Chemical weapon used on civilians in Syria + Airstrikes

Cheerful Spring

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Rather than replying individually to the Assad fanboys and sycophants I will reply more generally.

Assad has a history of gassing his people. Repeated UN investigations have found this to be the case.
While they are not perfect I will believe them over an Assad fan boy hiding behind his computer somewhere in Ireland.

All these chemical attacks are in cities and towns held by jihadists. I find it strange he never uses chemical weapons against Jihadists when fighting them on a battlefield, in an open field or on land. Why would Assad gas civilians they are just pawns in this battle Assad knows this they are not his enemy? Jihadists are not targetted strategically does make any sense to do this and winning a war right now Assad has to be losing his mind to want Trump to bomb his army. I fairly certain Assad does not want to end up like Saddam or Gaddafi.

archer22

backspin. wrote: »

Was Assad not winning the war, why would he then bring international outrage upon himself with the use of chemical weapons?

Maybe Trumps announcement that he intended to pull the troops out had something to do with it? Dark forces at play.

Even if we were to play along with the story..what military advantage would chemical weapons provide..absolutely none!!.

Shurimgreat

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Russia have said there will be grave consequences if a strike on Syria occurs,about time the gloves came off its the only language the US terrorists understand,oh and puppet boy Macron has said if there was a chemical attack they would strike Syria aswell..he needs a slap across the tits

You are so far left you are beyond the horizon. Hopefully no-one takes you seriously but in my experience the more off the scale someones opinions are the more people believe them.

ArchXStanton

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The Syrian war is now 7 years old with 500,000 dead. Its likely to last another 4-5 years with another couple hundred thousand dying.

Its the most shameful event of our era and the international community have done damn all to bring it to an end.

Russia's veto at the UN is probably the main reason it has not been brought to an end and there has been so much bloodshed.

History and historians will treat harshly Putin, Assad and all those including posters on here who took their side.

Nothing to do with the US at all there meddling,you would think the biggest and supposedly most advanced military in the world would have seen all those head choppers in Toyota pick up truck convoys thundering across the desert and done something about it years ago...

archer22

Gatling wrote: »

There you go a gringo posted thread on the protest

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057857599/1

Stop trolling me!!.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All these chemical attacks are in cities and towns held by jihadists. I find it strange he never uses chemical weapons against Jihadists when fighting them on a battlefield, in an open field or on land.

I fairly certain Assad does not want to end up like Saddam or Gaddafi.

Is there open battlefields in Syria or is it mostly fighting fibua.
assad will be dragged through the streets and celebration will follow

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Is there open battlefields in Syria or is it mostly fighting fibua.
assad will be dragged through the streets and celebration will follow

I have watched videos of all sides fighting in Syria lot of the fighting is in the open with maybe a trench dug along a small hill or near a small village.

Shurimgreat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

All these chemical attacks are in cities and towns held by jihadists. I find it strange he never uses chemical weapons against Jihadists when fighting them on a battlefield, in an open field or on land. Why would Assad gas civilians they are just pawns in this battle Assad knows this they are not his enemy? Jihadists are not targetted strategically does make any sense to do this and winning a war right now Assad has to be losing his mind to want Trump to bomb his army. I fairly certain Assad does not want to end up like Saddam or Gaddafi.

Yes I mean Assad would never indescriminately barrel bomb civilians.

Doltanian

What is the difference if they are killed by Chemical Weapons? there are thousands being bombed, shot and maimed every single day. The weapon of choice makes no difference. Assad is right to defend his country and if the US attempts a strike on Syria then Putin could retaliate against the US with a hypersonic missile strike. We are moving closer than ever to the Third World War and large parts of the world are at war already.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have watched videos of all sides fighting in Syria lot of the fighting is in the open with maybe a trench dug along a small hill or near a small village.

So dropping chemical weapons wouldn't be a good idea if your trying to get into the trenches especially as a simple wind can turn it back on you ,
The majority of the fighting is fibua and centered around major population centers

Cheerful Spring

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes I mean Assad would never indescriminately barrel bomb civilians.

I don't disagree with you. Assad airforce has used barrel bombs to target militants in rebel-held areas. I don't think Assad is using chemical weapons there is no need when they are winning the war now.

jimmycrackcorm

Cheerful Spring wrote:

The decision is done Trump is pulling out. Russia saw this coming weeks ago there would be a false flag event in this region.

More like the Russians have learned the lessons from the IRA to ring up a bomb warning first.

Expect a false flag alert from them the next time a treacherous spy is to be eliminated.

Gatling

Doltanian wrote: »

if the US attempts a strike on Syria then Putin could retaliate against the US with a hypersonic missile strike

They only tested a relatively small rocket recently so don't think America will be worried on a weapon that doesn't exist yet .

archer22

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Yes I mean Assad would never indescriminately barrel bomb civilians.

