djones520 wrote:
We spent a good chunk of the year not flying, and training, keeping our pilots the best in the world.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ah... but you see... you got a very charismatic, multiracial, multicultural president... who would reclaim our world's "Prestige" after loathsome monsters of Bush & Co... Who would bring peace to the world and stop the rising oceans and Global Warming(TM). And now here he is, on the verge of starting yet another war without our staunchest allies...

(snip)

I'm already on record that we need to do something...

(snip)

I’m just waiting for the people who shrieked for 10 years about the invasion of Iraq to tell me why this time it’s "different".

And, as much as I'd like to give you a pass after that riveting gif (which I have saved for further research in my bunk) I feel I need to point out the inconsistency you, and several others, have displayed.

In this very thread, we've determined Obama is a coward who who fails to act to save lives because he's also a warmonger starting wars of aggression into things that are none of our business yet he's also Jimmy Carter somehow because he let the UK parliament vote against it (lol, btw) and he's indecisive for seeking congressional approval even though we always argue that the president needs firmer checks by Congress. You guys are attempting to have your cake and eat it too because it's more important to establish that Obama is bad then it is to be consistent in what it is you want.

I get that this is an ideal situation for libertarians, conservatives and other republicans because we all know that no matter what the president does (including nothing), it's going to be pretty unpopular and useful as a partisan beatstick... but it doesn't always have to be point scoring for the team.

 Warpig1815 wrote:
@djones520 - Welcome to the club - It's not just the US military who get fethed over by their own government. The UK military, despite having the 4th largest military expenditure and the 2nd largest power projection in the world (Owing to our status as the only other nation, aside from the US, who can conduct and independent combined arms assault overseas) regularly takes yearly cuts, mostly in order to fund such wonderful schemes as building a high speed rail link between cities (Which will be nigh unaffordable to regular commuters). The high speed link is proposed to cost £42 billion and yet, we have no carrier capability until 2018 when we get two new carriers. Each of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers (Similar in size to the USS Nimitz) cost in the region of £3.9 billion - so you tell me which would be a more sensible use of funding? Potentially building a further 10 Nimitz sized carriers or joining bankers second homes together with a fancy train system?

It's honestly a shocking state of affairs. I don't mean to be scathing at all here, but the British Army has regiments that are literally older than the US nation, and yet all that history is thrown out of the window when they are disbanded to save money that is then put into building a shiny new office block for Councillor so and so. Bizarrely, the UK government seems to think that reducing the number of regular, experienced troops and replacing them with territorial troops (Who, whilst dedicated, are simply not as experienced or rigorously trained) is a viable solution to cut costs and maintain military capability...

"The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

-- John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, to sum up, Obama has made himself like weak, needlessly lost the political support of a key ally, and is now going cap in hand to congress.

 dogma wrote:


No.

You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.

To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"

 whembly wrote:

If the (R)'s in the House voted not to support it... and there's more atrocity in Syria... they'll be blamed for it.

By whom?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?

 dogma wrote:

Any transaction the a citizen of the SNI engaged in which involved a citizen of the US, prior to 1924, would have been subject to federal tariffs and federal income taxes.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Not true. Under the treaty of 1842 the Seneca are exempt most taxes and tariffs (again, a subject of much RAGE from the state of New York and IRS, both of whom have been trying to find a way to legally enforce US and State Taxes on SNI citizens), until such time as they should sell the remainder of their New York Territory to the US. As this has not yet happened...

 whembly wrote:

I've stated that I'm simultaneously of enjoying and weary of the schadenfreude going on with this... I'm mean... it's like making fun of Bush's last name... 'cuz IT'S. RIGHT. THERE! At the same time, I gave kudos to the Prez for doing what he's doing right now.

 whembly wrote:

Buy those seeking to score political points... duh!

 dogma wrote:

Well, you learn something new every day.

