The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

GSC wrote:Trump seems to be veering more towards the mainstream lately.

Bannon somewhat sidelined coinciding with Kushner/Ivanka having a more prominent role. Trying to divert him from the crash course Bannon is hoping for.

Isn't it funny that a President going "mainstream" = a President finally listening to warmongering hawks like the heads of the military, the empire hungry CIA and roving Isis meet-and-greeter, Senator John McCain - a President going mainstream = a President sending 50 or so cruise missiles into the sovereign territory of another Nation on the premise that his intelligence agencies are telling him the whole truth even though he's accused them of lying about every other piece of advice they've ever given him - including the bit where they tell him he's a Russian plant/patsy.

Mainstream = killing folks in lovely wars it seems.  The mainstream world takes a deep breath of relief.  This weird Orange basterde is finally getting some sense.  And meanwhile too, that nice vicar's daughter May talks to the non-human rights abusers, the Saudis; and wishes to sell them arms, as they in turn continue to arm Isis.  But they gotta be good - they wear white and own racehorses.  

Upset there Fly that Trump isn't what you hoped?

The problem here is whether Assad did it or not. If he did then fair enough but if this was destruction of a cache of weapons it will just encourage the fecers to gas their own side. Also with truss on this one would rather the jihadis are dead as after winning this they will go a destabilise another place.

"[The President] must now start focusing on OUR COUNTRY, jobs, healthcare and all of our many problems. Forget Syria and make America great again!"

Donald Trump 2013.

Hero wrote:Upset there Fly that Trump isn't what you hoped?

He's gone down a hatful of points, yep. Mostly for his naivety in so readily believing the narrative about who dropped the chemical weapons. That was the shortest investigation in history.... and how long the WMD episode needed to get approval for action on the premise of what turned out to be an outright lie.

Anyway, are you happy that he's finally got around to killing foreign folks and waving a big Imperialist stick like normal Presidents do?

Not at all, but I fully expected him to do so at some point.

Hero wrote:Not at all, but I fully expected him to do so at some point.

Problem is, I fully expected Hillary to do it because she already had plenty of experience of doing it...with a smile on her face.

So we're back to the question, just who the hell do you vote for in America if you want the end of the unending MASSIVELY lucrative Imperialistic wars?

Trump might reprieve himself if it was just a jolt to let countries like China and indeed Russia know that he isn't a soft touch.... but it looks like I might be on the Vote for Bannon campaign next time. It seems he knew what was coming and was against the betrayal of the philosophy Trump stood on.

Don't forget while Trump is bombing Syria it is a well needed deflection away from his domestic troubles.........Healthcare debacle and other issues...

LBJ used to joke the limey (Harold Wilson) only ever wants to see me when he's in the crap back home.....

Needed respite for Trump....Crude but true.

this is a tough one. As always, history will be the judge. Trump hasn't had a win in a while, since the election possibly, not related to the economy, so this seems a bit risky for me, but it definitely does change the narrative.

I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Won't be a proxy war for much longer though i expect it will start in the Sea of Japan with  Pyong yang pre emptively striking the US carrier battle group followed by a massive retaliatory strike - if you're dumb enough to park the USS Vinson on his doorstep don't expect him to think it's because you want to give him a tour of the flight deck.
If we're lucky China won't do anything as there's a trade deal up for grabs and they just had a meet where i strongly suspect Trump gave China the option. So hopeful they'll park themselves on the Northern border to ensure that the N Koreans don't head into China, while Seoul will quite likely be wiped off the map.

Meanwhile you'll have to hope and pray that the Russians and Iranians don't do anything stupid but you can be sure the Turks will and to kick it off nicely someone is bound to drop something on Israel.

Is this what you wanted America? Because its what you're going to get. A militarist idiot leading a militant country and run by a staff of idiots.

If we aren't in an extended world conflict by 2018 I'll be surprised.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Where did I claim to have any evidence?

To put you straight; I haven't claimed to have any evidence of Assad dropping chemicals on his own people, although it is what I believe. Assad has been murdering his own people since the Syrian conflict began, using various methods, including barrel bombs. There's plenty of evidence for that.
In previous chemical attacks in Syria, the UN unanimously agreed, including Russia, to an independent investigation into those chemical attacks, and found Assad was responsible for three chemical attacks on his own people. The findings of those investigations, agreed to by Russia, were rejected by Russia. Just as Russia has denied the strike on a passenger jet over Ukraine, while also denying they inserted Russian troops into Ukraine.

