IAMA
Political Scientist who has been extensively following the Syrian Civil War for the past ~6 years. I have personally witnessed bombing in the southern area of Syria. I am Independant and I don't support President Trump on a large number of issues.
I believe the strike against the Syrian government today was a success and an effective retaliation for the chemical weapons attack. I want to answer any questions and provide insight into the conflict and the current situation. Ask away.
I haven't shaved my face all week and it actually looks kind of good if a bit shaggy. Should I shave or leave the shadow? Thanks in advance
What do you think Russia will do in response to the strikes?
Bump
Shave it if you're looking for a job/girlfriend
Don't shave it if you don't have to and you want to grow a beard.
Hard to say. I don't think Russia will condone the strike, but I highly doubt they will retaliate. Putin still very much wants to continue to have influence over the President, and antagonizing this retaliation would jeopardize that.
Do you foresee the situation escalating from here?
I do have a good job, I'd like a girl. Do you think a trim would be enough? May attempt a grow out
I am political Russia man and I can say that Russia approves of this bombing.
No. I don't think there will be any immediate escalation, but there will inevitably be continued strife. The civil war has been going on for 6 years, and not much was done under Obama, if Trump decides to make this issue a priority, it could definitely become a topic of discussion and involvement moving forward.
Which other powers do you think are mostly likely to get involved/increase their involvement?
If it looks good keep it. But if you like eating pussy it could bother her a bit, women generally don't like getting scratched when you're messing with either set of lips.
Interesting insight, I would like to know the Russian general attitude toward Syria. Putin believes it is strategically relevant as an outpost in the middle east and I know Russia is aligned with Bashar al-Assad for the most part.
The chemical weapons attack was a false flag. The Syrian government may have been in possession of the weapon but they were not used by them, they were used by the rebels to try and incite this very reaction. Docs proving all this well be released on Tuesday.
Why should we involve our selves in Syria's problems
Israel for sure, they don't like to be left out when bombs are flying around the Middle East, Turkey and Jordan will likely be important players as they have taken the responsibility for a large number of refugees. ISIS would also not be far, seeing as this strike focuses attention on their playground. Russia will definitely be another big player.
I won't respond to any conspiracy theories, if you would like to bring sources or evidence I will be happy to evaluate and respond to them.
The sooner the civil war ends, the sooner refugees can go home. If you're concerned about refugees coming to America, stopping the civil war will effectively halt the refugee crisis. America looked weak after Obama's "red line" (although I generally approve of Obama this was one of the big issues during his Presidency) this strike in the early days of President Trump makes America look tough on terrorism and makes us an important player on the international conflict stage once again.
I've never heard any complaints. Thanks for the beard advice. Could've checked my trips though.
I saw them, I've outgrown the dubs/trips/quads fanaticism. I don't think they're important anymore but congratulations.
Cats or dogs
Wikileaks.org Leaks anyone
Dogs. do I look like a chick or a faggot? Aside from being OP...
Cats are better in everyway
What do you think the US's top priorities are in this conflict? Stabilize region, starve isis, depose Assad etc?
how does killing people on the other side of the world make my life or theirs any better.
Pretty much all of the above.
Stability in the Middle East is good for everyone, stops the flow of refugees, helps local powers focus on ISIS, and Assad is basically a huge dick.
As of right now, it really appears that Trump wants to assert himself, and I can't blame that. Expect his approval rating to jump, this was a good move and I highly expect General James Mattis was behind a lot of the planning and decision to actually go ahead with the strike. He's just about the only serious person in Trumps cabinet.
By "Political Scientist," I suppose you mean hack amateur. Few well educated English speakers think there's an 'a' in "independent," fuckstick.
In the philosophical sense of taking a life? It doesn't.
In the global political sense it's important that America looks strong so we're not taken advantage of by outside influence and that our decisions are not discredited. It's more about sending a message at this point, but it also helps to deter Assad from using chemical weapons and potentially killing more innocent civilians. Is a Syrian child's life better because there are fewer chemical weapons attacks since now Assad will hesitate before doing it again?