Also, after a bit of research, the SNI seems horribly racist and authoritarian. I mean, anyone that isn't of native descent must lease property from the tribe?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?

 Haight wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I can't remember but was the War Powers Resolution used for Libya, or did Congress vote on it?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but Libya was ultimately a UN resolution peacekeeping / humanitarian mission, right ?

No need, then, in that case, to go to congress.


( i could be wrong on this... when Libya was going down, i was sorta all middle-easted out at the time and tried to follow it as little as possible... i thought it was ultimately UN backed though, with the goal of removing Gaddhafi from power, and we withdrew our part of the coalition upon that being confirmed, or shortly thereafter).

 whembly wrote:

Now, if it were a NATO mission... then yeah, Prez could go to town because it's Treaty driven.

 dogma wrote:

Not that it matters, as the President would still need to seek Congressional approval after 60 days if it had been a NATO mission from the beginning.

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.

Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.

Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.

In a separate incident in Adana, police reportedly received intelligence that an explosive-laden vehicle had entered the town of Adana on Thursday, the Taraf daily reports.

Ankara has attempted to bolster the Syrian opposition without becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war, a policy which Damascus claims lead to the deadliest act of terrorism on Turkish soil.

On May 11, 51 people were killed and 140 injured after two car bombs exploded in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı, located near the country’s border with Syria.A dozen Turkish nationals have been charged in the twin bombings, and Ankara has accused Damascus of helping the suspects carry out the attack.

“This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency],” Interior Minister Muammer Guler said.

Syria’s Information Minister Omran Zoubi denied any link the attack, saying his country “did not commit and would never commit such an act because our values would not allow that”.Zoubi further charged the Turkish government had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, funds and fighters across the country’s border into Syria, claiming that that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party bear direct responsibility [for the attack].”

Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
So, to sum up, Obama has made himself like weak, needlessly lost the political support of a key ally, and is now going cap in hand to congress.

The nerve he has, following the law, huh?

I posted several times that whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional is debatable, but I personally am in the "it's solid law" camp. I know that the actual declaring of war is now archaic and does not happen, but I still believe the intent of the founders were utterly and unambiguously clear in that the decision to begin hostilities rests with the congress, not the president. He has nearly unfettered authority to prosecute those hostilities was as he sees fit; so long as they don't pull the funding, but starting a conflict is not in the purview of the Executive.

The War Powers resolution delegated a little of this authority to the President to deal with exigent emergencies when American holdings are directly attacked. I think this is right and proper as well and in the best interests of the direct national security of the US homeland; while still ultimately retaining that authority where it belongs.


Your analogy is even more laughable when you consider the single thing Carter is most memorable for is the failure of a military operation he authorized, without the prior approval of Congress, which failed due to military incompetence.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Now, if it were a NATO mission... then yeah, Prez could go to town because it's Treaty driven.

It became a NATO mission.

Not that it matters, as the President would still need to seek Congressional approval after 60 days if it had been a NATO mission from the beginning.

Edits: Because apparently I can't type today.

 Ouze wrote:
You can read an article on it here.

I wish... I wish if we were going to intervene, we could at least do so in a way that would make a difference, you know? But I don't think we can do that short of invading them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Thank you very much, I couldn't recall what happened with Libya.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:


No.

You constantly rail against the concept of scoring points for political reasons. And yet here you are, admitting that you are trying to score points for political reasons while lamely hiding such activity behind .gifs of female breasts.

doggie... you need to re-read the thread then.

I've stated that I'm simultaneously of enjoying and weary of the schadenfreude going on with this... I'm mean... it's like making fun of Bush's last name... 'cuz IT'S. RIGHT. THERE! At the same time, I gave kudos to the Prez for doing what he's doing right now.

To me it reads as: "Hey everybody, don't pay attention to anything I said, let us all objectify this famous woman!"

I'm sorry... what did you say? I was distracted by Katie:

 whembly wrote:

If the (R)'s in the House voted not to support it... and there's more atrocity in Syria... they'll be blamed for it.