I don't simply accept anything the US says. I'm quite capable of independent thinking. Another point, the US is hardly alone in believing that Assad used chemical weapons.

Oh, no doubt I can place my anger at Iran and the Saudi's, both funding terrorism, but why shouldn't I also be angry at Assad and his role in the killing of hundreds of thousands of his own people? In the wounding of, perhaps millions? Of the displacement of around 6 million Syrians? You don't think right thinking people should be angry at such devastation? That's ok with you?

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Where did I claim to have any evidence?

.

You said Trump was right to order the strikes. He ordered the strikes because he claims assad used chemical weapons so for you to agree with the strkes means you agree Assad used chemical weapons in March and for you to believe that you must have some evidence. You cant claim someone is right to attack someone if the reason they are giving for that attack has no evidence.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

does everything always have to come back to brexit.

My coco pops were soggy this morning, damn brexiteers :-)

Previous chemical attacks were by Assad. Everyone else on the planet with the exception of Putin thinks it was Assad. That's fair evidence, expecting citizens to have their own evidence when the intelligence agencies of major nations backs it is a bit silly.

Musclular-mouse wrote:Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

It's not just collateral damage but deliberate attacks too.

Derbymanc wrote:does everything always have to come back to brexit.

My coco pops were soggy this morning, damn brexiteers :-)

That's just an opinion, unless you can provide compelling evidence that your Coco pops were soggy.

Derbymanc wrote:does everything always have to come back to brexit.

My coco pops were soggy this morning, damn brexiteers :-)

Must be a result of those restrictive EU regulations on Coco pops crispness #wewantourcountryback #bendybananas4life

Scottrf wrote:Previous chemical attacks were by Assad. Everyone else on the planet with the exception of Putin thinks it was Assad. That's fair evidence, expecting citizens to have their own evidence when the intelligence agencies of major nations backs it is a bit silly.

There have been previuso chemical attacks by all sides.

There is no evidence that any side did the attack and that is why the G7 have refused to punish Russia for supporting assad because theres no evidence assad used a chemical attack in March.

Scottrf wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

It's not just collateral damage but deliberate attacks too.

Are you talking about deliberate attacks by the US where they bombed a hospital? or is it only deliberate when its the Syrian army who do it?

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Previous chemical attacks were by Assad. Everyone else on the planet with the exception of Putin thinks it was Assad. That's fair evidence, expecting citizens to have their own evidence when the intelligence agencies of major nations backs it is a bit silly.

There have been previuso chemical attacks by all sides.

There is no evidence that any side did the attack and that is why the G7 have refused to punish Russia for supporting assad because theres no evidence assad used a chemical attack in March.

No hard proof =/= no evidence.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

It's not just collateral damage but deliberate attacks too.

Are you talking about deliberate attacks by the US where they bombed a hospital? or is it only deliberate when its the Syrian army who do it?

It's deliberate if it's a regular and widescale occurrence.

Scottrf wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Previous chemical attacks were by Assad. Everyone else on the planet with the exception of Putin thinks it was Assad. That's fair evidence, expecting citizens to have their own evidence when the intelligence agencies of major nations backs it is a bit silly.

There have been previuso chemical attacks by all sides.

There is no evidence that any side did the attack and that is why the G7 have refused to punish Russia for supporting assad because theres no evidence assad used a chemical attack in March.

No hard proof =/= no evidence.

The UN have stated that both sides have used chemical weapons and listed instances along with proof.

Scottrf wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

It's not just collateral damage but deliberate attacks too.

Are you talking about deliberate attacks by the US where they bombed a hospital? or is it only deliberate when its the Syrian army who do it?

It's deliberate if it's a regular and widescale occurrence.

Well then the US must be deliberately targeting civillans because they seem to be killing a lot of them in Syria and Iraq. Plenty of instances of them hitting civillans.

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

How are your posts relevant to mine?

I haven't tried to portray the US as bastions of moral superiority.