Timestamp you fag
Not OP but fyi this attack wasn't about killing people, rather the goal was to diminish Assad's (the syrian president) ability to continue murdering civilians. The referenced chemical attack was launched against a hospital because he didn't want drs treating rebels. The strike by the US was about trying to prevent even larger amounts of these kinds of killings. Not everything does impact you or I directly, nor should it. You have to consider the well being of entire societies before your own gain.
Image search it. I don't really care if you question my qualifications, I hope my answers more than speak for me. If you can't take that as enough verification then you should jump into one of those outrage threads titled "OMG WWIII TRUMP LAUNCHED 50 MISSLES WTFFFFFF HILLSHILL"
Fuck off Mossad.
/Someone else
What would have happened without western intervention in the middle east for about 50 years?
The middle east would have been conquered by some muslim country and basically unified creating a new super power.
Such a super power would pose a threat to western fuckery with muslim countries, therefore all attempts of this were stopped with either direct intervention or addition of weapons and possible covert attacks.
Think of ghaddafi for instance: For many years everyone was totally fine with him occationally killing rebels, but at the point where he said something about the EU beeing a piece of shit, and trying to unify arabia he was suddenly le evil dictator, which seemed like a good time to send some tomahawks to his bases and a supply of weapons to anti government rebels. The country is STILL in a constant stage of civil war which has costed thousands their lives, but at least they got """democrathy""".
I personally think that arabic countries aren't ready for democrathy, they just need a dictator or king with a firm grip who makes sure everyone behaves.
what do you think about the little faggots going into draft ?
They were never important. Some traditions are just upheld for the sake of it all. Don't try and act better than me you sumbitch
I am political Russia man?
How will this affect the Saudi oil pipeline through projected to go through syria and Saudi Aramco's IPO?
Correct for the most part. That was one of the goals, I believe there were a few more, some relating to the image the President wants to cultivate.
Mossad doesn't talk they just operate. They're far more buttoned up than most other intelligence agencies, they very much keep quiet until they want to be known.
This is making a lot more assumptions than I'm willing to accept. We just don't know. What we do know is that the Middle East is a region composed of a number of different players who don't necessarily get along with each other. Each player has a number of outside influences supporting them, and those influences have their own reasons for doing so. We really can't just back down from the Middle East and just walk away, we have too much invested in the region to take that approach, it's important for us to be a player if we want to shape the region in a positive and democratic light.
Not even an option right now. When we start sending troops, and declaring war, then you'll see that option become more serious. Until then there's no chance.
Ok
Any instability in the Middle East is always bad for oil. Expect the price to rise slightly as a knee jerk reaction, but don't expect it to last unless more happens. No idea how it will effect those specific plans, but it won't help them.
What's the difference between US backed Syrian rebels and ISIS?
If US backed Syrian rebels win then wouldn't they owe the US and the US ally Saudi a favor aka permission to build the pipeline that assad denied?
Why, in God's name, would Assad use chemical weapons, particularly in such a limitted, ineffective way? It doesn't benefit him, and greatly benefits his enemies.
How fo Sarin gas victims not piss and shit themselves? How do workers touch them and not become sick themselves?
This shit doesn't add up.
Im not Alex Jones but this was probably because the jews attacked Syria and they downed down a jet.
no more than a week ago.
B..b..but "democracy" is a tool the US uses as a stalling instrument, to stun the development of third world countries, because democracy does not work well in places where the uneducated are above 50%.
Is not a good thing at all, and the US knows it.
I agree. Doesn't add up. I too call bullshit.
you poly-sci dickheads don't know jack shit... I pointed out years ago that China was a threat and his response was "lol, you're a retard." You're all pompous dickheads who think you know shit.
It's the rebels. The sarin gas was captured by them about a month ago. The purpose of this attack was to force westerners to go to war against Assad.
100% agreed, it sounds too stupid to be true.
>What's the difference between US backed Syrian rebels and ISIS?
>If US backed Syrian rebels win then wouldn't they owe the US and the US ally Saudi a favor aka permission to build the pipeline that assad denied?
This is a very complicated question. Don't think of the "rebels" as a defined unit, there's a lot of crossover between rebel forces specifically operating to take down Assad, ISIS members joining to establish their own area of control, and angry post-war veterans who have guns and influence just trying to get more. It's an entirely different life over there. Bullets are currency, and the "lines" are very blurred if they're not well established like the Assad government.
