Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[evadgib]

'Trump: How scared should we be?' from Despatches on UK's channel four a few days ago might be of interest to this board.

Edited April 8, 2017 by evadgib

[sujoop]

1 hour ago, Senior Player said:

2 hours ago, sujoop said:

Sorry, no 'LOL' in this matter, except for those willingly duped but that's just sad not funny (also how this dangerous clown got elected).

 

Trump as the leader of the 'free world' has been Putin's most strategic supporter, banging on about how great Putin is for almost 2 years. But then Trump and Putin both come under a microscope for Whitehouse/Russia gate complicity. Also, with Trump's ratings tanking  he would be of no use to Putin as a lame duck president. Time to fake a break-up, take the heat off Whitehouse/Russia-gate and bolster Trump's ratings, all in one easy go (still, some sincerely believe a man who spent months rallying to keep Syrian's from seeking shelter in USA is suddenly overwhelmed by a few Syrian losses...) The smoke-screen is working wonders in more ways too, nary a mention of the tanked jobs report yesterday (target 175,000,  actual 95,0000) certainly not by Trump (who took credit for the previous good jobs report)  and even the press is reticent to bring it up in context of this larger event.
 

Bigger worry is, like a junkie on a downward spiral this is only a temporary 'fix' (+prop-up Trump's fragile narcissist ego). News cycles will eventually turn back to Whitehouse/Russia-gate etc, thus there'll be an ongoing need of ever bigger fixes. Next up, N Korea.

And yet Hillary Clinton called for the United States to "take out" Syrian government-controlled airfields just hours before Donald Trump launched air strikes against Bashar Assad's regime. How would a Clinton administration been any different? Oh, yes, Clinton would've bombed the Syrians a couple of hours earlier than that lazy, orange-faced Trump. I'm no Trump supporter, but I seriously think we're all going to hell in a handcart whoever is at the wheel.

Majority Of Republicans Said ‘No’ When Obama Wanted To Launch A Strike On Syria

-In the past, Trump appeared as an anti-interventionist, criticizing Obama’s choice to use force in Syria
- Donald Trump didn’t seek Congressional approval
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-strike-syria-trump_us_58e6f71de4b051b9a9da355d
 

1) In the instance of slaughter of children using chemicals, I am all FOR airstrikes. However, ONLY if it goes through either a private Congressional Security bi-partisan panel (if urgency and secrecy requires), or hearings and a vote.
 

2) Hilary isn't in bed with Putin and there's no sign she's colluding with him in any airstrikes diversionary farce
 

3) Syrian Jets are already taking off again from the same air base::

REUTERS: Syrian jets take off from air base U.S. missiles struck
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

 

4) Trump is now 1 Supreme Court Judge away from a super-majority and then can issue almost ANY executive order he desires...(ie, any time he's in a slump or investigations are closing in on him, all eyes will be on 'breaking news')

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by sujoop

[Rob13]

^ 'It's not zero but  should be zero'. Nail on the head. Even if he does the right thing there's doubt and suspicion.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, sujoop said:

REUTERS: Syrian jets take off from air base U.S. missiles struck
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

 

 

 

 

 

The U.S. should ask for it's money back from Raytheon.  59 tomahawk missiles at over 1 million dollars each and they can't even take out an airbase? Another case of shock and awe?

[F4UCorsair]

16 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Would have been kinda obvious if they evacuated the premises on short notice.

As I read it, the strike was intended to destroy aircraft and infrastructure, not personnel, hence the notice, and it seems that was achieved, albeit at significant monetary cost.

[klikster]

20 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

For advanced :

Was the deadly chemical composition used in Idlib (1) a liquid substance or (2) a solid explosive admixture ?

If liquid, it should be sprayed by helicopters.

If solid explosive admixture (powder) it should be dropped in a shell with a few hundreds of dispersing small bomblets.

If used by aircraft, the little bomblets couldn't cause the huge crater impacts seen on the many video footages circulating on the internet.

The main shells don't vanish and the little bomblets leave some metal material on the spot.

I'm actually waiting to see any of these corroborative evidence sooner or later. And in the worst case, never.




Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Seriously? Liquid chemical agent sprayed by helicopters? Have you ever noticed the "donut" shaped rotor wash that 'choppers create? Might kill the entire crew.

 

 A drone might work.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

As I read it, the strike was intended to destroy aircraft and infrastructure, not personnel, hence the notice, and it seems that was achieved, albeit at significant monetary cost.

Obviously it wasn't intended to destroy personal. They could have carpet bombed the airfield 10 times over and it wouldn't have harmed personnel. Trump gave them ample warning to get out of there.

[mettech]

From any side of the globe a scenario is being played by super power and make believe the population that we all know nothing of how the game is played and yet bigger world problems will arise and yes the real WW3 will be.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

As I read it, the strike was intended to destroy aircraft and infrastructure, not personnel, hence the notice, and it seems that was achieved, albeit at significant monetary cost.