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

So you have no evidence, then?

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

The UN also found that the rebels have also used chemical weapons on numerous attacks.

There is no evidence that shows it was Assad. You may think it was him but that doesn't give the usa the power to start attacking his country. If you are going to start a war then do it on sound evidence. The last time the us started a war they used the same reasos, that Iraq has WMD, that Iraq has used WMD before against minority groups, that saddam Hussein kills his own people. We went to war based on that as evidence and guess what, Saddam had NO wmd's.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

Munchkin wrote:Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

Yep. All of his posts are non-sequiturs.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

All sides have been found 'guilty' of using chemical weapons so a chemical weapon attack cannot be attributed to one side with no evidence as all sides have history of using chemical weapons.

Why would he stand down after the arab spring? Its not his own people that are fighting against him it is foreign fighters. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that german intelligence had found that only 5% of rebels were Syrian, the rest were foreign fighters from north Africa, the middle east and Europe.

Before the civil war Syria was a very liberal country, especially as it is in the middle east and deeply religious. Christians and all sects of islam lived without fear. Assad is defending his country from a foreign invasion so if you want to end the violence aim your anger at those funding the foreign fighters in Syria i.e turkey, Saudi arabia and the usa.

Scottrf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

Yep. All of his posts are non-sequiturs.

I've noticed

In other news Sean Spicer has done a "Livingstone"

GSC wrote:In other news Sean Spicer has done a "Livingstone"

Damn. He has the hardest job in the world but that's a truly abysmal statement.

I suspect he's just an experiment in how far an administration can marginalize the media.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

.

Just to add to this, the FSA which is the international recognised opposition to Assad had at its peak 20,000 members according to a high ranking fsa Officer.

When you consider that ISIS had 35000 members and al nusra and al qaieda etc etc all had thousands of foreign fighters in their ranks too you can see that the Syrian civil war is not about Syrians uprising against assad who is clinging onto power against the will of his people, but is instead a war about foreign backed extremist fighters who are being funded by sunni countries such as Saudi arabia and turkey in order to fight assad who is the leade of a shia government and fight a proxy war with iran. Not to mention the funding by the USA in order to fight a proxy war with Russia.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

All sides have been found 'guilty' of using chemical weapons so a chemical weapon attack cannot be attributed to one side with no evidence as all sides have history of using chemical weapons.

Why would he stand down after the arab spring? Its not his own people that are fighting against him it is foreign fighters. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that german intelligence had found that only 5% of rebels were Syrian, the rest were foreign fighters from north Africa, the middle east and Europe.

Before the civil war Syria was a very liberal country, especially as it is in the middle east and deeply religious. Christians and all sects of islam lived without fear. Assad is defending his country from a foreign invasion so if you want to end the violence aim your anger at those funding the foreign fighters in Syria i.e turkey, Saudi arabia and the usa.

Not all sides are the sovereign power over that Country. Not all sides are using chemical weapons against their own people. Terrorist groups may well use chemical weapons. It's hardly a surprise. Terrorist groups don't have responsibility for the welfare of Syrians in the Syrian sovereign State. Assad does. There is proof that Assad used chemical weapons, otherwise the UN appointed commission would not have blamed Assad for the previous attacks.
Anyway, your claim is factually incorrect - not 'all' sides have been found guilty of using chemical weapons.

Why would he step down in the Arab Spring? Because it was his own people, in huge numbers, rebelling against him.

If his own people are not fighting against him, again that's factually incorrect, then why is he bombing the innocent civilians of his own Country?

Syria was never a truly liberal Country. The Assad regimes were repressive, not allowing political debate, and jailing those who voiced opposition. Also torturing prisoners. The 'elections' were a farce, with the Syrian electorate having one candidate to choose from - Assad.

Assad was not protecting his Country from a foreign invasion (were on earth do you get your information?), he was crushing the political will of his own people by military power.

Again with the finger pointing at other States ....... Enough with the deflection. It's Assad and his actions in Syria we're talking about. If you want to talk about other repressive regimes and abuses of human rights, we can do that in a new thread. This discussion is about the latest US strike on 'Assad's regime'.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

.

Just to add to this, the FSA which is the international recognised opposition to Assad had at its peak 20,000 members according to a high ranking fsa Officer.

