Russia to deploy troops in town of supposed chemical attack

[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.

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.

It refuses to allow US and Israeli patsies in there to LIE about the evidence if there is any. EVERYONE knows how this shit works and I am glad Russia shut them down. In fact Russia IS sending its own evidence team there.. Good enough for me.

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...nd-chemical-attack-will-retaliate-regardless-
un
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

"rebels" are using it. "rebels" are the ones who controlled that area NOT Assad forces or Russians or Iranians. These terrorists the US has backed and funded did this just like last year. Makes ZERO sense that less than 3 days after President Trump says he's leaving Syria that Assad launches a chemical attack....

 

[Muhammed]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Why should the United States have ANY say on Russia's naval base in SYRIA? What gave us that right? Will you listen to yourself? Criminy, I thought the bad old days of Imperialism were over.

 

[OldLady]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I saw an article this morning--Russia is sending troops to Douma to "contain" the area and it has refused to approve a UN international investigative team to look into what actually happened. God, those Russians could piss off the Pope.

 

[OldLady]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I'm beginning to think he's a bot.

 

[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.

It refuses to allow US and Israeli patsies in there to LIE about the evidence if there is any. EVERYONE knows how this shit works and I am glad Russia shut them down. In fact Russia IS sending its own evidence team there.. Good enough for me.

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...nd-chemical-attack-will-retaliate-regardless-
un
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

"rebels" are using it. "rebels" are the ones who controlled that area NOT Assad forces or Russians or Iranians. These terrorists the US has backed and funded did this just like last year. Makes ZERO sense that less than 3 days after President Trump says he's leaving Syria that Assad launches a chemical attack....

Why would an investigative team by one of the parties suspected of being responsible for the attack be alright with you? That sounds like a bunch of South American thug behavior, to me.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I answered your question so why are you pretending I didn't?

 

[Fugazi]

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?

I bet after you posted that drivel, you re-read it and said to yourself "I'm fucking awesome!"

Sorry, that was in reference to your signature.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

Why should the United States have ANY say on Russia's naval base in SYRIA? What gave us that right? Will you listen to yourself? Criminy, I thought the bad old days of Imperialism were over.

So you don't care about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in Syria and the millions who have become homeless refugees, but you are outraged by any US effort to stop it.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I answered your question so why are you pretending I didn't?

You're a fucking liar. You clearly dodged the question.

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

You dodged the question. And then you lied to all of the USMB forumers when you said you didn't dodge the question. Everyone just saw you dodge the question, jackass.

Why are you lying and dodging questions?

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I answered your question so why are you pretending I didn't?

You're a fucking liar. You clearly dodged the question.

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

You dodged the question. And then you lied to all of the USMB forumers when you said you didn't dodge the question. Everyone just saw you dodge the question, jackass.

Why are you lying and dodging questions?

The White Helmets are the first responders in Syria who go into any area that has been bombed to rescue whoever has survived and they have provided first hand evidence that an chemical attack took place and the local medical people have also stated they saw evidence of a chemical attack. That is clear evidence a chemical attack took place.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

You are dodging the question.

Why are you dodging the question?

I answered your question so why are you pretending I didn't?

You're a fucking liar. You clearly dodged the question.

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

You dodged the question. And then you lied to all of the USMB forumers when you said you didn't dodge the question. Everyone just saw you dodge the question, jackass.

Why are you lying and dodging questions?

The White Helmets are the first responders in Syria who go into any area that has been bombed to rescue whoever has survived and they have provided first hand evidence that an chemical attack took place and the local medical people have also stated they saw evidence of a chemical attack. That is clear evidence a chemical attack took place.

Wrong. Saying that there was a chemical weapons attack is not the same as showing evidence that there was a chemical weapons attack.

Your posts are evidence that you are one stupid motherfucker.

 

[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.

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.

It refuses to allow US and Israeli patsies in there to LIE about the evidence if there is any. EVERYONE knows how this shit works and I am glad Russia shut them down. In fact Russia IS sending its own evidence team there.. Good enough for me.

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...nd-chemical-attack-will-retaliate-regardless-
un
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

"rebels" are using it. "rebels" are the ones who controlled that area NOT Assad forces or Russians or Iranians. These terrorists the US has backed and funded did this just like last year. Makes ZERO sense that less than 3 days after President Trump says he's leaving Syria that Assad launches a chemical attack....

Why would an investigative team by one of the parties suspected of being responsible for the attack be alright with you? That sounds like a bunch of South American thug behavior, to me.

Oh so now RUSSIA deployed these supposed chemical weapons? Ask yourself this question. WHO has the most to gain from the USA staying in Syria?

 

[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.

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.

It refuses to allow US and Israeli patsies in there to LIE about the evidence if there is any. EVERYONE knows how this shit works and I am glad Russia shut them down. In fact Russia IS sending its own evidence team there.. Good enough for me.

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.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...nd-chemical-attack-will-retaliate-regardless-
un
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria...ainst-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

"rebels" are using it. "rebels" are the ones who controlled that area NOT Assad forces or Russians or Iranians. These terrorists the US has backed and funded did this just like last year. Makes ZERO sense that less than 3 days after President Trump says he's leaving Syria that Assad launches a chemical attack....

Why would an investigative team by one of the parties suspected of being responsible for the attack be alright with you? That sounds like a bunch of South American thug behavior, to me.

Oh so now RUSSIA deployed these supposed chemical weapons? Ask yourself this question. WHO has the most to gain from the USA staying in Syria?

The Sunni who make up the majority of the population and have been oppressed by the Assads for decades of course.