More than 50 tomahawk missiles were launched from US Navy destroyers, targeting an airfield near Homs, the report said, citing a US official.
More to follow..
* http://www.itv.com/news/2017-04-07/repo … near-homs/
Tell me it isn't so.
This is unbelievable to me, that Trump followed through on Obama's 'red line' of attack made in 2013.
"Why did the U.S. attack?
"Back in 2013, President Obama set a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad. The regime proceeded to use the weapons to kill 1,400 civilians, but Obama did not attack — a move Trump and other Republicans widely criticized as making America look weak.
In the wake of that episode, Assad agreed to turn over his stockpile of chemical weapons. This week's chemical attack clearly violated that pledge. Trump called the attack — which killed at least 86 people, 27 of them children — "a disgrace to humanity" and "truly one of the egregious crimes.""
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor … 100148690/
I'm reading reports that Russia isn't happy.
Why attack? Why attack Iraq for simply possessing chemical weapons?
Nevertheless I would have been a lot happier with some help from allies; a united front in other words. Mostly for Russian benefit.
Politico "Obama did seek authorization in 2013 for strikes against the Assad regime in Syria, though he maintained he had the power to order strikes without such an authorization.
Ultimately, Congress never acted on a resolution against the Syrian government amid significant opposition, and Obama did not launch strikes, instead pursuing diplomatic avenues for removing chemical weapons from Syria.
Many Republicans may find themselves in an awkward spot Friday as they justify their support for Trump's missile strike after suggesting similar actions by the Obama administration would be unconstitutional."
Kathleen , Obama didn't strike Syria HOW he should have mainly out of a directly intentional and weak kneed political act and yet was fully able to further Iran's nuclear options by financial and politically supporting them and by creating the Arab uprising that began all of this ? He simply wasn't about to do it all openly , blame congress "for not doing anything " and yet drone the crap out of them ?
I say , Trump showed the stronger message that accomplishes the very same outcome.
You simply don't understand the return to traditional diplomacy that even Russia respects. A strong hand.
It's an illegal and unauthorized escalation that could have devastating consequences, killing innocent Syrians and costing the lives of U.S. service members.
Will you sign an emergency petition to Congress right now?
Congress must force consideration of an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and members of Congress should vote "no" and halt Trump's march toward war.
Let's be clear: There's no doubt that Bashar Assad is a brutal dictator who has slaughtered his own people and is complicit in the use of chemical weapons. But this is no humanitarian mission. These are missiles ordered by a flailing president with plummeting approval ratings, trying to show how "tough" he can be. The result will likely be increased suffering for the Syrian people. And this unilateral U.S. attack could possibly even draw in Russia and Iran, which have been close partners of the Assad regime.
The U.S. cannot bomb its way to peace, but it does have an essential role to play in the world, including 1) welcoming increased numbers of refugees fleeing Syria, 2) fully supporting international relief efforts for those most affected by this brutal civil war, 3) engaging in multilateral diplomacy at the United Nations to isolate Syria, and 4) sanctioning Russia and other nations which enable the Assad regime.
But none of this will be possible unless we first halt Trump's march toward war.
Please click here to add your name to an emergency petition calling for Congress to act.
Say NO to Trump's warmaking!
I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate which says:
"Congress must force consideration of an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and members of Congress should vote “no” and halt Trump’s march toward war."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/say-no … by=9215329
LOL. You bemoan the fact that kids may get lead poisoning and blame that on Trump but you don't support action against a regime using chemical weapons on its own people. Those people are dead. It's an atrocity. I suppose it doesn't matter since they aren't here on our soil? I'm having a hard time following your reasoning from one issue to the other.
That's because I'm not a one dimensional cut-out as you think I am.
Calling all Trump supporters! Let's hear your views on the Syrian attack!. Tell me do you support this move? ....... ..... .... .... silence ..... total silence ......... attack others for not being a cut -out.
So Trumpeteers! tell the world how do you feel about this. Tell me is the media lying to me on the following headlines?