When you consider that ISIS had 35000 members and al nusra and al qaieda etc etc all had thousands of foreign fighters in their ranks too you can see that the Syrian civil war is not about Syrians uprising against assad who is clinging onto power against the will of his people, but is instead a war about foreign backed extremist fighters who are being funded by sunni countries such as Saudi arabia and turkey in order to fight assad who is the leade of a  shia government and fight a proxy war with iran. Not to mention the funding by the USA in order to fight a proxy war with Russia.

The Syrian civil war started because his own people rebelled against him! Were are you getting this stuff from?

Whatever about the FSA, did you know that Assad aligned himself with Hezbollah as soon as he came to power?

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

All sides have been found 'guilty' of using chemical weapons so a chemical weapon attack cannot be attributed to one side with no evidence as all sides have history of using chemical weapons.

Why would he stand down after the arab spring? Its not his own people that are fighting against him it is foreign fighters. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that german intelligence had found that only 5% of rebels were Syrian, the rest were foreign fighters from north Africa, the middle east and Europe.

Before the civil war Syria was a very liberal country, especially as it is in the middle east and deeply religious. Christians and all sects of islam lived without fear. Assad is defending his country from a foreign invasion so if you want to end the violence aim your anger at those funding the foreign fighters in Syria i.e turkey, Saudi arabia and the usa.

If his own people are not fighting against him, again that's factually incorrect, then why is he bombing the innocent civilians of his own Country?

.

Its not factually incorrect. The FSA had at most 20,000 members. The fsa represented the Syrian people who went against assad. ISIS on its own had up to 35,000 members, nearly double the fsa and ISIS was full of foreign radicalised extremist fighters. Then you have al nusra who have more fighters than ISIS and al qaieda and you can clearly see that Syria is a battleground for foreign fighters who hold radical extremist views.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

.

Just to add to this, the FSA which is the international recognised opposition to Assad had at its peak 20,000 members according to a high ranking fsa Officer.

When you consider that ISIS had 35000 members and al nusra and al qaieda etc etc all had thousands of foreign fighters in their ranks too you can see that the Syrian civil war is not about Syrians uprising against assad who is clinging onto power against the will of his people, but is instead a war about foreign backed extremist fighters who are being funded by sunni countries such as Saudi arabia and turkey in order to fight assad who is the leade of a  shia government and fight a proxy war with iran. Not to mention the funding by the USA in order to fight a proxy war with Russia.

The Syrian civil war started because his own people rebelled against him! Were are you getting this stuff from?

Whatever about the FSA, did you know that Assad aligned himself with Hezbollah as soon as he came to power?

Yes there was demonstrations against him, mainy from sunni muslims but the FSA were the ones who turned it into a CIVIL war and they only had 20,000 members at their peak, their peak ending many years ago.

So yes it is important to look at the number of fsa fighters because they are extremely low compared to the number of foreign backed fighters such as isis and al qaeida are al nusra because you can see who assad is fighting. Hes not fighting Syrians who want democracy, he is fighting terrorists who want to impose sharia law and who want shia muslims to be killed.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

All sides have been found 'guilty' of using chemical weapons so a chemical weapon attack cannot be attributed to one side with no evidence as all sides have history of using chemical weapons.

Why would he stand down after the arab spring? Its not his own people that are fighting against him it is foreign fighters. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that german intelligence had found that only 5% of rebels were Syrian, the rest were foreign fighters from north Africa, the middle east and Europe.

Before the civil war Syria was a very liberal country, especially as it is in the middle east and deeply religious. Christians and all sects of islam lived without fear. Assad is defending his country from a foreign invasion so if you want to end the violence aim your anger at those funding the foreign fighters in Syria i.e turkey, Saudi arabia and the usa.

If his own people are not fighting against him, again that's factually incorrect, then why is he bombing the innocent civilians of his own Country?

.

Its not factually incorrect. The FSA had at most 20,000 members. The fsa represented the Syrian people who went against assad. ISIS on its own had up to 35,000 members, nearly double the fsa and ISIS was full of foreign radicalised extremist fighters. Then you have al nusra who have more fighters than ISIS and al qaieda and you can clearly see that Syria is a battleground for foreign fighters who hold radical extremist views.

