Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Here is at least one current Republican Senator that has his head screwed on! only 3-4 mins.

 

 

Right..

 

Bashar al-Assad posts a letter of support from a Virginia state senator

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/27/bashar-al-assad-posts-a-letter-of-support-from-a-virginia-state-senator/

 

Outspoken Virginia state senator travels to Syria in support of Assad

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/outspoken-virginia-senator-travels-to-syria-in-support-of-assad/2016/04/27/96994e08-0c94-11e6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, F4UCorsair said:

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, a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his overwhelming ignorance of affairs in the middle east suddenly acquires enough knowledge of the situation to order an air strike. Sounds believable.

[Thorgal]

Kinda amazed you didn't know this.

 

I didn't cross any official condemnation of Assad or his government that he supported ISIS or that he purchased oil from them.

 

Any acceptable national or international court system would suffice.

 

The same goes for any official condemnation that he/his amy used chemical weapons against hos own people.

 

Many speculations can be found on the internet. Even so on UN level it was decided to empower a resolution against Syria although its not yet clear who actually used the toxic agents on the population in Idlib.

 

For me an average journalist isn't a judge or a lawyer. And any wiki poster surely isn't assigned rightfully to reach a real verdict.

 

The speculations like you've posted leads in a field where nobody actually saw it, but where everyone knows it...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

[selftaopath]

On 4/7/2017 at 9:55 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I believe few if any children of politicians died in Vietnam. I doubt that has changed much.

Trump made sure he wasn't there also. He's a draft dodger. He has the gall to salute or be saluted by genuine military men/women. He's a disgrace. I'm a vet of that era and would love to punch him in the mouth. Mr. tough guy.... my ass. He's a punk bully.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Silurian said:

So did the fraudulent POTUS benefit from the airstrike or not? And along with were these the right choice of weapons? Interesting...

 

Donald Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria

http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/tomahawk-missiles-were-wrong-choice-for-syria-attack-but-donald-trump-owns-stock-in-the-company/2224/

 

 

Not defending Trump's conflict of interests issues.

 

But there's this - the article assumes that there were other viable attack options, ones which would no be over the top, and would not unnecessarily risk lives of American troops. It also posits Trump's supposed micro management of military operations, which frankly, doesn't seem all that realistic.

 

The US will have accurate information on damage done, and whether aircraft continue to fly from said airbase. Reports so far appear to originate with Syrian government, Russian and the Syrian observatory for human rights. I'd treat all with a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

Raytheon (and other big contractors) shares usually soar when things get heated. Putting it all down to a supposed re-fill order is off mark.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his overwhelming ignorance of affairs in the middle east suddenly acquires enough knowledge of the situation to order an air strike. Sounds believable.

 

The implied condition would preclude Trump ordering whatever. Sadly, being knowledgeable is not a requirement for making such decisions.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The implied condition would preclude Trump ordering whatever. Sadly, being knowledgeable is not a requirement for making such decisions.

And it's a positive impediment if one is defending Trump.

Edited April 8, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[selftaopath]

On 4/7/2017 at 10:05 AM, dexterm said:

Whoever perpetrated the murder of innocents with chemical weapons deserve everything they get. I have no sympathy for those monsters whatsoever.

 

But I wonder if there is also a hidden agenda in this missile attack?

 

Perhaps no small coincidence that Trump is in the middle of talking tough to China now and Russia next week.

 

Geopolitically, is it also an indirect attack on Iran, Syria's ally. You have to ask the question cui bono regime change in Syria.

 

If these missile strikes prevent the further barbaric use of chemical weapons, and the US goes back to targeting ISIS...good. If it is the start of something different, watch out.

