To be seriously scared

[biscuitraider]

About the situation with Russia and the US. Putin said he'll shoot down any US missiles fired at Assad forces. Are we on the verge of all out war? Please calm me down.

You're right Coyoacan - I should have said Ukraine.

I am worried about the way the world is going at the moment. We seem to be on the edge of WW3. My grandpa fought in WW2. I'll never forget some of the things he told me and the trauma in his eyes. (He had dementia and often thought I was someone from years before I was born, otherwise I don't think that he would have talked about some of it with me, a child). The thing is even though worrying about it won't necessarily stop a war, I do think about what I would do to try and protect my DD and I. I think of those survivalist types who prepare themselves for the end of the world and wish I owned a property out bush somewhere, dig a bomb shelter, hoard food and supplies. Unfortunately, I can't afford that. Hmm, what to do, what to do?

"Russia has been causing trouble for years, Uzbekistan, assisinating Litvenyenko, trying to assisnate the Skirpals, cyber meddling in the us elections and the eu referendum"

You should believe everything the BBC tells you.

It was Cambridge Analytica that was cyber meddling in the us elections and the eu referendum

And there is absolutely no proof that it was Russia that tried to assassinate Skirpals.

There is no independent proof that was even a chemical attack in Syria, but if there was, there is a lot more reason to believe it was carried out by some group like ISIS or Al Qaeda, than to believe that Russia and Assad would have.

Correction "You should not believe everything the BBC tells you"

Generally I find that the BBC doesn't exactly lie, it just uses a lot of emotive language and puts undue emphasis on some things and ignores others, in a way that has nothing to do with being objective and neutral.

Just out of interest coyoacan , supposing the chemical weapon attack was orchestrated by Isil or another murderous set of bastards, how did they lay their hands on the weapons ? Have they the ability to set up the chemical warfare equivalent of a meth lab? If the Assad regime had never even contemplated manufacturing or using such weapons , one would imagine they would be difficult to come by in a war zone.

Generally I find that the BBC doesn't exactly lie, it just uses a lot of emotive language and puts undue emphasis on some things and ignores others, in a way that has nothing to do with being objective and neutral.

Of course you shouldn't take the bbc at face value, thanks to labour after iraq etc it has become somewhat legally a government mouthpiece, and still prominent labour supporters are shouting from the rooftops because some journalists and reporters are conservatives, so think about the creep when Labour next take hold.

But that doesn't mean they are impartial and why we do have substantial soft power across the globe, they are not on the levels of RT yet.

As for documented proof, the UN have documented proof of around 28 attacks from the Assad regime using chemical weapons, and with Russia being on the UN and SC boards nothing much gets done.

Considering this air strike was nothing more than a PR stunt and Russia/Syria have been notified of targets so troops can get out, this is not an "evil west" scenario.

If you are trying to insinuate a false flag you have to put on your tin foil hat and exclude the previous instances of documented proof and give a credible reason as to why we have let Russia back Assad since 2013.

they are not impartial

I am trying to say they have always been pro government depending on party, it ramped up after the last labour gov, but the BBC have along with other means meant we have an enormous soft power and its why we punch well above our weight

Just out of interest coyoacan , supposing the chemical weapon attack was orchestrated by Isil or another murderous set of bastards, how did they lay their hands on the weapons

Well, have you never, like me, wondered who armed ISIS in the first place? I don't have the answer but it seemed like out of the clear blue sky this victorious army was taking in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries with sophisticated weaponry.

I'm not defending Assad. I know little enough about him and not much good. But he has virtually won the war so why would he carry out a chemical attack for no good reason? And what is so much worse about a chemical attack than being bombed?

WRT Iraq I suspect there was a lot of weapons already on the ground in various factions hands that could have fallen into the hands of another faction.
And what is so much worse about a chemical attack than being bombed?

Honestly ? if you are on the ground when both occur , probably not a great deal of difference with respect to the horrific outcome, is it better to see your child blown to smithereens or slowly asphyxiate ?

The point is nobody is supposed to use chemical weapons, ever.

what is so much worse about a chemical attack than being bombed

Probably the major difference is that chemical attack is relatively cheap with old style ingredients that nobody makes much cash out of. Whereas missiles!!!!!??? That’s where the real money is.

what is so much worse about a chemical attack than being bombed

Chemical and biological attacks kill people without damaging buildings. So if you want to move your own people into a city quickly and cheaply you would use chemical.

Coyoacan I agree that some skepticism re: our news sources is healthy, but I wanted to point out that just because Cambridge Analytica was involved in 'cyber meddling' does not mean Russia was not. The Mueller investigation did recently indict 13 Russians for 'information warfare' during the 2016 election after all, so I'd say they have some pretty strong evidence there.