Good grief, you even quoted a source claiming 5% of Syrians were fighting against him. Even your own sources prove yourself factually incorrect. Not that there isn't much more than 5% of Syrians fighting against Assad.

You know little of the FSA. The FSA was formed by defecting Syrian army officers, and consisted mostly of Syrian military deserters. The group itself splintering into many different factions.

Here's a list of those fighting in opposition to Assad, as well as those for Assad. Click on a few of the opposition links to give you an idea of how many Syrians are actually fighting against Assad > SyrianOppositionToAssad

Pr4wn wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

So you have no evidence, then?

Try reading my posts again .....

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I believe Trump was right to order the strike. Hopefully Assad backs off from murdering his own people, and hopefully he will be ousted from his position.

Too late for the hundreds of thousands already killed, the millions injured and the millions displaced, many with no homes to return to, but something needed to be done.

Can you post the evidence you have that shows it was assad who did the chemical attack.... Because even the G7 don't know who did the attacks hence why they refused to sanction Russia until there was evidence of who launched the gas attack.

And just because the USA says it was Assad who did it doesn't mean he did it, remember the USA also saying that Iraq had WMD and that turned out to be a big lie.

If you want peace in Syria then perhaps you should place your anger towards saudia arabia, Turkey and the USA who are funding countless armed groups in an attempt to secure a victory in a proxy war with Russia and Iran.

Under Obama's weak leadership in the ME, and elsewhere, Russia, China, Iran and N.Korea have all become emboldened, and all have pushed the boundaries. The strike against Assad's military sends a clear message to all.
Assad literally believed he could get away with murder, and he has, and Russia has been complicit in that. The US strike against Assad's military, while being far too late to save many thousands of lives, may well help prevent the loss of thousands more, and possibly hasten a resolution to the conflict.

I'm no Trump supporter, but that doesn't mean I have to disagree against all his actions.

Why do you blame Assad for the loss of lives? He is fighting a civil war against foreign funded and foreign fighters in his country. He is the democratic leader of that country and has a right to self defence. Yes many innocent people have been killed due to collateral damage but the USA have killed many innocent people in Syria and recently in Iraq due to collateral damage.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war and if you are so against it then like I said, aim your anger towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the USA for creating the war in the first place by funding the rebels and terrorist groups.

Because Assad is directly responsible for the slaughter of his own people. Because Assad has been found guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people, by an independent, UN appointed commission. Because we know Assad uses barrel bombs against his own people.

Yes, the Syrian conflict is very complex. Assad also has foreigners fighting for him - the Russians and a terrorist group funding by Iran - Hezbollah.

"A democratic leader". Are you serious? Define "democratic" for me? Is Putin "Democratic"? Is Erdogan "Democratic"? If Assad was truly democratic he would have stepped down after the Arab Spring rising.

There's a difference between 'collateral damage', and deliberately striking your own people. Are you aware that Assad's military deliberately hit the hospital treating the victims of the chemical attack, shortly after that chemical attack?

Yes, I'm against the Wests foreign policy in the ME, and have been for quite some time. I was against the war in Iraq. I was against getting involved in Libya. I am against the war in Yemen, and the West is complicit in that war as they fail to take action against their ME ally - the Saudi's. I'm not interested in 'whataboutery' though. It's nothing short of deflection.

All sides have been found 'guilty' of using chemical weapons so a chemical weapon attack cannot be attributed to one side with no evidence as all sides have history of using chemical weapons.

Why would he stand down after the arab spring? Its not his own people that are fighting against him it is foreign fighters. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that german intelligence had found that only 5% of rebels were Syrian, the rest were foreign fighters from north Africa, the middle east and Europe.

Before the civil war Syria was a very liberal country, especially as it is in the middle east and deeply religious. Christians and all sects of islam lived without fear. Assad is defending his country from a foreign invasion so if you want to end the violence aim your anger at those funding the foreign fighters in Syria i.e turkey, Saudi arabia and the usa.

If his own people are not fighting against him, again that's factually incorrect, then why is he bombing the innocent civilians of his own Country?

.