If the rebels succeed in toppling Assad, there will be a mad-grab for power. Russia will want a puppet, the US will want someone to establish democracy who supports Israel, Saudi Arabia would want a Sunni leader since Assad is Shia, and ISIS will want their own guy. Should Assad fall there will only be more, larger problems for the region. While Assad turning over would be a good thing, it would present an immediate and very serious vacuum of power for the region.
Why? I don't have a very definite answer. My leading theory is that Assad is testing Trump, he wanted to see what Trumps response would be after seeing Obama posture and then do nothing. He knows not to blanket release a bunch of chemical weapons because that would necessitate a blanket response. This was a limited strike, intended to "test the waters" of the new President. He just met with the King of Jordan too.
Citation needed
I don't know much about China, it's not my focus. If you asked someone who just has a degree and a general understanding you'd get a bullshit answer. I honestly don't know so i'm not going to answer things I'm not qualified to answer. I understand the Syrian situation. I've been on the boarder myself and seen the situation firsthand.
Cancer is good for your bowels.
so is like, that satan guy, like, real?
How serious are the events in Syria relative to other occurrences world wide, and should I be concerned as an american with the US potential involvement in the affairs of Syria?
Sayanim go to hell
I actually believe you may have some point there, but it's misguided. The problem is that we're forcing democracy. If it's a natural occurrence the adoption of democracy will be profound and total, but by imposing democracy it presents the risk that the country will still elect leaders that don't satisfy what the US wants to see. We can make Iraq a democracy, we can't make them vote for a pro US and pro Israel leadership.
Yeah - what's the deal with him? Ya know he and Santa have basically the same names - both wear red, never been seen together.
Does he want to use chemical weapons so that he can kill people and leave the structures intact, or is it really just like a child testing his limits?
well... ive been up later than usual trying to follow along and piece everything together about this... can you tell me what we DO know about the attack? (the who dunnit and why)
WAS it Assad or was is a Russian attack on a rebel weapons stash that released tho chemical weapons?
pic obviously represents my current feelings on the matter
mind.
blown.
Rather serious. Consider the news stories you've heard for the last year. Most were election related, a lot were immigrant/refugee related, some were ISIS related, but very very few were Syria related. If we decide to turn our collective attention on Syria as a pressing issue, it's going to be a big deal in the coming months. Your concern should be guarded, nothing happens until it happens, but pay attention and learn as much as you can.
I don't think he has much to gain from using chemical weapons in such a limited capacity. If Trump opted to do nothing, Assad would potentially have planned a larger strike along the line, one more effective in stopping the rebels and one more egregious. I don't think his goal is to limit infrastructure damage, chemical weapons are very effective at incapacitating and stopping a group. In the end Assad wants the rebels to give up, and this kind of weapon serves to demoralize and cause attrition.
is the earth really round? or are all the flatguys onto something? is there really an aylmao base on antartica?
what is the deal with cheese?
Trump is getting the levanat ppl killed, he is helping isis
yahoo.com
Regarding the chemical weapon attack, we know where it was, I have a theory on why I posted above, and the military believes Assad was who it was. They can determine where the attack came from by tracking planes and mobilizations, all evidence seems to point to the base that Trump recently destroyed.
If you're looking for serious factual sources that aren't conspiracy, I would advise you use MediaBiasFactCheck. The website is a great resource and it will steer you away from people like Alex Jones who only serves to rile up conspiracy theorists and schizophrenics.
So to be clear a good portion if not the vast majority of any aid we give to rebels in Syria will help ISIS.
Basically the enemy of my enemies enemies enemy and all of his enemies are all enemies of me and my enemies.
Sending 10 bullets to the middle east is basically gonna kill 1 American 7 Muslims and 2 bullets will be stored indefinitely for unknown future conflicts.
...
Exactly. Countries need to develop at their own rhythm, like children. Injecting democracy into them, at the wrong time, just serves to stall them.
Democracy evolved in europe after centuries of monarchy/dictatorship. It became prevalent when the peoples were ready.
The US is not unaware of this.
op is gay and mossad. dont talk to retards like him
>So to be clear a good portion if not the vast majority of any aid we give to rebels in Syria will help ISIS.