You do realise a "barrel bomb" is just a conventional unguided bomb...and given that they had to manufacture them themselves why would they risk their lives flying them in at low altitude to drop them on targets of no value :rolleyes:

Gatling

archer22 wrote: »

You do realise a "barrel bomb" is just a conventional unguided bomb...and given that they had to manufacture them themselves why would they risk their lives flying them in at low altitude to drop them on targets

Where they won't risk getting shotdown and usually only on large civilian population centers

Nermal

Barry Badrinath wrote: »

They are seperate forces with similar revolutionary objectives but Jaish al-Islam is more moderate than Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

No such thing as a moderate head-hacker.

Cheerful Spring

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Hard to take you seriously with posts such as this.

Actually, no Blair WMD dossier made reference to Saddam requiring nuclear materials to make a nuclear weapon. That evidence was debunked years later after the Iraqi invasion.

Shurimgreat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I don't disagree with you. Assad airforce has used barrel bombs to target militants in rebel-held areas. I don't think Assad is using chemical weapons there is no need when they are winning the war now.

Since March 2011 I have been hearing that Assad is winning the war so need to do this that or the other.

He's "winning" precisely because he's more willing to use chemical weapons in urban areas than engage in costly house to house fighting where he could lose.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

So dropping chemical weapons wouldn't be a good idea if your trying to get into the trenches especially as a simple wind can turn it back on you ,
The majority of the fighting is fibua and centered around major population centers

Why would they care if the dropping chemical weapons from the air on jihadists?

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Why would they care if the dropping chemical weapons from the air on jihadists?

According to you

Not everyone that doesn't support assad and putin are jihadis ,

Just another excuse to rant

Shurimgreat

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Actually, no Blair WMD dossier made reference to Saddam requiring nuclear materials to make a nuclear weapon. That evidence was debunked years later after the Iraqi invasion.

And again what has this got to do with the topic of this thread?
Either stick to the current Syrian conflict or create a new thread about the Iraq war.

Cheerful Spring

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Since March 2011 I have been hearing that Assad is winning the war so need to do this that or the other.

He's "winning" precisely because he's more willing to use chemical weapons in urban areas than engage in costly house to house fighting where he could lose.

Sorry, that makes no sense because one attack every 6 months is now going to change the outcome of a fight in a city. Some of those cities in Syria stretch out ten miles or more.

archer22

Gatling wrote: »

Where they won't risk getting shotdown and usually only on large civilian population centers

Stop trolling by altering my quotes....I just reported you for this.

Cheerful Spring

Nermal wrote: »

No such thing as a moderate head-hacker.

I know it like they think one group of Islamist extremists is different to another. They all share the same goal.

Shurimgreat

Doltanian wrote: »

What is the difference if they are killed by Chemical Weapons? there are thousands being bombed, shot and maimed every single day. The weapon of choice makes no difference. Assad is right to defend his country and if the US attempts a strike on Syria then Putin could retaliate against the US with a hypersonic missile strike. We are moving closer than ever to the Third World War and large parts of the world are at war already.

There will be no third world war. In a conventional face off with the US he would be crushed. The US has 20 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Russia has one rickity diesel powered one that needs to refuel at a harbour every couple of days.
Putin's strength has always been in bombing and poisoning unarmed civilians.

Shurimgreat

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I just find it amusing how we suddenly see these all these new accounts to defend mother Russia.

Amusing is the word.

Gatling

archer22 wrote: »

Stop trolling by altering my quotes....I just reported you for this.

What exactly did I alter .

I'm sure the report button has been worn out on this thread ,

Cheerful Spring

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I just find it amusing how we suddenly see these all these new accounts to defend mother Russia.

America was attacking jihadists in Syria I would support them and Russia was siding with Jihadists I would say Russia deserves all the hate it got. I think Assad is better for Syria. Can you imagine Isis took Syria it would be so scary they have a hub to launch more attacks against us in the west.

Shurimgreat

John5664 wrote: »

I meant with airstrikes in Syria not Belfast, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Maybe so but again the Brits didn't resort to airstrikes against nationalist areas to win the war. Imagine the international outcry if they did.

archer22

Shurimgreat wrote: »

There will be no third world war. In a conventional face off with the US he would be crushed. The US has 20 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. Russia has one rickity diesel powered one that needs to refuel at a harbour every couple of days.
Putin's strength has always lied in bombing and poisoning unarmed civilians.

Russia has Zircon and Sunburn ASM's ....Aircraft carriers are just 70 year old obsolete technology in today's world..going the same way as the Battleship has gone.