With Attack on Syria, Trump Alienates the Alt-Right
Nigel Farage and other right-wing populists turn on Donald Trump after missile strikes
Nigel Farage, Milo Yiannopoulos Katie Hopkins, right-wing vlogger Paul Joseph Watson, Ukip leader Paul Nuttall and Ukip donor Arron Banks are among the Trump supporters who have been disappointed by their hero.
American right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, who campaigned for Donald Trump, wrote: "Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates.
"Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV."
disappointed but not surprised am I
I don't know. As with all things done outside our borders we sometimes don't know the truth until well after all is done. I don't care if the right gets upset. If Assad used chemical weapons I will not begrudge Trump this response. We have to stand against such atrocities. Whether standing against them helps or hurts....we have to stand against such atrocities.
Shit - I didn't even know they we already had troops on the ground until today. Damn I'm so outta of the loop:
according to Pentagon reporters Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan and Thomas Gibbons-Neff. “The attack may put hundreds of American troops now stationed in Syria in greater danger. They are advising local forces in advance of a major assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the Islamic State’s de facto capital.”
Earlier this month, 400 Marines were quietly deployed to northern Syria to to support local militias fighting Islamic State, according to U.S. officials.
It was the first time ground troops have been dispatched to Syria since the beginning of the civil war. Up to 1,000 more soldiers might join the initial deployment ahead of the battle for Raqqa, according to Pentagon officials.
The deployment pitches relatively inexperienced American soldiers into the middle of a highly toxic, multi-fronted battlefield that includes several foreign backed Takifri terrorists who are supported by allies of the US.
Russia retaliated this morning by pulling out of an agreement to minimize the risk of in-flight incidents between U.S. and Russian aircraft operating over Syria. “The Kremlin’s decision to suspend the 2015 memorandum of understanding on the air operations immediately raised tensions in the skies over Syria,” David Filipov reports from Moscow. “Putin’s spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS and Russia has ‘significantly increased.’”
Meanwhile, Trump signs an executive order to reduce the number of places given to people fleeing these atrocities. "Suppose it doesn't matter since they aren't here on our soil? I'm having a hard time following your reasoning . . ."
Hi Don W., What executive order was that?
Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States
* https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … ted-states
I support our President in keeping foreign terrorists out of the USA.
The right thing to do about refugees is to build temporary camps nearby and protect them under the UN peace keeping, and red cross...not to relocate them to Europe or America or Australia...
When their own country is stabilized, they can return home.
"Temporary camps nearby"...nearby to what? And then I don't see the red cross protecting them from ISIS, or the UN either. I also don't see anything about teaching them to protect themselves - do you support even quasi military training and the arming of refugees or will they forever be dependent on others for their protection?
Executive order that initially banned all Syrians (including those fleeing atrocities like this) from entering the United States indefinitely. Then was changed to ban them for 90 days, while halving the number accepted worldwide.
At the risk of sounding callous; women and children should be removed and relocated during the conflict. Able bodied men should stay and help clean up the mess they allowed to begin in the first place. Why does the first world continually have to mop up the messes created by other countries? Pitting Russia, China and the US against each other in the process is not in the best interests of the greater part of the world.
If that was the only way refuge was going to be offered, I'd go for it. It's better than nothing.
In many ways those "first world" countries are partially or wholly responsible for the mess.
The colonial powers carved up the Middle East at the turn of the 20th century in a way that did not correspond to the tribal or ethnic distinctions that developed naturally over centuries.
Arbitrary borders were drawn by countries like Britain and France, not based on demographics, but on the needs of Britain and France.
The resulting struggle among Arab countries to be rid of European influence and achieve independence, led to the emergence of a strong Arab nationalism. This was exacerbated by the centuries old struggle Arab countries have faced between secularism and religion.
These issues were exploited by dictators, who used religion (and religious fanatics) as a way of maintaining power. Many of those dictators rose to prominence as a result of US and European efforts to install puppet rulers.
