U.S. attacks Syria

Post Reply New Topic

You guys might know this but there is a theory going on that Putin planned the chemical attack to distract from the Russian collusion with Trump. No evidence for it but does that necessarily mean it's not true? You never know anymore with the way the world is now.

Another possible angle to the U.S. attacks on Syria.....

the more that social media prevails, the more that the decision makers will become secretive which leads to crackpot conspiracy theories and stuff, but at least does not invite input from IQ's of 100 (average) to influence public sentiments.

so things i have noted.

putin condemned the US air strikes on syria as being "ill thought out" (but did not go so far as to say it was an act of incitement to war with the russians).

what else could he say? his country made a pact with syria to defend them ages ago, and all the hype surrounding the speculation about US/russian collusion would be very much amplified if he condoned it.

his condemnation was just a token act.

then someone else i know is speculating that WW3 is likely as a result, and their reasoning is because america has moved naval strike forces within range of syria, and russian war ships are also "steaming" toward the region.

ok it looks like russia's navy will be within hitting range of the US navy (and vice verse) therefore spark a conflict of massive proportions if one fires a shot at the other.

but again i consider it a token gesture to maintain the status quo and stop facebook going beserk with conspiracy theories which would gain weight otherwise.

on another note, the other night as i was going to sleep i was watching a documentary about how WW1 was inculcated.

at one point the narrator said "early in the eruption of WW1, every country involved was convinced that it was fighting a defensive war imposed upon them by someone else"

that seemed hilarious and i laughed at the cartoonish kind of comedy of errors, but that's the biggest worry we have.

confusion.

if russia and the US know exactly each others plans and intentions, then it will never get out of hand like a "panic war" which WW1 started as.

whatever...

anyway i did not just "swallow" what i heard about WW1 with no further input.

i may be wrong in my understanding ( i went to sleep during the show), but to summarize it:


prince ferdinand of the austrian-hungarian empire was in serbia for some salutory visit (pr trip) and was sniped by an opportunist when fedinand's driver went down the wrong street and was attempting to back out of the street.

austria felt like it should retaliate but knew that russia would defend serbia, so called germany into the potential fray if it escalated because germany and them were allies.

so russia saw the mobilization of the german weaponry toward their border and called in france who were their allies to be ready to act if necessary.

then russia rolled it's weapons near the german border just in case it was the beginning of an invasion by germany into their country.

germany saw this as being a potential russian invasion into germany and then some clown said "fire" and the whole saga of WW1 was sparked off.

very abbreviated of course because it has nothing to do with the thread except for the fact that communication is the barrier between panic and decisiveness.

You catch little bits and pieces, throughout the whole election cycle, to the effect that he was never a self-made man, and nobody ever wants to hear that, ever. Although it's fun and easy to blame a blustering, orange distraction, (or, perhaps, some flaming iguana) the real decision makers are probably along the lines of special interests.