Posted on 04/07/2017 6:08:00 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Russia’s Rossiya 24 news channel has revealed the first footage from the Shayrat airbase, which the United States hit with a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles after an alleged “chemical attack” in Idlib earlier this week.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
If they were able to assure that sarin stockpiles weren’t hit, then they knew precisely where the stockpiles were.
Q: Huh?
If IC knew this yesterday, they also knew it during Obama’s reign. But Obama said there weren’t any has stores remaining. I feel so violated.
I think it’s pretty simple: ISIS vs. Syria/Iran/Russia.
There is no good guy.
But Trump was looking at a tactical alliance with Russia that he thought would make it easier to defeat ISIS—even though it would help Assad stay in power.
Clearly, he has been persuaded to the contrary and now has pleased McCain, the Dems, the neocons, etc., by targeting an ally of Russia and an enemy of ISIS.
Except, as this video shows, all he did was carefully crack some concrete. Nothing analogous to Reagan’s bombing that killed Gaddafi’s son in 1986—and brought Gaddafi into line for the next 30 years.
Exactly. It was a “show” bombing.
While I’m loathe to defend anything Obama ever said or did, the US was planning a massive strike on Syria - much, much larger than last night - in the aftermath of an August 2013 chemical attack in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus. Obama called off the attack when evidence began to mount that it was the Syrian rebel forces and not the Syrian government that carried out the attack. Even a UN (no fan of Assad)inspection said there was no evidence whatsoever that the Syrian government did it.
This most recent case is looking and smelling suspiciously similar.
What is the U.S. interest in Syria?
“Maybe, but at least it might stop chemical weapons from being used on the people.”
This will guarantee ISIS will use them to draw a US response
Then Isis will be wiped out.
Well, does this mean that Syria got all the Iraqi WMD’s after all?
Does this mean that Russia colluded with Trump so we would attack Assad?
Does this mean that when somebody crosses a Red Line that they will actually pay a price for it now?
Does this mean that the Press will support this action since Hillary is now on Record saying she would have done the same thing?
So many questions...
I am uncomfortable siding with Assad. #NOproxy war. Aren’t you?
Iraq - fail
Afghan - fail
Lybia - fail
Ukraine - fail
Yemen - fail
Somalia - fail
since when have the neocons been right about anything ?
I am uncomfortable with siding with ISIS.
I like the position Trump had, re: not getting suckered into a war in Syria, over most of Barry’s term.
Personally, what I would do is get Jordan to agree to take in the Palestinians and in return reward them with stewardship of Syria. Though yeah, that would be a challenge to swing. Some other payoffs surely in order for some other countries there.
"one failed to reach target"
I'm convinced Russia cooperated with us. They want Assad, but they don't want him using chem weapons- it just causes Russia trouble.
Iraq failed when Obama decided it was a good idea to abandon them and left a huge vacuum. Had we stayed and guided them, the operation would have succeeded. Whether it should have happened or not is subject to strong debate, but if you do something, you should finish it. We didn’t finish what we started.
Stewardship? Is Syria not a sovereign nation? aside from the politician and the dictator apparatus, there are real human being in Syria.. how about we just stay the heck out of it? Feels like a distraction from the congressional do nothings.
Rooskie propaganda. US military claims 58 of the 59 missiles hit airport. Fox news reporting airport almost completely destroyed.
While I can believe US military may be over stating how successful strike was, I believe nothing the Rookies or Assad say, or what Zero H reports when it comes to Russia or M.E.
As for whether Assad or terrorist factions in Syria used the Saron gas, I don’t know, but I do know President Trump has better Intel than I or any armchair freeper.
I do not support this missile attack. I do support overwhelming effective operations against our enemies such as ISIS and getting out of M.E. , no American blood or $$, let them sort it out. But stand with Israel.
Yeah—I agree with that. I don’t want to lose one more American to that blasted region. We can supply sufficient energy of our own, and there is no way we are going to pull them 1000 years forward into civility and modern civilization.
But if we’re gonna swing a Middle East settlement, that’s the sort of bigger picture direction I think we should go in, rather than carve Israel ever smaller and smaller.
Missiles aren't 'dropped on' anything. If ISIS presented decent targets suitable for a Tomahawk we wouldn't have any left.
Count the impacts in the picture.
It isn’t accurate. Think about it? What do you expect a Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman to say? Of course they are going to downplay and muddy the waters. If the Russians had shot down those cruise missiles then they would have been all over it showing the evidence. The claims of the S-300/400s come from armchair warriors filling in the blanks of the claim that only 23 hit their target. It is all part of the propaganda.
What is it you are arguing they are wrong about?
The Use of chemical weapons or that the world should not sit idly by and let their use go unchallenged?
I would prefer to see other nations join in punishing Assad, but reality is, the rest of the world has lived under the protecting of the US military might for so long their militaries are largely jokes incapable of protecting their own nations should they ever be invaded, UK and Germany are the only 2 militaries of consequence in Europe and they aren’t much.
I am not for a ground war in Syria, let alone one that is basically a proxy war with Russia. However if Putin isn’t going to keep his pekingese lapdog on a leash and let him use Chemical Weapons with impunity, what do you suggest the world do?
Too many years of Pussy Obama have numbed the nerves and addled brains of too many, even here. This is bigger than Assad and Syria... if Assad can use them with impunity it will simply embolden others like him, or worse to do so. What is allowed, is what will continue.
Assad is an evil man, no doubt, and I don’t support carte blanche removal of him by the international community, because we don’t need another failed state in the Middle East... Bush and OBama gave us Iraq.... Obama and Hillary gave us Libya... we don’t need to add Syria to that list. The reality is Obama Blew it with Syria and the entire Middle East when he embraced the “arab spring”... and turned what was a fustercluck into an incredible fustercluck.. he learned nothing for Carter’s fiasco with Iran, and doubled down on stupidity because his world view was one of leftist unicorns crapping rainbows. Syria is the mess it is today because of repeatedly bad policy decisions by the Obama administration...
From a purely US Security standpoint, in the broadest sense, I am fine if we bomb the crap out of everyone involved in that mess of a conflict and leave the nation in a bronze age technical state with Assad or someone else still in charge... We can obliterate a lot of islamofacists at the same time... sadly though this would mean a lot of innocent folks will die too.. but that’s the reality of war, all war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.