Trump, Putin, and Assad, who are enemies and who are allies?

Allies are usually supportive in a war. Enemies fight in war. Trump people on tv talking about Russia must be mislead by Assad, and Russia is really Trump friend who can't see the truth. Nikki Haley said something like that that Putin can't see what Assad is doing, but the Russians are right there. Before Trump got there Putin and Assad were there together as Allies. America has been at odds with Russia before Trump. Who do you think is the leader in the relationship between Assad and Putin? Is Trump trying to war with an Ally of Russia while trying to be Russia friend at the same time?

 

Seems like sleight of hand deception. The attack on Syria could easily be seen as an expensive attempt at dispelling Trump/Putin relations. It created a lot of excitement but that's where it stopped. It leaves more questions than answers it seems!

 

The Pentagon’s statement said the attack was “in retaliation for the regime of Bashar Assad using nerve agents to attack his own people.”
Syria and Russia vehemently deny that the Syrian military used chemical weapons.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urged an investigation to determine what actually happened before any action was contemplated, citing what he called “continuing questions about who is responsible”...

But U.S. war fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible.

The CIA has spent more than a billion dollars a year to arm anti-Assad rebels for years, and the U.S. began bombing Syria in 2014 –

What makes this latest attack new is that rather than allegedly targeting terrorist sites of ISIS and Al Qaeda, it targets the Syrian government – something Obama threatened to do in 2013 but never did.

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07...edia-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/

Continued in my next post.

 

WATCH: Hillary Clinton said U.S. should attack Assad's airfields hours before missile strike.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/850162697354326016/video/1

Now watch Trump:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...al-weapons-attack-n743636?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

More: https://t.co/BQ6AEMNpZh pic.twitter.com/GtiAjJE7sK

Again, words like "dictator" - "innocent civilians" - "beautiful babies" - "slow and brutal death" - "no child of God should ever suffer" - "threatening the United States and its allies" - are being impressed upon the minds of the American people and around the world.
Haven't we heard that same rhetoric before? It's so shallow and hollow you can blow horse sh*t through it.
Now, that I am old enough to understand and watch how wars get made and started, I know it went the same with WW2...Hitler the Villain - Saddam the Villain - Qaddafi the Villain - and now Assad and many others inbetween.

Wish this would come true...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/5etr9w/the_pope_lebron_james_donald_trump_and_a_10_year/

 

Yep, the old media and political framing effect certainly manipulates the minds and emotions of many. Or could it be just outright lies. We are so easily led to believe what the media states without question, it is concerning.

We should be aiming to keep our own polititians in check rather than speculating about what other world leaders are doing.

Thankfully today people have access to a variety of story perspectives and shouldn't just settle for what our polititians and media are portraying to us but should be questioning and if not sure, not supporting any action until made clear without a doubt.

Too many doubts on motivations with this one.

 

I think Trump try to solve his problem of low rating inside USA. This attack has no any external reason.

 

I say, it is an outright lie. Just like it was an outright lie with 9/11... Osama bin Laden did it!
An outright lie, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. In any war, truth is the first casualty!

HOW would you keep your own politicians in check? The whole governing apparatus is corrupt... except for a few maybe.
Since Trump wouldn't want to investigate first before bombing, tells me he knows who is helping him. It could be his friends in Israel who are known for these kind of operations.

Just checked with my favorite investigative journalist, Thierry Meyssan. He has a different theory.
Please read:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html

 

Not sure if there's a thread about this somewhere but what has emerged is that the Russians knew the Chemical attack was coming, they had a drone in the area, then soon after when victims were being treated the hospital was bombed.

I think this would be enough to anger and move Trump to action, so not falling for all the conspiracy theories that he was looking for excuses to engage or planned this previously... or even the more outrages theories that this was about Israel.

Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming

https://www.apnews.com/19772be1238e49fbb62c509a5b659b3d

 

As far as who are allies and who are enemies, I believe Trump still consider Russia an ally (in their fight against ISIS) but want Assad's head.
I do think however Iran should stay out of this, they have been screaming louder than Russia, they're only aggravating Trump and are already on his shitlist.

 

More confusion! Since Russia hasn't attacked the United States yet, I doubt the whole thing is serious, it just clarifies who supports an attack on Syria... Mrs. Clinton #1, Pelosi and the rest of dem Dems #2.

 

Well, those three countries are allies. Why shouldn't they be alarmed, if one of them gets unfairly attacked?

 

I now think you could have a good point there. Assad and Putin play along. Read Meyssan's article I already quoted further up:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html

 

It was not the chemical attack. It was the fake news. Do you want evidences?

 

What would be good is when make a contrary statement, you also add the evidence in the same post, it saves time

 

Of course, I'll read it. But Putin and Assad are not friends. They solve different tasks. Putin destroyes terrorists from Russia at Syria. Assad saves his state. Now, they are allies. While Assad will not change his patron. That's life.

 

I have to find the video, that was posted by victims of the attack. They work without gloves. If the gas sarin is used, as your media wrote, they have to die immediately. But just now I work with my students and haven't time enough for searching. It seems, that Syrian planes destroyed tanks with the chlorine, that were used by rioters for creating of chemical weapons. The samples for such weapons were presented to UN by Russia many times.

 

yes I can imagine... all sorts of stories and excuses for why it...a) didn't happen b) blamed on someone else or c) enter your reason here now!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/syria-gas-attack-false-flag_uk_58e5e0f6e4b06a4cb30f2fe1

 

There are 4 options which the US faces in dealing with Iran.