By whom?

Buy those seeking to score political points... duh!

There's been a lot of talk about the absence of a strong and visible anti-war movement, the way there was during the George W. Bush Presidency. While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama. If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat, you'd be correct!

In 2011, Professors Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas published a study titled: The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization Of The Antiwar Movement In The United States 2007-2009 which looked at nearly 6,000 surveys of anti-war demonstrators between January 2007 and December 2009. This one chart basically tells the whole story. The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.


As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.

 whembly wrote:
@Do_I_Not_Like_ThatMade

I'm shocked... SHOCKED I say!
Research: 2000s anti-war movement was really just anti-Republican.

There's been a lot of talk about the absence of a strong and visible anti-war movement, the way there was during the George W. Bush Presidency. While there are protests against intervention in Syria, in general the movement seems to be a lot weaker under Obama. If you guessed that this had something to do with the fact that Obama is a Democrat, you'd be correct!

In 2011, Professors Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas published a study titled: The Partisan Dynamics of Contention: Demobilization Of The Antiwar Movement In The United States 2007-2009 which looked at nearly 6,000 surveys of anti-war demonstrators between January 2007 and December 2009. This one chart basically tells the whole story. The percentage of Democrats attending anti-war protests collapsed at the end of 2008, and in early 2009.


As Democrats are the biggest block of any of these groups, this desertion of the Democratic party was the major blow.

During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.

Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.

Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House's reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.

He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.

"There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition," Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given "a chance to speak directly to the American people" to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

"They're not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal... to only have al-Qaeda run Syria," Mr Graham said.

The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.

Never Go to War without the Support of Your People

In 2006, the talking points from London and Washington insisted: we had won the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq was not in civil war. To say otherwise was apostasy.

In 2006, British Defense Secretary John Reid was famously quoted on Afghanistan:

"We are in the south to help and protect the Afghan people construct their own democracy.

"We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction."

Adversaries made Mr. Reid’s comment more infamous by misquoting him that British forces would leave "without a single shot being fired."

By 2008, the British alone had fired 4 million shots. They were just getting warmed up. Nor was this the first British intervention in Afghanistan. Coalition Casualties from 2009-2012 eclipsed those from the first eight years by more than two-fold. Today the casualties continue. For what?

Reading the 2006 archives from Afghanistan, remembering that I was there in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and recalling how the war grew, unveils a vast web of lies, fantasy, magical thinking, and political sorcery that is crazier than the most imaginative fiction.

Were so many politicians and military advisors lying? Or were they just ignorant?

They get their information from briefings. The people briefing the politicians get their information from other briefings, and those briefers get their information from reports, often written by people who never leave any base.

Is it any wonder that commanders go ape when a PowerPoint slide is not perfect? They may need to cannibalize those slides for another briefing. Bad news is often attenuated: a messenger that delivers too much bad news will inevitably suffer for it. Take that from a war correspondent. If you want to be loved, write about popular wars that we win, not unpopular wars that we fumble. Write only about heroes, never about disgraces or war criminals. The truth will not save you when it is bad news. Commanders know this. And so the typical message is, “We were winning when I was there.”

Swooping into Afghanistan for a briefing enables the decision-maker to claim the credibility of “I was there, talking with our commanders,” yet those briefings might as well have been teleconferences between the Pentagon and the White House, or from Earth to Mars.

A small number go the distance to verify ground truth. One of them is Adam Holloway, former British Army officer turned investigative journalist, who then was elected to Parliament.

Mr. Holloway, without consulting his government, slipped into Afghanistan using his own funds, and he searched for the seeds of truth using his own hands. I met Adam there by chance one day on a gravel airstrip at Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in 2006. Shortly before the war really began.

The giant British base of Camp Bastion was under construction deep in the desert of Helmand. I photographed the first aircraft to land on the runway, which was built by my friend, Steve Shaulis. The RAF C-130 landed with no complications. There was not even a fence around the runway.

