Trump going full interventionist?
y'all gonna get drafted to Syria soon lads
Hopefully Barron can keep up the family tradition of dodging it.
The whole world is corrupt lmao
It was only a matter of time
kek kek kek kek kek
Why are lebanese grills so qt?
YES
F U L L A C C E L E R A T I O N
FORWARD COMRADE TRUMP
g-good thing we didn't vote for that cuck Hillary, otherwise we'd be having World War 3!
once again Holla Forums got cucked by their Clinton infiltrator fanfuckingtastic.
Best way to save children is of course to bomb the government controlling about 80% of the population.
Weird how it followed right on the heels of the attacks in Leningrad too. Can't have too much sympathy with the evil Russians now.
banon was also removed.
guess Trump is becoming an actual president.
maybe he isn't a complete ass after all
Kek, is Trump even aware it's a false flag?
He is a total Idiot.
the Russian MOD already told the world that they bombed a wharehouse where the "rebels" HTS Alnusra where producing/storing chemical weapons.
youtube.com
but it might not be
interventionism is wrong, but this could very well be the regime's work too
forgot to mention skip video to 2:26 if you want fast info on the chemical attacks.
The world being full of this liberal and reddit tier reliance on evidence to the point of absolute certainty to disprove the prevailing narrative lets them get away with shit like this all the time. It makes no logical sense strategically or politically for Syria to do this, therefore they didn't do it.
BUT I THOUGHT BANNON WAS LENINIST, RUSSIAN KGB AGENTS CONTROL TRUMPS EVERY MOVE, PUTIN IS CONTROL YOUR MIND
Even if it is, there should still not be an intervention. Even if Assad went out and gassed 10,000 people tomorrow, the damage done by an intervention and overthrow of the regime would be worse. We've seen this movie already.
The question of why doesn't always have to have a completely logical answer. Khan Sheikhoun is historically a very anti Assad place and was a hotbed of Muslim Brotherhood activity. Institutional hatred of certain places in SAA and SyAAF is certainly a thing. This attack could very well be purely to terrorise the people of Khan Sheikhoun into subservience and submission. Much of the Baathist way of dealing with dissent is destroying it completely or pulverising it into submission. This could be just another form of that. The decision to do this doesn't necessarily have to come from Assad either.
Now it also could be a case of the rebels false flagging, or the regime acidentally hitting their chemical weapons depot.
But cancelling things out purely because it's not logical is retarded. Especially in an organisation as incompetent as the Syrian Arab Army.
Cosmic surgery is a big thing there
...
...
Interventionism is about gaining power in the region. It was never about helping anyone but a very few.
wat
No tears, only accelerationism now.
I can't wait for all these 14 y/o polyps to get drafted to go die in some Middle East shithole. Feels like…justice.
it was a joke user
It's just 1488 dimensional chess, you cucks.
you mean reign hell from above in an AC-130?
Sending Holla Forums to fight in the middle east is a shitty idea.
Hillary would be doing the same thing. Foreign policy is impossible to change due to the global nature of capitalism. The US has to stop Russia and China.
He wrote "cosmic" instead of "cosmetic" and that prompted the other user to make a reference to Lovecraftian horror
Holla Forums is revolting over it.
Think on the good side of it, Assad will go away.
T H I C C
...
Whats with all the crypto neocons on this board?
Weren't Assad and the FSA supposed to be on a ceasefire?
Reminder: The chemical attacks were a false flag by American-sponsored rebels.
You misspelled "israeli-sponsored"
She's gorgeous.
...
If you cheer for an intervention, you are a neocon
By all accounts even the russian spin is "assad's bombs set of a rebel chemical depot" i sincerely doubt the rebel's ability to get assad to bomb the exact right spot necessary for their false flag
Oy vey
I'm not cheering for an intervention, just for Assad's fall.
And be replaced with what? Al-Nusra? The "Free Syrian Army" (a.k.a. Turkey)? Or maybe just a US stooge?
Of all the choices you gave, the last would be the best.
She's pretty but out of touch (or propagating) that she doesn't know that the attacks will going for days.
...
Aren't al-nusra and FSA linked? But yeah, I lowkey hope that Assad gets ousted because I can't stand a balkanized homeostasis with Rojava (and you know that they'd just otherwise come to an agreement more or less indefinitely)
Yeah, the "FSA" is fractured and broken with most jihadist groups allied with Al Nursa (or whatever they call themselves now). A federalized Syria may be the only option to sate both sides and would ensure the continued existence of demconfed in Rojava
The entire damn mainstream media has revved up the propaganda. Using "dictator" instead of "leader", interviewing totally unbiased sources like Turkish ministers, and of course, the same cunts that flat-out told us Saddam had WMDs are now saying Assad used chemical weapons.
Oh, that's right, they thought Hillary was going to start WW3 over Syria. Oh to be so young and naïve again.
Just LAST week Trumps SOS said no more regime change. Do you think anyone forgot that?
Don't you think he's been utterly shafted here and has to to manouever out of the neo-con trap somehow? He's got literally no support now in his own Gov, they all ran off shouting about war and he's fucked if he does, and fucked if he disobeys them.
The opposition against Assad is nothing short of depressing. You would think there would be a socialist group or other there, Kurds notwithstanding, even if Assad does like to claim he himself is a bit socialist. No, the rebels are almost all Islamists as far as the eye can see, and if there's an independent socialist group, it's insignificant.
Assad-led federal Syria with Rojavan autonomy is really the only good scenario.
