Civilians in the future.

 

[U2Edge]

sadly, trump and his pal putin are playing 'wag the dog' games...

what ever happened to not telegraphing our impending military maneuvers?

The waiting is the hardest part....we've now had the Ivans and their pet jackals on high alert for almost 50 hours.....that's a lot of pressure and no release....I bet by now they're shooting at birds flying over those bases....By the time Trump and Friends strike, the enemy will be exhausted and ineffective.

The next aircraft carrier to rotate through the region I think is a few days away. Once its there, then will see what happens if anything. I suggest 4 days of missiles strikes since one day did not work last year. If the Russians are true to their word, will get to see how their anti-missile technology does against are cruise missiles. No matter what happens will get to see how good the Russian missiles really are. Ironically the pressure is on them. Will they blink or let the world know how effective their anti-missile technology is or is not.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

War with the US is not an option for Putin. Russia's interest in Syria is maintaining its naval base there and it could not be defended if there were a shooting war with the US, so if Trump is serious about taking down Assad Russia will have to seek a diplomatic solution with Trump or lose everything. The solution would be this: the US will support Russia keeping its long term lease on its naval base after Assad is gone if Russia will cooperate in preventing Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Such a deal would bring relative peace to Syria and give Russia it primary objective there. Hopefully there are US and Russian officials quietly trying to piece together such a deal now, but a serious attack by the US will be necessary to persuade Putin he has no other options.

 

[OldLady]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

How does Russia get away with this? It refuses to allow an investigative body to look into the chemical attacks and sends troops there to make sure no one else does it, either.
Nice.
Maybe we need to put some more ineffective sanctions on them. They lie, they obfuscate and they obstruct justice.

 

[OldLady]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

Of course there was a chemical attack.

 

[U2Edge]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

War with the US is not an option for Putin. Russia's interest in Syria is maintaining its naval base there and it could not be defended if there were a shooting war with the US, so if Trump is serious about taking down Assad Russia will have to seek a diplomatic solution with Trump or lose everything. The solution would be this: the US will support Russia keeping its long term lease on its naval base after Assad is gone if Russia will cooperate in preventing Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Such a deal would bring relative peace to Syria and give Russia it primary objective there. Hopefully there are US and Russian officials quietly trying to piece together such a deal now, but a serious attack by the US will be necessary to persuade Putin he has no other options.

Assad is not going anywhere even if Putin wanted him too. The United States is simply trying to enforce the ban on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, eliminate the last remnants of ISIS in Syria, and strike a deal to allow the Kurds in northern Syria some autonomy. The Syrian military has crushed most of the opposition to it. Only Idlib province and the area north of the Euphrates River which is in Kurdish hands, are the only major areas out of Assads control.

Trump already stated that the United States is no longer pursuing the removal of Assad from power.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Putin is going to find out his rhetoric doesn't match Russia's actual military capability. And Turkey is going to have to decide soon if they are part of NATO or they've swung over to their mob boss Putin. If Putin actually thinks he's going to start up a local war with the US and NATO he's lost his shit. Russian forces will be pulverized. Russia spends $70 billion per year on defense, the US spends upwards of $650 billion on defense per year. Even a Russian school child could figure this equation out.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

War with the US is not an option for Putin. Russia's interest in Syria is maintaining its naval base there and it could not be defended if there were a shooting war with the US, so if Trump is serious about taking down Assad Russia will have to seek a diplomatic solution with Trump or lose everything. The solution would be this: the US will support Russia keeping its long term lease on its naval base after Assad is gone if Russia will cooperate in preventing Iran from establishing itself in Syria. Such a deal would bring relative peace to Syria and give Russia it primary objective there. Hopefully there are US and Russian officials quietly trying to piece together such a deal now, but a serious attack by the US will be necessary to persuade Putin he has no other options.

Assad is not going anywhere even if Putin wanted him too. The United States is simply trying to enforce the ban on the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield, eliminate the last remnants of ISIS in Syria, and strike a deal to allow the Kurds in northern Syria some autonomy. The Syrian military has crushed most of the opposition to it. Only Idlib province and the area north of the Euphrates River which is in Kurdish hands, are the only major areas out of Assads control.