They could have carpet bombed the airfield 10 times over and nobody would have been killed.  Trump did give them advance warning of the attack.

[F4UCorsair]

6 minutes ago, mettech said:

Quoted in error so deleted.

 

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Obviously it wasn't intended to destroy personal. They could have carpet bombed the airfield 10 times over and it wouldn't have harmed personnel. Trump gave them ample warning to get out of there.

That's what I said.  My post referred, and quoted a ppst by Morch.

Edited April 8, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

North Korea just gassed their own people with a bomb?

DYR North Korea does far worse

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

That's what I said.  My post referred, and quoted a ppst by Morch.

Sorry. I missed that part of your comment.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

DYR North Korea does far worse

Agreed.  But this topic is about Syria.  100% understood.

[F4UCorsair]

On 07/04/2017 at 4:12 PM, Andaman Al said:

It is like some of you have been walking around in a coma and have no idea of your own history. Obama wanted to move into Syria BUT decided it was a decision for Congress. Congress under the Republicans said no, why even Trump made many tweets saying no way that Obama should bomb Syria. It is kind of like dealing with gold fish with a 10 second memory.

The timing is important, and what may not have been the right time then, may be the right time now.

 

The public are not privy to the same information that the President and his advisers are, although some may think they are.

[AdamR71]

This is another western scam. We had Iraq, Lybia and now Syria. All countries that dropped the dollar. Assad had absolutely no reason to gas his own people. The west is the evil one. Destabilizing the Middle East is the Agenda. Keeping Arabs at war with each other is good for the West.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, AdamR71 said:

This is another western scam. We had Iraq, Lybia and now Syria. All countries that dropped the dollar. Assad had absolutely no reason to gas his own people. The west is the evil one. Destabilizing the Middle East is the Agenda. Keeping Arabs at war with each other is good for the West.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

What does "they dropped the dollar" mean?

[CharlieK]

4 minutes ago, AdamR71 said:

The west is the evil one. Destabilizing the Middle East is the Agenda. Keeping Arabs at war with each other is good for the West.

Seriously? From what I see the Arabs sure don't have a problem killing Arabs. From Isis to Assad and Erdogan killing each other is their agenda. 

[Thorgal]

Assad is trying to keep himself in power.  He openly supported ISIS before this war.  They got involved with the rebels and now he's fighting them.  Saying Assad is the only world leader that standing against religions fanaticism is wrong.  Way wrong.

Assad never supported ISIS.

Assad was never condemned by any national or international court for support to any form of terrorism.

In contrast, Assad sr and Jr were one of the only nations in the region who hosted Iraqi refugees since Gulf War 1.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[klikster]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n07/peter-neumann/suspects-into-collaborators

 

Again, not true.  What about Jordan and Morocco's leaders?  What about the efforts (failed) in Egypt?  Saudi Arabia has been cracking down.  Etc, etc, etc.  Though some are fostering terrorists, especially Iran.  And SA is far from perfect.  It's a mess.

 

I definitely don't think a war with Russia is a good idea.  Hopefully, that will never come to be.  But Russia is stirring things up all over.  Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Chechnya, Syria, etc.  Syria being the worst and the Western world is condemning Russia for their involvement.  For good reasons.

As Leroy Jethero Gibbs Might say, "Ya' think ?!?!"

[attrayant]

Here's a 6-minute video primer on the Syrian conflict.  Clearly, some of you need to watch this.

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2017 by attrayant

[Thorgal]

Seriously? Liquid chemical agent sprayed by helicopters? Have you ever noticed the "donut" shaped rotor wash that 'choppers create? Might kill the entire crew.
 
 A drone might work.

Kurdish Halabja in Iraq was done by helicopters with sprinklers.

They were purchased from France, while they knew they wouldn't be used to spray crops/fields.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[attrayant]

 

17 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

Kurdish Halabja in Iraq was done by helicopters with sprinklers.

 

Got a source for that?  Searching for "Kurdish Halabja helicopters sprinklers" turns up nothing.  Anyway sarin is too volatile to be sprayed from a helicopter.  It vaporizes almost instantly and the wind carries it away.  It would be the wildest stroke of luck if nerve gas sprayed from a helicopter actually killed anyone on the ground.

[attrayant]

Nobody is going to listen to Icke for 65 minutes.  If he can't explain something in 5-6 minutes, then he doesn't understand it well enough.

 

If there's a particular 5-6 minute segment that's pertinent to this discussion, I'll listen to that.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Nobody is going to listen to Icke for 65 minutes.  If he can't explain something in 5-6 minutes, then he doesn't understand it well enough.

 

If there's a particular 5-6 minute segment that's pertinent to this discussion, I'll listen to that.