Not necessarily. I would absolutely not say "vast majority" or even "majority". Any US involvement in the region will suppress ISIS. Just because we can't control what happens in the power vacuum doesn't mean we're de-facto helping ISIS, it just means the instability will present a chance for chaos. I can assume if ISIS established any foothold in Syria there would be a swift response by many to eliminate their presence.
>Basically the enemy of my enemies enemies enemy and all of his enemies are all enemies of me and my enemies.
Except even more complicated. In reality there's not a good solution, but the way things are currently isn't exactly a good position to stay in.
>Sending 10 bullets to the middle east is basically gonna kill 1 American 7 Muslims and 2 bullets will be stored indefinitely for unknown future conflicts.
You're not drawing lines well here. "Muslim" isn't a good descriptor since there are Muslims on all sides of the conflict. Muslim people aren't the enemy and you may need to reflect on that a little more. We send 10 bullets to the rebels, and all 10 will be used against Assad, since that's the first hurtle. After Assad is gone, the next hurtle is whoever comes into power next and what groups establish themselves first.
I know it's an unpopular opinion around here, but Israel isn't a bad choice for local hegemonic power in regards to the Middle East. I'm not sure if anyone here has ever been to the region, but of the countries I visited, Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are the most economically and socially developed. They each have their problems, but if the rest of the region were to develop the same way the above countries have developed, it would be very good for the stability of the region.
I think Saudi Arabia would be a poor choice because of the Theocratic element and the Sharia law aspect, Turkey would be a bad choice because Erdogan is essentially a dictator and isn't a model for the region, Jordan is very small, but has proven to be rational and supportive of our goals for the region, Egypt would be ok, however the military control is concerning for obvious regions, Israel is very modernized and westernized, and I know it's a poor opinion here but they would probably be the most positive influence on the region if it weren't for the irrational hate between many of the Israeli Jews and Middle Eastern Muslims. That conflict alone makes the idea practically impossible.
Did you noticed the little shitskins being relocated in to europe?
I mean I think your image probably responds very positively in a few circles.
One thing that always surprised me is that one thing conspiracy theorists and Arab Muslims agree on is the "jews are bad" circle jerk.
Obviously for different reasons, Arab Muslims hate Jews for being in Israel, and conspiracy theorists hate Jews because a plurality of them are successful and they think there's some shadow government and Jews are controlling the population and wealth or something?
I'm not clear on exactly what the schizophrenic conspiracy community believes entirely, but I know that jews are bad and everything is a false flag and nobody can be trusted. Anyway it's interesting to see both groups agree on actually quite a lot of things.
Is your first name emile?
...
...
...
...
...
No.
Yeah this is the kind of thing i'm talking about. You're likely to find this image in circles of people who listen to Alex Jones and talk about the "shadow government"
You're assuming way too much of the world. I really honestly think that 50% or so of the people who make these images and think theres some conspiracy have some form of schizophrenia or mental disorder. You guys are popping up in droves in response to what I said which is really interesting, you take some great personal offense to anyone who disagrees with you. Anyway, find a psychologist, get diagnosed, get medicated, and you'll probably feel better.
>kike found
>find a psychologist, get diagnosed, get medicated,
Clearly you are a jew
Why don't you go back to CNN? FAKE NEWS FAGGOT
Hopefully in retaliation Syria will invade Israel and kill all the Jews and there will finally be peace in the middle east.
You're not a scientist. You study history but there is nothing that makes it a science
Do you even know what a conspiracy is, there are countless of ppl conspiring against you.
you are slandering alex jones right, well he is conspiring to sell water filters. there are conspiracies every where. you implying there are not makes me wonder if you are not just some ignorant blue pilled cunt.
What do you think James Mattis's end goal for Syria would be?
What will be the Russian reaction to these strikes and will it lead to greater conflict with them? If your answer is yes to the later, is NATO prepared for this?
Wow the schizophrenics are out in force tonight. I would really love to see some studies on people who have these opinions.
en.wikipedia.org
Read up, it's one of the largest wikipedia pages in existence, feel free to edit it to your whim to wake the "sheeple" to the rising tide of jewish puppet masters in the shadow banking government of anti goyism.
You people are very interesting.