Its not factually incorrect. The FSA had at most 20,000 members. The fsa represented the Syrian people who went against assad. ISIS on its own had up to 35,000 members, nearly double the fsa and ISIS was full of foreign radicalised extremist fighters. Then you have al nusra who have more fighters than ISIS and al qaieda and you can clearly see that Syria is a battleground for foreign fighters who hold radical extremist views.

Good grief, you even quoted a source claiming 5% of Syrians were fighting against him. Even your own sources prove yourself factually incorrect. Not that there isn't much more than 5% of Syrians fighting against Assad.

You know little of the FSA. The FSA was formed by defecting Syrian army officers, and consisted mostly of Syrian military deserters. The group itself splintering into many different factions.

Here's a list of those fighting in opposition to Assad, as well as those for Assad. Click on a few of the opposition links to give you an idea of how many Syrians are actually fighting against Assad > SyrianOppositionToAssad

I haven't got anything wrong, the 20,000 fsa was at their peak. The german intelligence was a few years ago when ISIS was at its peak and most likely still represents the number of Syrians fighting assad for the fsa.

Your google search just proves my point. Look at all of the groups fighting against the Syrian Army, they are all Islamic extremist groups in the majority who are fighting for extremist purposes, not for democracy.

So once again I will state that the Syrian war is not a simple war of Syrians fighting for democracy. It is a war where foreign backed fighters who want a form of radical islam and to exterminate shia muslims are fighting the Syrian government.

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

So you have no evidence, then?

Try reading my posts again .....

To be fair you don't actually have any evidence though. Basically the line you are taking is that past convictions mean future guilt but we have seen from Iraq in 2003 that past convictions does not equal future guilt and that attitude can lead to a long meaningless war. In Iraq we were told Hussein has used WMD before, he has killed innocent civillans, therefore he must have WMDs. and he never. You are using the same argument but changing it from Hussein to Assad. Basically you have no evidence.

Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

The Syrian protests were for democracy! The protesters demanded reform for what was a sham democracy. Democracy has never truly existed in Syria. The fact that some are Islamist, rather than secular, means nothing.

The Syrian conflict is complex, as I said. There are many sides who want different things. It isn't simply about the original protests any longer. Obviously there are foreign fighters. There always was, starting with Assad's Hezbollah fighters.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:To set this straight, for Munchkin to reasonably believe that, evidence must be presented.

I believe that before you start launching missiles into a country, you must have firm evidence that there is a just cause. And none has been presented thus far.

Trump supporters, just like Brexit supporters, have been had.

The just cause is that he's been consistently attacking his own people, innocent civilians, as well as a UN appointed independent panel finding that Assad had previously used chemical weapons on his own people on three separate occasions. On top of that, we can actually view Assad's military dropping barrel bombs in heavily built-up civilian neighbourhoods.

While Assad has been in power during the conflict, hundreds of thousands have died. Many of those at his direction, and many since Russia intervened to help their 'friend'.

So you have no evidence, then?

Try reading my posts again .....

To be fair you don't actually have any evidence though. Basically the line you are taking is that past convictions mean future guilt but we have seen from Iraq in 2003 that past convictions does not equal future guilt and that attitude can lead to a long meaningless war. In Iraq we were told Hussein has used WMD before, he has killed innocent civillans, therefore he must have WMDs. and he never. You are using the same argument but changing it from Hussein to Assad. Basically you have no evidence.

Obviously not as any evidence is yet to be published. Others are in possession of the facts surrounding the chemical attacks, and those others are the UN sanctioned independent commission which all sides agreed to. That commission accuses Assad of the crimes.

Now, you give me a reason as to why you believe, with evidence, that the UN commission was lying?

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

The Syrian protests were for democracy! The protesters demanded reform for what was a sham democracy. Democracy has never truly existed in Syria. The fact that some are Islamist, rather than secular, means nothing.

The Syrian conflict is complex, as I said. There are many sides who want different things. It isn't simply about the original protests any longer. Obviously there are foreign fighters. There always was, starting with Assad's Hezbollah fighters.

You claimed that his own people had rose up against him and if he was democratic he would leave office. But Syria is not as simple as that, as I have shown the vast majority of groups are foreign fighters backed by foreign countries.

I never said they are all Islamic, I said the majority are Islamic extremist groups.