So the war might happen before the election at this rate. If that was the case, Obama would probably call a state of emergency, “postpone” the election, and stay in power for the duration of the war. At least it would stop that horrible hate filled racist/sexist, who says mean words from coming to power.
US President Barack Obama is set to discuss further US action in Syria with his senior foreign policy advisers at the National Security Council (NSC) on Friday. US officials say military options are to be mulled over, among other possibilities.
One scenario to be discussed involves direct US military action in Syria, including airstrikes on Syrian military, radar and anti-aircraft bases, as well as arms depots, Reuters reports citing high-ranking US officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
This is just absolute insanity. The Syrian civil war is being fought between two major forces: The Assad government and Russia, versus various terrorist groups (of which ISIS is the most notable). The US claim that in addition to the terrorists, there are “moderate opposition forces” as well, which are fighting against both ISIS and Assad, but if that was the case, then why would these “moderates” be living and fighting alongside actual terrorist groups?
They literally told Russia to stop bombing a terrorist stronghold, because moderate opposition forces were there too. Why would moderates be there, if they’re supposedly enemies off the terrorists?
It’s a complete bullshit narrative. These so called “moderates”, may not be ISIS by name, but they are in fact aligned with them. I think most people would also agree, that ISIS are by far the greater threat to the world right now than the Assad government, yet the US is actually choosing to attack the Assad government forces instead. This is actually beyond the realm of comprehension because of how insane it sounds. I guarantee if you were to ask any random person what’s going on in Syria, they would naturally assume that the US is fighting against ISIS, seeing as that would be the course of action that would make sense. Not only that, but because the reality of what is actually going on is so nonsensical, they would not be able to process it at all.
Another scenario to be considered is allowing coalition forces to provide the US-backed ‘moderate Syrian opposition’ with advanced ammunition and weaponry.
I’m actually responding to this article as I go through it (as in, I haven’t actually read through in its entirety yet, and am just breaking it up as I go along). Actually seeing the term “moderate Syrian opposition” now, after having used the similar “moderate opposition forces” term myself earlier, just shows how predictable they are with their overused lies.
This would not include shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, as Washington fears they could be used against Western airliners.
Nonsense, nothing could possibly go wrong, allowing a bunch of primitive barbarians to get their hands on advanced weaponry. Nothing at…
The officials, however, stated it was unlikely that Obama would actually give the green light to US airstrikes on Syrian government targets, or that he would make any specific decisions at the upcoming meeting.
Why is he even considering it then? This is not a game. If he attacks the Syrian forces, that puts him directly at odds with Russia. Why, why would you even consider such stupidity?
One official noted that, as Russian and Syrian troops cooperate extensively, striking Syrian government forces could result in a direct confrontation between the US and Russia – something Obama has been trying to avoid.
Trying to avoid… yet he keeps provoking them anyway. This is absolutely ridiculous. The only possible explanation I can think of, is that he isn’t really trying to avoid it at all, but he doesn’t want America to make the first strike. Instead, he’s hoping to provoke Russia into attacking first, thus making them look like the aggressors in any conflict that results. Purely a public relations thing, because he knows damn well that the American people (and indeed, the world at large), won’t support a war of aggression against Russia, but retaliation against a Russian attack would be a different story.
The White House declined to comment on the speculation surrounding any possible decisions, but confirmed the NSC meeting will take place on Friday, Reuters reported.
US authorities have already raised the bombing of Syrian government forces as an option, with White House spokesman Josh Earnest telling reporters last week that although such action is unlikely to reduce violence, nothing can be taken off the table under the circumstances.
Might I suggest ‘Recognising the legitimacy of the Assad government, pulling your forces out of Syria, and cutting off all support to the terrorists’ as an alternative solution instead?
According to a recent report in the Washington Post, several top US officials have been considering striking positions of the Syrian military covertly and without a UN Security Council resolution.
Illegal under international law. Not that they haven’t been acting illegally already, but this is bad even for them.
The NSC meeting comes just ahead of the ministerial talks on Syria in Lausanne, Switzerland. On Wednesday, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Russia, the US and a number of regional powers will have a meeting “in a narrow format” on October 15 to discuss possible steps for a Syrian settlement.
Commenting on the upcoming Lausanne talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed hope that they “will launch a serious dialogue on the basis of the principles contained in the Russian-American deal, which was broadly welcomed but which unfortunately was not launched.”
Again, Russia is trying to be reasonable here, just like when they agreed to that stupid US orchestrated ceasefire, that the terrorists broke about 24 hours later. They really are trying their best to avoid this war. I can guarantee that if it does break out anyway, that there will be a lot of anti-Russian propaganda in our media, holding them responsible for causing it. That’s why I think it’s important to get the facts straight now, before it happens, so we can see through the lies when we hear them.
The US State Department noted that Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry are likely to focus their discussion on the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo and “getting cessation of hostility in place,”which could enable conditions for political talks to resume.
Last week, Washington officially suspended bilateral cooperation with Moscow, ending a brief period of close cooperation aimed at sustaining the ceasefire in Syria, which had been agreed by the sides on September 9 after months of negotiations. The move followed mutual accusations of failing to fulfill the obligations agreed upon. The US claimed Russia didn’t deliver on a promise to ensure Damascus suspended its military campaign and provide humanitarian access to besieged areas of Syria, while Russia accused the US of failing to separate the moderate opposition under its control from the jihadists, particularly from Al-Nusra Front (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), as was agreed, and organize the withdrawal of militants from Castello Road to allow humanitarian aid supply to Aleppo.
In his interview to Russia’s Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper earlier this week, Syrian President Bashar Assad said there are no “moderates” fighting in Aleppo, as all armed groups there “work with Al-Nusra in the area that’s controlled by Al-Nusra.”
This should be obvious just from using common sense. If there really were moderate forces who are opposed to both Assad and the extremist groups, in the extremist controlled regions, then wouldn’t the extremists have killed them already? It wouldn’t make sense to keep any other armed forces around in areas under your control, unless those other armed forces were actually your allies.
Assad denied criticism that Russian and Syrian air forces are bombing the positions of moderate rebels, stressing that anyone who holds a weapon is a terrorist. Concerning the United States and its actions in Syria, the leader said Washington is using the battle against terrorists as an excuse to achieve its own objectives in the wider Middle East as well as those of its allies, while trying to keep the “hegemony of the Americans around the world.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. You would think it would be obvious by now.We saw the same tricks in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya already. Are people really going to fall for it again, and believe that America has good intentions in Syria?