Sirija

[namenski]

12 hours ago, Eraserhead said:

Sve same saljive doskocice. Vrcavost duha.

 

12 hours ago, Eraserhead said:

Izgleda da je Izrael konacno uradio dobru stvar sa svojim oruzjem:

 

https://twitter.com/israelbreaking/status/983161239261106176?s=12

 

Prsti od doskakanja, a tek sto je vrcavo

[Budja]

Citam Lavroljevu izjavu i ona je drugacija od ranijih. Deluje kao da je vise popizdeo ovog puta.

Sa druge strane, BBC je, recimo, pazljiv  da kaze da izvori nisu verifikovani.

To je, doduse, normalno s obzirom na nemogucnost pristupa bilo koje nezavisne strane.

 

Ne bih ulazio u motivacije ko, sta i kako s obzirom da kako god okrenes ceo dogadjaj sa nekog politickog stanovista nema puno smisla.

[dillinger]

Više nije potrebno ni predočavati javnosti bilo kakve dokaze, makar i fabrikovane. Oće li se udariti i kada, jedino je pitanje koje ta javnost postavlja danas.

Mada jedna stvar još više užasava - rat je faktički odlučen, imaju se zelena i žuta zona na severu zemlje, izuzev par tačaka oko Hame i na jugu ako se ne varam, sve ostalo je pod kontrolom SAA. Evakuacija Dume uveliko u toku. Dakle koga tačno iz kog obruča ima da spasu ti najavljeni tomahavci? Naravno, ciljevi su posve drukčiji i rat pošto poto treba produžiti.

[JozoMujica]

17 hours ago, Eraserhead said:

 uradio dobru stvar sa svojim oruzjem:

 

Nabio ga u dupe ljubiteljima intervencionizma? Nije? Šteta.

[Anduril]

Da, dokazi. A ko ce da predoci dokaze?

 

Quote

The OPCW only has powers to investigate whether a chemical attack has taken place but not to attribute responsibility. A UN-OPCW body, the joint investigative mechanism, did have powers to ascribe responsibility but was closed last year after Russia vetoed its renewal.

The UK ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, said Russia as a permanent member of security council had a special responsibility to uphold and protect the chemical weapons convention and international law.

The absence of a UN investigatory mechanism was a significant gap in the international architecture to prevent impunity for war crimes, she said. She added she was not holding her breath for Russia to drop its objections to an investigatory mechanism, pointing out Russia had vetoed the proposal twice before

 

How convenient

[Eraserhead]

2 hours ago, JozoMujica said:

Nabio ga u dupe ljubiteljima intervencionizma? Nije? Šteta.

 

 

Pa posto su tamo stacionirane Ruje i Iranci koji intervenisu u Siriji moze se reci da u neku ruku jesu nabili oruzje u dupe ljubiteljima intervencionizma.

[Redoran]

2 hours ago, dillinger said:

Više nije potrebno ni predočavati javnosti bilo kakve dokaze, makar i fabrikovane. Oće li se udariti i kada, jedino je pitanje koje ta javnost postavlja danas.

Mada jedna stvar još više užasava - rat je faktički odlučen, imaju se zelena i žuta zona na severu zemlje, izuzev par tačaka oko Hame i na jugu ako se ne varam, sve ostalo je pod kontrolom SAA. Evakuacija Dume uveliko u toku. Dakle koga tačno iz kog obruča ima da spasu ti najavljeni tomahavci? Naravno, ciljevi su posve drukčiji i rat pošto poto treba produžiti.

 

IMHO ova beskrajna reciklaža jednog te istog scenarija verovatno predstavlja poruku javnosti da je Asad nebitan i da su civili još manje bitni od njega. Bitan je jedino obračun sa Rusijom i Iranom a formalni izgovor za ulazak u taj obračun se bukvalno iznosi reda radi, da ne bude da je iz vedra neba. Drogirana javnost^tm takođe ne haje mnogo za Asada već hoće da vidi Rusiju poraženu tako da će, nakon što sekirice polete, čitava analitička^tm mašinerija biti usmerena na štetu koju je u Siriji pretrpeo Putin a ne Asad.

[dillinger]

13 minutes ago, Redoran said:

 

IMHO ova beskrajna reciklaža jednog te istog scenarija verovatno predstavlja poruku javnosti da je Asad nebitan i da su civili još manje bitni od njega. Bitan je jedino obračun sa Rusijom i Iranom a formalni izgovor za ulazak u taj obračun se bukvalno iznosi reda radi, da ne bude da je iz vedra neba. Drogirana javnost^tm takođe ne haje mnogo za Asada već hoće da vidi Rusiju poraženu tako da će, nakon što sekirice polete, čitava analitička^tm mašinerija biti usmerena na štetu koju je u Siriji pretrpeo Putin a ne Asad.

 

Dobro, ima i Asad specifičnu težinu, išlo se kontra njega i pre direktnog ruskog mešanja. Pacifikacija i reunifikacija Sirije pod Asadovom kontrolom bio bi težak poraz za Amere, No sad je svakako interes dvojak - i poraz Asada i stvaranje novog Avganistana za Ruse.