Here's a thought:

Putin, Assad, and Trump are so deceitful I believe this is a hoax. I would not be surprised if all three devised this entire drama to divert attention from Putin and Russia’s involvement in Trump being elected. This is merely a smoke screen. Think a/b it… Assad doesn’t care a/b Syrians, neither do Putin or Trump. Assad wants Russia’s UN veto power and protection. Putin wants another country to control. Trump wants investigations to end/go away so he can use The Presidency for his/his family/his friends financial benefit. 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                         The more I think about the topic, the more doubts I have - about whether it was Assad (or one of his commanders) who ordered the strike.   Was it a rogue pilot who had a personal vendetta?   Interestingly, it's reported that Syrians are ambivalent about the sarin attack and the US response.   That's pretty sad in itself, if they've become so innured/calloused - tho not outlandish, considering the duration and severity of the conflicts there.

 

                    It appears all the US has, to prove sarin attack, is satellite data of plane(s) taking off from that Syrian air base - and supposedly flying the deadly mission.   How reliable is US data, and can we trust what the US prez says?   The answer to the question about Trump is easy:  NO.   

 

                    Starting in 2014, Russia was a major player in the effort to eradicate sarin gas from Syria.  It apparently didn't do a good job.   The world took Russia's assurances that it was doing its job.  The job wasn't well done.

 

A rouge pilot armed his aircraft with chemical weapons without anyone noticing? Syrian commanders showing personal initiative going against Assad's supposed policy? Leprechauns just as reasonable an option.

 

The US sources would include air traffic data, ID's of specific aircraft, flight and attack profiles. There would be communication intercepts. And yes, them satellite data, which actually show a whole lot more than what laymen see. US intel, in this case, is very reliable. Nothing like the Iraq scenario.

[deepinlaos]

7 minutes ago, selftaopath said:

Here's a thought:

Putin, Assad, and Trump are so deceitful I believe this is a hoax. I would not be surprised if all three devised this entire drama to divert attention from Putin and Russia’s involvement in Trump being elected. This is merely a smoke screen. Think a/b it… Assad doesn’t care a/b Syrians, neither do Putin or Trump. Assad wants Russia’s UN veto power and protection. Putin wants another country to control. Trump wants investigations to end/go away so he can use The Presidency for his/his family/his friends financial benefit. 

 

 

yes there is usually multiple reasons involved.

 

Trump is the deflector in chief.......he is very good at it.

 

now he looks tough on russia and has put a wide gap between himself & putin........while beforehand he was looking cosy in bed with vlad and subject to investigation

[LannaGuy]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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

if he'd have bombed that despot in NK i would have whooping around for days... i just don't accept that Assad did this and nor does Peter Ford ex-British Ambassador to Syria (youtube)   "Assad cruel, brutal but not mad"  and this guy knows more about Syria than we ever will 

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

if he'd have bombed that despot in NK i would have whooping around for days... i just don't accept that Assad did this and nor does Peter Ford ex-British Ambassador to Syria (youtube)   "Assad cruel, brutal but not mad"  and this guy knows more about Syria than we ever will 

Maybe Ford does know more about Assad than most.  But he's and EX ambassador and thus not privy to current intel???

[wabothai]

too bad that a child-like potus is in charge of fragile world peace.

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, when Trump was elected, I had high hopes for Trump's new Syria policy.  Trump did not regard removing Assad as the top priorty, Trump regarded removing ISIS and other rebel groups as the top priority.

And what do we see now ? Donald Trump has ordered this strike, involving 50 Tomahawk cruise-missiles, at Assad. This is basically a big mistake, bearing in mind that Assad is trying to REMOVE ISIS and various other dangerous rebel groups. By doing this strike, Washington is now back to carrying out Obama's Syria policy, back to square one.

The tiny bit of hope is this. Trump ordered this strike to make himself look strong in front of the media, and basically, Trump still reckons that Assad must be allowed to remove ISIS and other rebel groups. I hope this is the case.

 

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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).

"and a realistic plan for post-Assad Syria (which I do not believe the current US administration have). "

And the previous guys in Washington ? Obama's plan was to fund the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then bomb whatever rebel groups who don't like America or Europe.  A plan for post-Assad Syria ?  There isn't one, because Assad is staying.  Actually, there is a chance that after Assad has removed the rebels, Russia will no longer support him, and have him removed. Russia will replace Assad, but Syria will still be aligned to Russia.