The SoS is meaningless at best and a patsy at worst. I get the feeling you're too young to remember the W years.
Not when the CIA already started back funding the rebels, the UN sec is shouting at Russians and going full Colon Powell, and your SOS has reversed the stated position of one week ago, it's a fait accompli when Trump only has himself, and the whole Penatagon/Intel/and Bureaucracy want a war.
…Isn't that basically what I'm saying? It doesn't matter what the SoS says, they can't singularly stop the advent of war when the so called "permanent government" structures are all clamoring for it.
Yes, he should be a patsy, he's off running his mouth, like the rest of them, trying to do so much it can't be turned around. Trump is fucked.
That would require skill Holla Forumsyps lack unless they're able to figure out some sort of control interface based on calling everything they dislike jewish
I don't want war or intervention at all, but my dick is so hard right now
What did they expect Badumpf to say? If media and intelligence reports say that Assad's forces gassed some civilians then Trump needs to say something about it. This is him actually trying to act presidential. Did Holla Forums expect "Hurr Based Assad lmao Constantinople sson?" No he actually has to act as the representative of the global hegemon and police enforcer. Trump already deployed special forces and rangers to Syria he's already an interventionist he hasn't attacked Assad's forces yet tho so far this is just more deep concern typical of Western politicians when shit like this happens
Do you guys would oppose a U.S.-led forced regime change in Saudi Arabia (yes, I know it won't happen any time soon)?
That's like asking if we'd oppose regime change in Israel. It's just never going to fucking happen as long as sa countinues to back USA. What a fucking stupid question
I don't even support US regime change against ISIS and the Taliban because for one it's not about ISIS and the Taliban it's about other shit and even if it was about liberal democracy spreading I wouldn't support it either because it's a retarded reason to bomb people you yourself created after crushing the nation state system they lived under and because you can't bomb an ideology and you can't bomb terrorism out of existence.
But hypothetically if the US decides to regime change Saudi Arabia that means that Saudi Arabia acted against US interests and moved out of the US orbit in which case Saudi Arabia did something right making their cause supportable
Honestly, yes.
Yeah I know, leftists ought to oppose imperialist interventions and the new regime will probably just be a pseudo-liberal farce anyway, but the Saudi government has become such a pox on the face of Earth that blatant imperialism against them is still the lesser evil, no question.
They're Trots
:^)
I'd have very mixed feelings about it. Depends on who they back to take over the country - if it were an Afghanistan-style operation where the US backed a different band of Islamists while leaving Taliban legislation in place and also looting the country, I'd probably protest.
But man protesting it would leave a bitter taste in my mouth; I wish the whole family would get Romanov'd.
I completely hate her guts, but I feel like she actually would know better than to start a war over this. Shit happens, you know? You really want to take that guy's bishop because you /hate/ it when bishops do X, but you can only use your queen and using it will get both players killed irl because you're held at gunpoint by nuclear weapons to not do anything stupid because you feel like it. She's a nitwit who blindly chases power for some vague sense of personal fulfillment, but she at least has the sense to keep her emotions under check when making political decisions and to listen to the advisers around her. Russia's already involved in Syria, so she would likely "intervene" somewhere else, like in Kazakhstan or some other buffer state of Russia to get them to back down. It would be the military-industrial complex running itself. With Trump, the industrial side leaps at any chance to sell more arms, to hell if it's this last shipment which will be used to start WW3 and destroy everything they worked for. The military side will sigh internally and obey orders as usual. Hillary would have control only in the most narrow, formal sense of the word, being a rubber stamp for what the military internally decides must be done, but the system would function and we might not all die today in a nuclear fireball. Trump really is in control, but no one individual can control the vast machine that is the US military-industrial complex in an effective manner, let alone an incompetent, narcissistic, sheltered bourgeois trust fund baby. We're all going to die because of this. Thanks, Holla Forums.
I cant even imagine the shit-show that would develop if the Saudi family went belly up. A lot of reactionary Islamist types in SA are kept in line through a combination of stringent repression as well as a long history of appeasement. If the Saudis were replaced with the sort of corrupt toadies that the US seems to love to put into power, the country would just turn into another Iraq. Although it's true that with the Saudis out of the picture much of the funding that goes into the propagation of Wahabbism would disappear it couldn't do away with other similar ideologies like the many different kinds of Salafism and the Deobandi Movement. So while we would see a marked decrease in the number of jihadis running around in the long term, the sheer amount of human misery created in the short term wouldn't necessarily make it worth it.
Also, considering the fact that the start of any kind of world revolution, or even any kind of tepid succdem government that is outside of Scandinavia is infinitely more likely to be crushed by the US empire rather than Islamic insurgency. Then it follows that the Saudis getting wiped out to the Western Foreign Policy Establishment's benefit would be a pretty unambiguous detriment to the political developments that I would like to see happen in the world.
The whole world is corrupt indeed, but having a retard like Trump escalating things on this level is just not necessary.
Where is this "Hillary wouldn't start a war" idiotic delusion is coming from?
She just wouldn't start it in the same area where Russia's imperializing, because this leads directly to nukes when Americans invade and end up shooting down a Russian fighter or they bomb American troops on accident. She'd start a war elsewhere - her campaign donations and speaking fees depend on it.
Trump's doing this either because he has suicidal advisers or (more likely) he saw reports of the chemical weapon use on children and finally found his empathy at the worst possible moment. He's an impulsive child with a lot of money and power.
Escalating Syria into war with Russia, China, and Iran is precisely the point.