Try taking some political science classes yourself. If you don't think we're a science that's fine, I agree with you on some aspects, but take the courses on data collection, polling, and political thermometers. Those are all very scientific areas of political study. None of those fields are very well known because they're boring as any other science. International relations and american government, those aren't scientific, those are like you say mostly history. The entire field is not scientific, you are right, but the subfields within political science like statistical methods and data analysis are very scientific, even if we're not measuring liquids or studying anatomy.
Stability for the region, ousting Assad. Mattis is probably Trumps best decision as far as his Cabinet goes.
Probably very little reaction. Putin likes his influence over Trump, but if Trump escalates in Syria, Putin may push back since Syria is important to Putin.
Its not a conspiacy theory. Assad is an asshole but there wasnt a reason for him to carry out such an attack.. at this time.
Hes been working to get forgein relations fixed due to he last attack, hes winning the war in syria and gaining some credibility.
Him doing that would be suicide at this point.
So tell me why would assad make such a move..
I believe it to be false flag or it was really a mistake
>en.wikipedia.org
holy shit look at the citations 121 in total thats probably the biggest wikipedia page ive seen
LOL look at pic related holy fucking shit, i guess wikipedia has been compromised by the jews oh no!!!!! Go get them my redpilled awakened enlightened friends
Thank you for the reply. To follow up then; why did Assad use WMD then? What did he have to gain? He had a regime backed up by both the US and the Kremlin after 2013 with one of the deals being "don't gas people". Is this just a case of madmen being madmen? It seems a little fishy to me. Assad may be a lot of things but he IS a predator, and opportunism is the defining trait of any predator. What opportunity was there in any of this? That's what leads me down the conspiratorial rabbit hole with this whole thing. Any thoughts?
>Its not a conspiacy theory. Assad is an asshole but there wasnt a reason for him to carry out such an attack.. at this time.
>Hes been working to get forgein relations fixed due to he last attack, hes winning the war in syria and gaining some credibility.
>Him doing that would be suicide at this point.
>So tell me why would assad make such a move..
>I believe it to be false flag or it was really a mistake
You can believe whatever you want. But when 90% of the news sources that are credible say we know "x" "y" and "z" and you continue to say well I believe "a" "b" and "c" you're talking about conspiracy.
I stated above:
Assad is testing the waters of the new President. Trump just met with the King of Jordan, he knows Trump has some tentative connections to Russia, and Russia supports Assad. Assad wants to know what the US position on Syria is, and if Trump will just ignore it, or if he'll go after them. Under Obama Assad had pretty much a blank check to do whatever he wanted, Assad had one chemical weapons attack, after which Obama did nothing. After that he didn't start carpet bombing rebels with gas, it was a test. He wanted to see what he could get away with and if America was paying attention. We weren't. Now that Trump has retaliated, Assad knows that we're watching. We're focused, and he's got to be more careful than he has been for the past 6 years. This sets the tone that he'll have to change tactics for the next 4 years under Trump while still trying to maintain his power.
exactly, and all the illegal alien criminals need to kick rocks back to the third world they came from
Ask and I shall receive, I see. Thanks!
We all know the middle eastern conflict is a war for Israeli interests. Zionism is doing its job annihilating muslims. It started with the Gulf Wars, got boosted and made official with nine-eleven, and today the jew-owned media is brainwashing the people. Nothing new under the sun.
>Thank you for the reply. To follow up then; why did Assad use WMD then? What did he have to gain? He had a regime backed up by both the US and the Kremlin after 2013 with one of the deals being "don't gas people". Is this just a case of madmen being madmen? It seems a little fishy to me. Assad may be a lot of things but he IS a predator, and opportunism is the defining trait of any predator. What opportunity was there in any of this? That's what leads me down the conspiratorial rabbit hole with this whole thing. Any thoughts?
Yes! See I firmly believe that this was a toe in the water for Assad. You say it yourself, after he did the first attack during Obama's administration, he got away with whatever he wanted so long as he "doesn't gas people". Now he's got a retaliation from Trump, that's far more than just a statement, that's action. That's a message. Assad has to change his strategy since he's been checked.