Trump already stated that the United States is no longer pursuing the removal of Assad from power.

Without Russian support, Assad would be overcome quickly by the rebels. If the US takes out Assad's air force and helicopter fleet, and the US and Russia reach an agreement on Russia's naval base, there will be no reason for Russia to support Assad any longer.

 

[xyz]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

There's nothing to bomb there, I don't think. It would have been more useful to collect evidence there.

 

[Muhammed]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

As does the safety of those "average citizens" from foreign jihadist invaders.

Fine, but you don't get to use chemical weapons in trying to save your "average citizens"? Imagine if the Police used nerve gas in Los Angeles to quell the LA riots? Is there any targeted or safe use of Chemical munitions in a city?

Have you seen any evidence that the jihadi reports claiming that Syria was using chemical weapons are true?

 

[toomuchtime_]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

As does the safety of those "average citizens" from foreign jihadist invaders.

Fine, but you don't get to use chemical weapons in trying to save your "average citizens"? Imagine if the Police used nerve gas in Los Angeles to quell the LA riots? Is there any targeted or safe use of Chemical munitions in a city?

Have you seen any evidence that the jihadi reports claiming that Syria was using chemical weapons are true?

The reports came from the White Helmets and the local medical people who treated the victims.

 

[Preacher]

Russia to deploy troops to site of chemical attack in Syria

I hope President Trump comes to his senses and doesn't start world war 3. He will lose a TON of support from his most ardent backers and it won't help the GOP's chances in November.

Assad appears to be in violation of the ban on the use of Chemical Weapons. Perhaps this time he need to pay a higher price then he did last year since he did not get the picture. As for the Russians, they will have to directly attack U.S. missiles and ships for any confrontation to start. IF THEY DO IT WILL BE ON THEM FOR STARTING THINGS!

If the Russians decide to start something, it will be relatively easy to cut off Russian forces in Syria from any supplies coming to them by land, sea, or air from the territory of Russia. The Turkish straits are so easy to block as is entry to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Do the Russians really want to try and shoot down US Cruise Missiles? Failure, which is likely would be a huge embarrassment for them. Attacking U.S. ships would be an easier option, but then the United States is sure to retaliate. Who has more ships in the Mediterranean, the Russians or NATO? Who has the most air to air combat aircraft in the area? Does Russia really want to escalate to a shooting war in an area where the advantages tend to be with its adversary?

Wrong as usual. There was no chemical attack and even if there was Assad didn't do it. Point 2. The US would be the one starting a war Russia would be defending its self as usual.

A US missile strike against the Syrian military is not an attack on Russia. Russia has conceded that multiple times, and has never struck back at Israel which launches airstrikes on Assads military multiple times a year. The Russians did nothing last year when the United States fired missiles. Syrian military forces are NOT Russian military forces. Even the Russians agree with that based on their past actions.

But when Russians launch attacks on American ships and American missiles or American Aircraft, that is indeed an offensive action. Do the Russians really want to go to war with The United States, the rest of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia? They should probably pick a better area for conflict instead of one so far from their borders.

There are Russian and Iranian military in Syria so yep its an attack on both Russia and Iran and should be dealt with as such.

 

[Marion Morrison]

of course you suddenly don't agree with going to war...

you are against attacking those who would deliberately harm innocents.

Do you have any evidence of the Syrian army deliberately harming innocents?

Well, certainly shooting at people engaged in peaceful protest is harming innocents. I don't think there are any independent human rights organizations that would give Assad and the Syrian Army an A+. Do you realize that Syria is a Dictatorship and the Dictatorships needs come long before any human rights of the average citizen are considered.

As does the safety of those "average citizens" from foreign jihadist invaders.

Fine, but you don't get to use chemical weapons in trying to save your "average citizens"? Imagine if the Police used nerve gas in Los Angeles to quell the LA riots? Is there any targeted or safe use of Chemical munitions in a city?

Some jihadis masquerading as a neutral party claim he did. That doesn't make it so.