And the current US administration, what's there plan ?  I still hope Washington will leave Assad alone, help to remove ISIS, stop supporting the various rebel groups, and watch Assad remove the rebel groups. Assad and his father were in charge of Syria for decades before the civil war.  We didn't see a mass exit of refugees fleeing Syria during those decades.

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Maybe Ford does know more about Assad than most.  But he's and EX ambassador and thus not privy to current intel???

fair point but... I doubt there was much intel and I think he personally knows Assad and his crew and he thinks it wasn't him... think about it?  why do it?  on eve of peace talks?  it's madness and as he say's he's lot's of things but not mad

 

most of the rebels are ISIS and this plays right into their grubby evil hands and I'm amazed you are defending Trump as this is just a version of one of his mad 'Tweets' in the early morning but with missiles 

[tonbridgebrit]

2 hours 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.

That wikipedia link about "State Sponsors of Terrorism".   On the link, it does start by saying [" State Sponsors of Terrorism is a designation applied by the United States Department of State to countries which the Department alleges to have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism."^[1][2] Inclusion on the list imposes strict unilateral sanctions. "  ]

In other words, it's a designation applied by the US Department of State. I now say that it's best to not totally believe all the stuff that the US Department of State says. Washington did claim or imply that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, Saddam didn't.

And Washington itself has backed the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, bearing in mind that the Al-Nusra Front are Al-Qaeda in Syria.

Also, the wikipedia link does not say anything about ISIS being originally backed by Assad. It mentions Syria supporting "terrorists", but does NOT mention ISIS.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

Yup just like Iraq.

 

US Data is not highly reliable.

 

Ron Paul is not a 'nutter', he is a highly respected Gentleman of politics that has done more in the last 50 years in service to his country than you will ever do. In your effort to make a point you are overstepping the marks of decency. Surprising.

 

This is nothing like Iraq, when it comes to intel.

 

And Ron Paul is a nutter. Not the worst nutter out there, but still.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                     A B-52 dropping a load of iron bombs would have probably done more damage to the airfield than the 100 million $$'s worth of Tomahawks.   Trump has no sense of spending too much money on things.  All the money he's ever garnered in his career has been from either hand-outs or loans (which he usually doesn't pay back) or some Russian oligarch needing to launder money.  Perhaps if he'd ever had a real job, like carpentry, he would understand a bit about money.

 

             He's similar to the Thai generals who took over Thailand:  they want to spend a big portion of the overall budget on submarines, but next-to-nothing to help the 20% who aren't making ends meet.

 

A B-52 (and it's crew) could be shot out of the sky by either Russian or Syrian air defenses. For "iron bombs", the range from target would have to be pretty close. If opting for other armaments, the price and damage would be similar to the attack as it was carried out.

 

Advanced weapon systems don't come cheap, uninformed talk about "iron bombs" notwithstanding.

 

What price a downed US aircraft?

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

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

 

 

4 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

 

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.

 

Quote

... Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja's residential areas, far from the besieged Iraqi army base on the outskirts of the town. According to regional Kurdish rebel commanders, Iraqi aircraft, coordinated by helicopters, conducted up to 14 bombings in sorties of seven to eight planes each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack#Chemical_attack

[Morch]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Maybe Ford does know more about Assad than most.  But he's and EX ambassador and thus not privy to current intel???

 

Peter Ford is openly supportive of Assad's regime. To quote one of his phrases as to why Assad should remain in power - "repression works". Another pearl was describing the siege of Aleppo's end as "relatively peaceful".

 

Same guy who hastened to claim the opposition was responsible for attacking a UN convoy last year, but then the UN investigation determined it was an aerial attack. So no surprises there.