This was still 2006, when there were practically no defenses around Bastion.

Six years later, during the moonless night of 14 September 2012, Taliban fighters infiltrated the now heavily fortified Camp Bastion and wiped out most of a squadron of US Marine Harrier jets. Marine Sgt. Bradley Atwell was killed defending the squadron, as was the Squadron Commander, Lt. Col. Christopher Raible.

Despite thousands of Coalition casualties by 2012, commanders still so underestimated the enemy that they left guard towers unmanned. It was a costly mistake.

For more on that 2012 attack:Afghanistan: When the Moon sets, Watch out

In 2006, Mr. Holloway returned to the UK and asserted that it was a mistake to deploy troops. War was on the winds. Mr. Holloway and I were not magical meteorologists foretelling next year’s hurricane season; we were saying clearly that Hurricane Afghanistan was formed. The only reason you do not see it, is because you are not here, nor are most of those folks making the PowerPoints.

While Mr. Holloway raised the alarm in London, I flew back to America and I wrote twelve major dispatches warning that we were losing the war in Afghanistan. We became unpopular men for delivering bad news.

Adam stood his ground. And over the last seven years, he earned my respect and we became friends. I sometimes ask Adam for his views.

With Syria reaching full pitch in 2013, allegations that President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on 21 August against his own people roiled the airwaves.

A year after the Benghazi attack that claimed our Ambassador and other Americans, we still have few answers. Speculation and conspiracy theories run rampant, while our government dodges the matter.

Yet mere days after the alleged chemical attacks in Syria, President Obama claimed that he had proof that Assad committed this crime against humanity, despite the fact that conditions for investigation in Syria are far more challenging than they are in Benghazi.

In the Middle Eastern environment of perpetual exaggeration, the highest death estimate by the rebels was 1,300 men, women and children killed. The US administration raised the rebel estimate to 1,429. Can we get a blood sample?

The bodies were buried within 24 hours in accordance with Islamic custom. Hardly enough time get an exact count of 1,429. From where did this number derive? Every serious combat trooper, cop, correspondent, anyone who sees action first hand and then sees reports, knows that first reports are always wrong, and often very wrong.

Nobody doubts that chemicals were used, but who did it? A rogue general? And where is the primary source for the count of 1,429?

Are these body reports cobbled together from second or third hand sources that might include double and triple counts, rumors, or complete fabrications? Syria is, after all, the navel of the Middle East, a wellspring for rumors, exaggerations, conspiracy theories, and the most obvious lies created by man.

The casualty count of 1,429 is important. If President Obama plays fast and furious with casualties, it is fair to wonder whether he is playing sloppy with alleged communications intercepts.

In our current nightmare, we find it easier to believe that the NSA is reading our emails than effectively eavesdropping on Syria. The White House should lay its casualty counts on the table, face-up. Its credibility is on the line.

Importantly, by saying we have “proof” of war crimes committed by Assad, we are saying we have proof that Assad is a war criminal. Assad knows the likely scenarios from here:

1) Fight to stay in power and prevail.
2) Fight and lose, and be killed on the streets like Gaddafi, hanged like Saddam, or life in prison.

President Obama has ipso facto called President Assad a war criminal. Assad does not need a powerful calculator to figure his odds if he fails to maintain power.

Last week, while UK and US leaders were rallying to smash Syria in the mouth, I contacted Member of Parliament Adam Holloway for his thoughts. Adam responded within the hour:

“Outrage is not a strategy. I thought military action always had to have a purpose behind it – so what is the endstate here? Hit, and then hope?

“I am not sure in what way even limited strikes help the people living in my constituency: how does this further Britain’s or America’s national security?

“There cannot be a sane person in Britain who would not think it a good thing for us to get involved in the war in Syria if by doing so it would ease the horrors faced by the Syrian people – and dire risks to people in neighbouring countries.