Suggesting that rebels did this is absurd, the US military has the capability to follow aircraft in the region. They see a flight path from a base in Syria, then minutes later there's a gas attack and the aircraft lands back at that base. Hours later 59 tomahawk missiles hit the base. That's the facts. Every time there's a military intervention you can't say "FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG!" because the phrase loses all meaning. Simply because you're not privy to the intelligence gathering of the military doesn't mean that there's some ulterior motive. I absolutely understand the questioning, and it's fair and reasonable, but don't get bogged down into conspiracy websites that say "FALSE FLAG HERES THE PROOF REBELS DID IT". Because those are just lies by a group of people getting rich off of schizophrenics who are afraid of everything the government does. Stay away from that because it's very sensationalist and very misleading. Anyone can find 10 photos and 10 quotations and build a convincing story about some pseudo-operation coverup.
Well if that's your belief, then I urge you to stop the jews from taking over. If you truly think there's some shadow government go expose it yourself, don't sit on your computer reposting images and crawling to image boards to spread your conspiracies, prove them. Topple the shadow government yourself then come tell me you told me so.
It's really lazy of you to see this mind controlling and brainwashing and do nothing about it but post. You should be able to stop it if you know for a fact it's happening.
And if you can't then I guess the jews win and there's nothing you can do anyway so get used to it? I don't really see how that's any better for you.
Easy there, I'm not saying false flag. I just don't understand how to reconcile the risk with the reward here. If Assad was just testing the waters it was a hell of a gambit! He put the entire basis of his current power on the line for it! Trump is a reactionary, he could have easily said "Fuck you" and ordered strikes on LOTS of his infrastructure, such as it may be in that nation. He put whatever faith and profit Putin gets from this arrangement on the line as well.
I'm not saying he wasn't testing the waters, but why so pricey a dice roll?
>Easy there, I'm not saying false flag. I just don't understand how to reconcile the risk with the reward here. If Assad was just testing the waters it was a hell of a gambit! He put the entire basis of his current power on the line for it! Trump is a reactionary, he could have easily said "Fuck you" and ordered strikes on LOTS of his infrastructure, such as it may be in that nation. He put whatever faith and profit Putin gets from this arrangement on the line as well.
>I'm not saying he wasn't testing the waters, but why so pricey a dice roll?
Haha, sorry. It's really hard to separate outright conspiracy theorists from people asking genuine questions.
It's not that huge of a risk for him. America has to tread carefully here. Remember Assad has Putin's support. That alone ensures he's got a pretty large guarantee of safety. Trump knows Putin supports Assad. Trump doesn't want to cross Putin because then Russia and America are actively against each other, something nobody wants. So Trump also knows he can't just outright carpet bomb Syria and take care of Assad like that, Putin would absolutely have something to say about that, and Trump, or rather Mattis knows that this game is very delicate.
This was a calculated maneuver on all sides.
Assad tests the waters, Trump postures and establishes the stance of America, and Putin exercises his influence by keeping the chess game measured.
We just saw a black pawn take a white pawn, and a white knight take a black pawn. These are small and measured movements that won't cause any serious over reactions.
Not to mention everybody gains from this in some way.
>Assad knows where America stands.
>Trump improves his approval rating and now he appears tough on terror.
>Putin knows that America is hesitant to cross him, still allows him a lot of room for control in Syria.
>Trump is a reactionary, he could have easily said "Fuck you" and ordered strikes on LOTS of his infrastructure, such as it may be in that nation.
To address this specifically, Trump knows almost nothing of the situation in Syria in my opinion. I strongly believe that Mattis urged him to respond.
Trump is hopefully aware of how ignorant (not being offensive, he just honestly lacks the knowledge of the situation) he is about the civil war in Syria and the trouble in the Middle East. Remember he has 0 experience in foreign policy, he only has experience as it relates to business. So I hope that he turned to Mattis and asked "what should I do." If he did that, that shows he's willing to accept guidance on issues he's unfamiliar with which is actually a very good sign for most people who disagree with him.
No harm done! I know, it's damn near impossible to have a real discussion here.
Concerning Trump's stance on terror, do you believe the language coming from the Secretary of State that this is not the opening move of a larger game? Was that political theater to confuse Assad, there by robbing him of the things he hoped to find out? Because if not it sends a weird message.
Oh I'd love for that to be the case! Trump's ego has gotten in his, and our way in almost every single action he's undertaken. The idea of that mentality being his guide in matters of warfare makes me want to vomit in terror!