1- Grand Bargain. Work towards a Grand Bargain with Iran. That means working to address the real dividing lines between the two countries and finding a genuine, long term, win-win solution to those issues. To find that grand bargain, the US and the Europeans can't rely on merely working with one faction in Iranian politics and trying to make a deal with folks who are implicitly dependent on them. Such a grand bargain, however, will be vigorously opposed by Israel, Wahhabi Arabia and all those who carry their briefs. The grand bargain I allude to will also run counter to the interests of the military industrial complex that has forged its ties and agendas with the agenda of the Israelis and Wahhabi Arabia and company. Nonetheless, that is the right policy that the US should be pursuing. It would be the right policy for both sides. The grand bargain I allude to requires both sides to enter negotiations with no preconditions of any kind.

2- Engagement. Support engagement as a means to boost certain factions within Iran and to make incremental deals which help weaken Iran and strengthen the hands of the US/West. This is the policy favored by the EU and certain elements in the Democratic party. It faces the same kind of opposition I mentioned with respect to the first option. I don't like this policy much because it basically paves the way for the proponents of option #4 to eventually achieve their aims. The nuclear deal was a case in point. It didn't solve the issues between Iran and the US but contrary to the pretense among the Israelis and company, and their supporters in the US, merely weakened Iran's hand for some transient benefits which can easily be reversed.

3- Containment. This approach will basically focus the US to find ways to make sure Iran isn't able to enhance its geopolitical posture, while working on weakening Iran through various methods such diplomatic isolation of the country, sanctions, and facing off against Iran in certain areas such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. This approach has guided US foreign policy in the region for some time, even if the US hasn't been successful in its aims. Basically, in all of the proxy wars between Iran and the US, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria, Iran has won. Those victories span proxy wars waged over decades from the time of the Reagan administration through the Bush and Obama administrations. Iran's last victory was in Syria, symbolized by the liberation of Aleppo.

4- Roll Back/Regime Change. Iran is simply too big, with too many ways to respond, for any sane military official to suggest going to war with Iran to accomplish regime change in the short term . That is simply ridiculous on its face. The roll back/regime change option that many around the Trump administration and the Israelis favor goes through stages. The first stages look a lot like the containment option, except the US and company will be more aggressively working to fuel issues within Iran and weakening Iran from within as well, while putting together an alliance or coalition to face off against Iran in various places and roll back Iran in those places. Eventually, when Iran is sufficiently weakened, its tentacles cut in places such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere, these people want the US to then engage in military actions that would serve something like "sanction enhancers" to help other activities to bring about regime change in Iran.

Since #4 is basically the policy the US is pursuing against Iran, the idea that Iran should be quiet about what the US is doing is stupid for Iran. The right approach from Iran will be to use what happened against Assad to beef up its alliances and to make it is better ready to face off against the policies the US has in store for the country.

 

I think you can not. USA had confirmed that Syria has no chemical weapons and equpment for producing one. Where Assad have taken the gas for this attack? I strongly recommed you to look not USA media only. Sometimes try Russia Today or Sputnik.

 

1 & 2 - You mention the US and Europe engaging with different factions in Iran but would that not be viewed as interference by the current regime?
I think if Obama was still president then there might have been a slight possibility for this because he took a different direction on Israel. However in my opinion Trump is not capable of the sort of delicate negotiations that will be required, his method is usually the use of extreme threats, which I think is not constructive especially with Iran. The mainstream views in other western countries are also that Iran and the US are both unmovable on their policies and therefore negotiations are not coveted, what's the point of negotiations without the US anyway, I think Merkel tried last year but we are still where we are today.

3. I don't believe the US will be able to stop Iran, except perhaps by engaging in a war and truly hope this does not happen.

4. Well it's not working for anyone.

Personally (as someone who lives on the other side of the globe) I have met Iranians and have found them excellent business people and polite to the extreme. I would very much like to see them engage with the rest of the world because currently Iran does seem to be one of the more stable countries in the Middle East, even if they do interfere in other countries like Iraq and Syria (something they themselves accuse the US of doing) perhaps Iran does not see this as interference since they consider these countries as part of Persia? There is also the nuclear threat it potentially poses to Israel.

 

The video of White Helms.


This a typical fake. But for you it is a truth because you don't know that the sarin invades through a skin nearly as well as through a lungs

 

Yep, the reasons we have gone into war previously weren't in alignment with intelligence. I think people believed voting in Trump was equivalent with a revolution. Maybe Trump realises that as President he won't get his own way but realises he has to abide by some fairly big players in the world of power and control and I'm not big on conspiracies!

 

Hey, I can prove you wrong! Look here...

'Russia Is Syria's True Friend,' Says Assad's Wife
Speaking in an interview with Russian state media outlet Rossia-24, Mrs Assad praised aid from the Kremlin for “loosening the chokehold on ordinary Syrians.”

She compared the sanctions placed on Syria by Western nations to those placed on Iraq in the 1990s.

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russia-is-syrias-true-friend-says-presidents-wife-55786

 

Do you think it's possible to trust pretty women? Not my case.
It's a typical Eastern style. Not serious. If Assad would provide Russia good conditions for a military base in Syria I would say maybe... Do you know, that Iran doesn't want to collaborate with Russia in economics area? They want to collaborate with the USA.... The Eastern stile, nothing new.

 

Neither am I, but there is a number of choices one can pick from, like....Deep State, the Shadow Government, The Elite, The Oligarchs, the Military-Industrial Complex or the Secret Societies. Not to forget the Zionists!