“We must be guided not by our alliance to America, but by our duty to understand that military force should only be used in support of a clear purpose and with a clear objective in mind - in support of our national interest. I am yet to be convinced that there is a strong and clear-cut case that military action will deter the Syrian government from using chemical weapons – nor am I convinced that in 20 years time some other tyrant thinking of using chemical weapons will turn around and say to his or herself “Whoops, better not do that: remember what Obama, Cameron and Hollande did back in the summer of 2013”.

“The use of chemical weapons was indeed a crime against all of humanity. But by firing one missile we are involving ourselves in a civil war on the side of a fractured opposition which includes people with proud links to Al Qaeda. By striking now, without clear cause and purpose, we risk consequences that we have not even thought of: this is a case of hit – and then hope.”

MP Adam Holloway’s erudite words are published with permission.

Adam then emailed that he was going to vote, and of course the rest is history. Adam voted NO, and indeed the British Parliament voted against action in Syria, leaving President Obama absent our most steadfast ally.

Now, on the verge of a nearly unilateral attack, President Obama claims that he is war weary. The French and the Turks still push us to launch, and of course the Saudis and other Gulf states would like to see our missiles fly, though no approval from the UN Security Council is possible with Russia and China blocking.

Realizing that most Americans and our most trusted allies reject Syrian intervention, President Obama now puts it to the Congress to decide. This provides Obama a backdoor to save face, though it would have been more honest to ask Congress up front, had he truly cared about their opinions.

President Obama backed down and, oddly, is taking refuge behind Congress, when he could have said, “I do not have sufficient support from our allies or from other Americans, and as much as it is right to do this, the UN Security Council, many of our foreign allies, and the people who elected me, have spoken. I am, ultimately, a servant to American citizens. You have spoken. I have listened. There will be no attack at this time.”

Those words would reek of authenticity. Credibility would be bolstered. They are not words of weakness. They would be words of humility, spoken by a President who properly consulted Congress, and who listened to the will of the Republic. They would be the words of a leader.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ba_1369971995

Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb.

The sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say. The gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out an attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

On Monday, Turkish special anti-terror forces arrested 12 suspected members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Al-Qaeda affiliated group which has been dubbed “the most aggressive and successful arm” of the Syrian rebels. The group was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in December.

Police also reportedly found a cache of weapons, documents and digital data which will be reviewed by police.

Following the searches, five of those detained were released following medical examinations at the Forensic Medicine Institution Adana. Seven suspects remain in custody. Turkish authorities are yet to comment on the arrests.

In a separate incident in Adana, police reportedly received intelligence that an explosive-laden vehicle had entered the town of Adana on Thursday, the Taraf daily reports.

Ankara has attempted to bolster the Syrian opposition without becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war, a policy which Damascus claims lead to the deadliest act of terrorism on Turkish soil.

On May 11, 51 people were killed and 140 injured after two car bombs exploded in the Turkish town of Reyhanlı, located near the country’s border with Syria.A dozen Turkish nationals have been charged in the twin bombings, and Ankara has accused Damascus of helping the suspects carry out the attack.

“This incident was carried out by an organization which is in close contact to pro-regime groups in Syria and I say this very clearly, with the Syrian Mukhabarat [intelligence agency],” Interior Minister Muammer Guler said.

Syria’s Information Minister Omran Zoubi denied any link the attack, saying his country “did not commit and would never commit such an act because our values would not allow that”.Zoubi further charged the Turkish government had facilitated the flow of arms, explosives, funds and fighters across the country’s border into Syria, claiming that that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party bear direct responsibility [for the attack].”

Reports of chemical weapons use by both Damascus and the Syrian opposition have surrounded the conflict in Syria for months.

Yep. Clearly should be getting involved here. We just have to help those poor rebels!

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Wait. The 50+ peeps that got trained and went across the border into Syria. Are we forming a new "Front" or training a "Front" that we "like"

Could you rephrase the question?