[dillinger]

Nikki je najavila akciju, FBI našla dokaze o precednikovom koitusu sa Stormy....znači u najboljem slučaju ponavljanje  Tramparinog PR napada na Šajrat bazu. No gori scenariji su izgledniji nažalost

Edited April 9, 2018 by dillinger

[Redoran]

15 minutes ago, dillinger said:

 

Dobro, ima i Asad specifičnu težinu, išlo se kontra njega i pre direktnog ruskog mešanja. Pacifikacija i reunifikacija Sirije pod Asadovom kontrolom bio bi težak poraz za Amere, No sad je svakako interes dvojak - i poraz Asada i stvaranje novog Avganistana za Ruse.

 

Ima težinu ali njegova pozicija je bez Rusa u igri bila neodrživa. Zbog toga su čak i primabolesnici poput McCaina u prvim godinama rata govorili kako su u principu protiv toga da SAD direktno udaraju po Siriji. Džihadistima je dobro išlo na terenu i mogla je da se glumi uzdržanost - ali sve se to okrenulo naglavačke kada su Rusi ušli sa klupe za rezerve.

 

Uzgred, mislim da nema šanse da ovog puta samo ponove simbolični udar po jednoj bazi. Videćemo nešto drugo i 99% mnogo luđe.

[marv]

asad je ispao budala sto nije izvukao lekciju od sadama, sve dok ti je komsija jebeni izrael ne da ne trebas predati/unistiti hemijsko oruzje nego trebas ga proizvoditi masovno 24/7 kad vec ne mozes nuklearno oruzje

[Eraserhead]

Moram priznati da je ipak jedan deo ovoga pozitivan a to je gledati ovo epohalno propagandisticko govno kako histerise:

 

 

[Lord Protector]

Quote

 

Has the War Party Hooked Trump?

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on April 10, 2018

With his Sunday tweet that Bashar Assad, "Animal Assad," ordered a gas attack on Syrian civilians, and Vladimir Putin was morally complicit in the atrocity, President Donald Trump just painted himself and us into a corner.

"Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria," tweeted Trump, "President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price… to pay."

"Big price… to pay," said the president.

Now, either Trump launches an attack that could drag us deeper into a seven-year civil war from which he promised to extricate us last week, or Trump is mocked as being a man of bluster and bluff.

For Trump Sunday accused Barack Obama of being a weakling for failing to strike Syria after an earlier chemical attack.

"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand," Trump tweeted, "the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"

Trump’s credibility is now on the line and he is being goaded by the war hawks to man up. Sunday, John McCain implied that Trump’s comments about leaving Syria "very soon" actually "emboldened" Assad:

"President Trump last week signaled to the world that the United States would prematurely withdraw from Syria. Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers have heard him, and emboldened by American inaction, Assad has reportedly launched another chemical attack against innocent men, women and children, this time in Douma."

Pronouncing Assad a "war criminal," Lindsey Graham said Sunday the entire Syrian air force should be destroyed.

So massive an attack would be an act of war against a nation that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Hence, Congress, prior to such an attack, should pass a resolution authorizing a U.S. war on Syria.

And, as Congress does, it can debate our objectives in this new war, and how many men, casualties and years will be required to defeat the coalition of Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran, and the allied Shiite militias from the Near East.

On John Bolton’s first day as national security adviser, Trump is being pushed to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria. Yet candidate Trump campaigned against both.

The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he makes good on that threat of a "big price… to pay," Trump should ask his advisers what comes after the attack on Syria.

Lest we forget, there was a reason Obama did not strike Syria for a previous gas attack. Americans rose up as one and said we do not want another Middle East war.

When John Kerry went to Capitol Hill for authorization, Congress, sensing the national mood, declined to support any such attack.

Trump’s strike, a year ago, with 59 cruise missiles, on the air base that allegedly launched a sarin gas attack, was supported only because Trump was new in office and the strike was not seen as the beginning of a longer and deeper involvement in a war Americans did not want to fight.

Does Trump believe that his political base is more up for a major U.S. war in Syria today than it was then?

The folks who cheered Trump a week ago when he said we were getting out of Syria, will they cheer him if he announces that we are going deeper in?

Before any U.S. attack, Trump should make sure there is more hard evidence that Assad launched this poison gas attack than there is that Russia launched that poison gas attack in Salisbury, England.

One month after that attack, which Prime Minister Theresa May ascribed to Russia and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson laid at the feet of Putin himself, questions have arisen:

If the nerve agent used, Novichok, was of a military variety so deadly it could kill any who came near, why is no one dead from it?

Both the target, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia are recovering.

If the deadly poison was, as reported, put on the doorknob of Skripal’s home, how did he and Yulia manage to go to a restaurant after being contaminated, with neither undergoing a seizure until later on a park bench?

If Russia did it, why are the British scientists at Porton Down now admitting that they have not yet determined the source of the poison?

Why would Putin, with the prestige of hosting the World Cup in June on the line, perpetrate an atrocity that might have killed hundreds and caused nations not only to pull out of the games, but to break diplomatic relations with Russia?

U.S. foreign policy elites claim Putin wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. But if Putin indeed wanted to deal with Trump, why abort all such prospects with a poison gas murder of a has-been KGB agent in Britain, America’s foremost ally?

The sole beneficiaries of the gas attacks in Salisbury and Syria appear to be the War Party.

 

 

[Lord Protector]

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by slow

[theanswer]

neka ostane upamćeno da će ova najnovija intervencija biti u odbrani Armije Islama koja je svojevremeno izvodila ljude u kavezima na ulice