Here is all you need to know about David Icke:

"Icke was a BBC television sports presenter and spokesman for the Green Party, when a psychic told him, in 1990, that he had been placed on Earth for a purpose and would begin to receive messages from the spirit world.^[6] The following year he announced that he was a "Son of the Godhead"^[1], and that the world would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes, a prediction he repeated on BBC's primetime show Wogan.^[7][8] The show changed his life, turning him from a respected household name into someone who was laughed at whenever he appeared in public.^[9]"

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke}

^{And, as you might expect, he's a vicious anti-semite, too.}

 

[attrayant]

I know most of that, which is why I said nobody's going to watch it.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

Do you honestly believe that that sending 59 cruise missiles against an airbase that you warned ahead of times to avoid any Russian causalities is some sort of "notice that somethings won't be tolerated"? As Russia will replace any damage please explain how this actually hurt Assad?

 

Sending a couple of cruise missle to his residence might be a message, but this is just propaganda. 

TH 

 

 

 

And if the US launched an attack at Assad's palace, the Russians would be forced to take a more extreme position, the usual suspects would cry out that the US crossed a line and who knows how things would turn out.

 

The US attack was about making a point, while attempting to avoid an uncontrolled conflagration. It fell short of being an effective answer, because such a move would necessitate confrontation. Perhaps better to force an issue through a "propaganda" attack, rather than a full blown involvement in a war.

 

This wasn't about putting an end to use of chemical weapons or about hurting Assad. The first requires a sustained effort and the latter would require both Russian cooperation (even implicit) and a realistic plan for post-Assad Syria (which I do not believe the current US administration have).

[craigt3365]

49 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

Assad never supported ISIS.

Assad was never condemned by any national or international court for support to any form of terrorism.

In contrast, Assad sr and Jr were one of the only nations in the region who hosted Iraqi refugees since Gulf War 1.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Many sources have said he has been involved with them for years.  Sorry you don't agree.  Worth a read.  Syria has been involved with terrorists for years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Syria
 

Quote

 

The regime continued to provide political and weapons support to Hizballah and continued to allow Iran to rearm the terrorist organization.

.....

The Syrian Government had an important role in the growth of terrorist networks in Syria through the permissive attitude the Assad regime took towards al-Qa’ida’s foreign fighter facilitation efforts during the Iraq conflict. Syrian Government awareness and encouragement for many years of violent extremists’ transit through Syria to enter Iraq, for the purpose of fighting Coalition Troops, is well documented. Syria was a key hub for foreign fighters en route to Iraq. Those very networks were the seedbed for the violent extremist elements that terrorized the Syrian population in 2013.

 

Kinda amazed you didn't know this.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Listen to someone with no axe to grind who LOVES the US AND the constitution. He tells it as it is.

 

Ron Paul got no axe to grind.

Thanks for the comic relief.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Many sources have said he has been involved with them for years.  Sorry you don't agree.  Worth a read.  Syria has been involved with terrorists for years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism#Syria
 

Kinda amazed you didn't know this.

This was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just like the relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia in respect to Iran.

[sujoop]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

On 4/7/2017 at 1:12 PM, Andaman Al said:

It is like some of you have been walking around in a coma and have no idea of your own history. Obama wanted to move into Syria BUT decided it was a decision for Congress. Congress under the Republicans said no, why even Trump made many tweets saying no way that Obama should bomb Syria. It is kind of like dealing with gold fish with a 10 second memory.

The timing is important, and what may not have been the right time then, may be the right time now.

 

The public are not privy to the same information that the President and his advisers are, although some may think they are.

Yes, TIMING certainly *IS* critical, take last year vs now for instance:
 

Speaking at a town hall, a man asked if Trump could really look at Syrian children “aged 5, 8, 10, in the face” and say they couldn’t come to the U.S. Trump said he could. “I can look in their faces and say, ‘You can’t come here,’” he announced to cheers:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-decide-attack-syria-just-turn-tv-224504942.html
 

But nevermind, that was BEFORE Trump was tanking in the current polls, badly needing a boost, plus a diversion from scrutiny of Putin ties, ala the appearance of a public divorce. The erstwhile 'Conservative Review' now leaps forward with the new talking points::

'President Trump appears to be following the lead of his predecessors in eventually recognizing that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is no friend to America'
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/is-the-trump-putin-bromance-over-for-good
 

See? All new and improved Trump now...
 
Putin = Trump suddenly No Like
Syrian kids = Trump suddenly like

(that feeling of vomit rising in one's throat suddenly takes over...)
 

Meanwhile, Syrian Jets are already taking off again from the same air base::

REUTERS: Syrian jets take off from air base U.S. missiles struck
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

 

Last, of course the public is not privy to all the info the President receives, but as the Pentagon is now investigating potential collusion between Putin/Russia & Syria in this, Trump has yet another potential internal probe to circumvent. It's just a matter of time until a Flynn or other after having been thrown under the bus tells all. Next up on the Grand Diversion World Tour, North Korea.