Edited April 8, 2017 by Morch

[Rob13]

Quote

 

BEIRUT — Residents of the Syrian town devastated by a chemical-weapons attack last week said that warplanes had returned to bomb them Saturday as Turkey described a retaliatory U.S. assault as “cosmetic” unless it removed President Bashar al-Assad from power.

 

Within 24 hours of the American strikes, monitoring groups reported that jets were taking off from the bombed Shayrat air base once again.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/warplanes-return-to-syrian-town-devastated-by-chemical-attack/2017/04/08/38a5d8cc-1bdc-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html

 

[Scott]

Posts and replies have been removed. 

 

I see we have the tin foil hat brigade out in full force.  

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack#Chemical_attack

 

Yes I read that already - and now I've read it twice.  Unless I've missed it, I don't see anything about helicopters spraying or sprinkling the chemicals on the victims.  It only mentions conventional gravity bombs that discharge their payload when they hit the ground.  It was specifically the 'helicopters with sprinklers' claim that I was looking for a source for.

Edited April 8, 2017 by attrayant

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Yes I read that already - and now I've read it twice.  Unless I've missed it, I don't see anything about helicopters spraying or sprinkling the chemicals on the victims.  It only mentions conventional gravity bombs that discharge their payload when they hit the ground.  It was specifically the 'helicopters with sprinklers' claim that I was looking for a source for.

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

Well, helicopters were fitted with tanks that could spray chemical weapons. Not used (as far as I'm aware) in the attack cited, but more to do with the battles against Iranian forces. I don't think this method is applicable for Sarin, though.

 

IRAQI AIR FORCE CAPABILITY TO DELIVER CHEMICAL WEAP0NS

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/tallil/tallil_refs/n11en004/iraqiaf.htm

 

 

[Morch]

 

 

Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/syrias-chemical-weapons-kill-chain-assad-sarin/

[Thorgal]

 
 
Syria’s Chemical Weapons Kill Chain
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/07/syrias-chemical-weapons-kill-chain-assad-sarin/

Is by today, Syrian Army, Assad or any member of the Syrian government accused and sentenced by any national or international court concerning use of chemical weapons on the Syrian opposition since 2011 going from the FSA up to ISIS ?




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Gulfsailor]

Some are saying that Assad couldn't have Sarin-ed the area as he had nothing to gain from it. 

Why then has the same Idlib region been heavily bombed by white phosphorus in the past 24 hours? Both by Russian and Syrian jets. According to the Geneva convention white phosphorus falls under the banned chemical weapons (the same as use of Sarin) when not used for just making smoke. Both Putin and Assad don't give a shit about civilian casualties or the Geneva convention. 

[rijb]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Is by today, Syrian Army, Assad or any member of the Syrian government accused and sentenced by any national or international court concerning use of chemical weapons on the Syrian opposition since 2011 going from the FSA up to ISIS ?




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Not enough dead babies for the UN Security Council, Russia, and Iran.

[tonbridgebrit]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Peter Ford is openly supportive of Assad's regime. To quote one of his phrases as to why Assad should remain in power - "repression works". Another pearl was describing the siege of Aleppo's end as "relatively peaceful".

 

"To quote one of his phrases as to why Assad should remain in power".

Look, I'ill tell you why Assad should and must stay in power.  The biggest rebel groups have already been called "Islamic fundamentalists" by the media. Yes, rebels like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front are dangerous. Why should Assad remain in power ? Because IF he is toppled, the biggest rebel groups will still be there.

We do not wish to see a Syria with groups like ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front being there if Assad is removed. Washington's previous intent was to support the rebels, watch them remove Assad, and then bomb any rebels who don't like America and Europe. This is a strategy that I think, is too risky. In other words, Washington might find that bombing the bad rebels after Assad has gone is not something that is easy to do. It's better to help Assad remove the rebels.

Trump did say earlier on, that there was now going to be a new Syria policy from Washington.  A policy where removing ISIS is more important than removing Assad. I do hope Trump still feels the same way.