FWIS3

It was a professional hit. They used a two part version so only when combined on the victim would it be lethal. Hence two women spraying him. No other observation. Just found that interesting.

So, did anyone predict Syria in the thread until now?

I think the Middle East was always on the people's minds.

Yeah, it's just a given hey...

My sister and I are in a text war right now with my brother, because we have to explain to him that having Jared in charge of stuff in the Middle East and that Obama is not really the one to blame right now in Syria are both perhaps setting a low bar. FML.

Well don't show him this

I won't.

So really, I was thinking about it and frankly I don't think a bunch of missiles in response to a chemical attack is that out of line for what the USA does historically if you look at the record. What I cannot stand though is how much disdain Trump shows for Syrians on any other day of the year and even said how we shouldn't get rid of Assad publicly, yet somehow it's Obama's fault for what happened etc and he isn't just doing it for his poll numbers. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I actually support bombing the crap out of a Syrian airbase in response to the chemical attacks. But only with Congressional notice and in coordination with allies. Neither of those things happened.

Didn't the US allies approve?
Or are they shit scared to disapprove? lol

vendic wrote:Didn't the US allies approve?
Or are they shit scared to disapprove? lol

I don't think any of our major allies are scared of Trump. Most may approve of this action but I doubt Trump consulted them. I could be mistaken.

Classic wag-the-dog move. Notice how much of the media is back to fawning over him? Turns out you don't need false flag operations if there's already a war going.

As far as the cruise missile strike itself, as far as I'm concerned it's all fucking meaningless if he continues blocking refugees. Want to talk about ethics and being moved? Then fucking let those people in already. Otherwise it's just talk and posturing, and using Assad's atrocities to boost your ratings.

Also? The left needs to fucking stay on the message. Stop disputing whether we know it was Assad who did it, and keep fucking calling out Trump on the refugee situation. Do the right thing or just shut the fuck up.

(Note: went to a protest yesterday that started *right off* questioning whether Assad ordered the chemical strike, and ignored the refugee stuff. I am still really pissed.)

Here is an interesting tidbit.

"About 60 U.S. Tomahawk missiles, fired from warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeted an air base in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that American officials believe Syrian government aircraft launched with a nerve agent, possibly sarin. ABC News reports that the targets at the airbase were runways, aircraft and fuel areas to make the field inoperable."

Shayrat airbase in central Syria was the base. Within hours of being hit by almost 60 missiles it was fully operational.

People who actually know the capability of a tomahawk cruise missile are saying WTF! That base should have been non-operational for days or weeks. I am not saying we did not attack. I am not saying we did not hit the base. But, given the propensity for the current administration to lie and misdirect I am seriously wondering if perhaps the number was a bit inflated. Or maybe they were deliberately aimed to cause the least amount of damage.

also note that it did nothing to reduce Assad's power, his chemical weapon stockpile, or to assist the Syrian rebels in any meaningful way. IOW it was a dog and pony show to make Trump look good. And to distract people from the Russian involvement in U.S. politics. And to distract people from Trump and Co. looting the treasury. etc etc.

Agreed. That many Tomahawks on an air base and it's operational shortly thereafter? Very fishy.

geonuc wrote:Agreed. That many Tomahawks on an air base and it's operational shortly thereafter? Very fishy.

And Trump has stock in the company that makes Tomahawks.

Thanks for posting, Fisher. I thought that was a bit strange too, but couldn't quite articulate why.

One of the government news letters I subscribe to posted an article that claims they deliberately didn't take out the runways because they could repair them "within a few weeks". They chose instead to take out "aircraft shelters and fuel supply points as well as radar and other critical support structures". And Syria was back in business in less than 24 hours. Maybe I am just a cynical old crank. But, something still smells bad to me about this whole thing. I must admit that my bias against the current administration is very very very strong.

I think it's very cost effective of the government to spend over 50 million dollars to put them out of operation for 24 hours.

but the investigations into interference with the election has been out of the news; replaced by praise for trump so how can anyone question the wisdom of his decision?

Asked the former Marine BiL, and he said it's not a conspiracy and totally possible for this to happen if the point was not to destroy the target, but to send a message. Which is of course totally stupid to do- you don't use bombs to send a message, particularly if/when Assad ignores it you just need to keep escalating.

Incompetence makes more sense than conspiracy, I think.

The only explanation I find that makes any sense is that they targeted an armored weapons depot. Still, from what I've heard (according to Jim Wright anyways) "59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles is enough firepower to level a city center". So, unless the depot was like 300 meters underground......

They were clearing the area of rabbits. You don't want to be around rabbits. They are nasty evil creatures. Just ask Anya.

Rommie wrote:Asked the former Marine BiL, and he said it's not a conspiracy and totally possible for this to happen if the point was not to destroy the target, but to send a message. Which is of course totally stupid to do- you don't use bombs to send a message, particularly if/when Assad ignores it you just need to keep escalating.

Incompetence makes more sense than conspiracy, I think.

Sending a message was indeed an important part of the exercise. I am just wondering what the message was?

I also agree that it probably was not a conspiracy per se. Especially on the part of the military. I think the decision to do it was highly political in nature. I also think it was done in part to make Trump look decisive and presidential. And to take everyone's attention off the other problems with this administration. Even some of the media that is very critical of Trump were like "oh wow! Maybe this means he is going to be more like a real president now." Fat Chance!!

It's very sad to think your country and its media think that launching 50 ineffective missiles at a foreign target is, "Presidential".

vendic wrote:It's very sad to think your country and its media think that launching 50 ineffective missiles at a foreign target is, "Presidential".

There have been a couple of articles about that. It's always easier to break things and look decisive than it is to be diplomatic and build things.

SciFiFisher wrote:

vendic wrote:It's very sad to think your country and its media think that launching 50 ineffective missiles at a foreign target is, "Presidential".

There have been a couple of articles about that. It's always easier to break things and look decisive than it is to be diplomatic and build things.

And Trump is, let's not forget, the guy who wanted the military trooping through Washington DC for his inauguration like they do in Russia and North Korea.

I think everyone predicted the Syria strike, depending how far back you go. It seemed obvious. It distracts from domestic scandals, it makes him seem against Putin, which both Trump and Putin can use domestically for promoting nationalism.

The deconfliction line was used to prevent Russian casualties (and probably Syrian as well). This gives both sides cover for ending the deconfliction process. Perhaps Putin wants a reason to back away from Assad (and promote another Pro-Russia replacement) and without the deconfliction line he can claim he can't give advanced warning of future US attacks. Then, when Assad gets killed by the US, Trump can claim victory while Putin keeps Syria in his pocket.