The result of all this was that state institutions created in the 19th century as part of a burgeoning liberal democracy in some Arab countries, were swept away in the 20th century, replaced by a combination of Arab nationalism and religious fanaticism, with the US and Europe nudging and prodding along the way.
So the reason "first world" countries are having to clean up a mess in the Middle East, is because they helped make the mess in the first place.
The number of refugees we give permanent US residency to is connected to our reaction to Assad's use of forbidden weapons? How so?
Trump is so confident that chemical weapons are being used against civilians that he is willing to order a missile strike.
Yet at the same time he is trying to make it harder for people (including those fleeing such atrocities) to find refuge in the United States, by reducing the number of refugees accepted worldwide to 50,000 from around 110,000.
So he feels bad about the pictures he saw of men, women and children being gassed to death, but not bad enough to offer more of them refuge. At the very least he could keep the number of people accepted under refugee status as it was.
Seems to me that we either fill the country with as many refugees as want to come or we accept none. How can you draw a line and only take a limited number? And if you DO draw a line, what makes that line better than the one at half or double what you personally think is appropriate?
You can draw a line based on sensible criteria. A sensible criterion would be the cost.
How much of the national budget can the country reasonably spare on providing refuge to people fleeing atrocities like the recent one in Syria?
I don't know the answer to that question, but I don't think it has reduced by 50% since last year. Still, the number of people offered refuge is being halved.
So to answer your question, if you can reasonably spare enough to provide refuge to 100k people, then 100k is a "better" line to draw than 50k.
Probably because you haven't bothered to know my opinion on that subject, put words in your head and attributed them to me. That will always make it hard to follow someone else's reasoning. Most likely because it is simply a discombobulated attempt on your part to create conflict.
Not an attempt to create conflict. More an expression of confusion about the contradictory opinions I assumed you held.
Is my assumption incorrect? Are you against the executive order that makes it harder for people fleeing these types of atrocities to find refuge?
No, No, and Hell No!
If you agree click here (*It's just an image. ** but it did get me a 24 hr. ban once)
It is called elections have consequences!!!
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made a rare public appearance on Thursday evening - to come out and push for the US to bomb Syria.
The former secretary of state called for more US international intervention while speaking at the Women of the World Summit in New York, saying that the US should target Syrian airfields.
So didn't matter who we all voted for - same result - another war for at least a decade if not more.
I haven't heard if Assad has made a statement. Why hasn't he at least come out and said, 'I didn't do it!'
... Have you heard anything?
Syria has denied it was them; rather, their bombs hit ammunition dumps owned by the rebels that contained the chemicals.
I've read that also, which is fake and what's real? But I'v read it from https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-id … emical/
So that could be all BS. Pretty sure.
So, US warned Russian because don't want to go with Russia, so no Russian planes, personnel, but so neither was any Syrian planes and personnel and just ruined airstrip with 50 tomahawks.
Each missile cost $1.41 million (not taking in to account personnel who deliver payload)
BTW: here's another forum that expands the False Flag accusation. Again WTF this all means.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php … ed.501572/
You haven't heard anything probably because the 'news' you listen to is likely little more than propaganda and BS that the MSM feeds you.
Both Syrian and Russian officials have insisted that “the Syrian army doesn’t have chemical weapons,” saying this had been “observed and confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a special UN unit.”
This exact ploy has been used in the past as an excuse to attack Syria, which begs one to wonder, why would they use them now even if they did have them?
It makes no sense, anyone with even a fraction of knowledge of what has gone on the past few years in Syria would know this.
Mainstream media isn't trustworthy politically. I think you may have misunderstood me, Ken. Anyway, isn't it odd how they are singing Trump's praises now.
It really is about the petrodollar. Syria, then Iran.
I'll be waiting to see how the _____ weaponize his actions in Syria against him somehow down the line to impeach him.
If Clinton is for it, you know it was the wrong thing to do.
"Our Intelligence services confirm Iraq has WMDs"
President Bush, Powell, etc. state prior to our invasion of Iraq.
"Our Intelligence services confirm Sarin was used in the Syrian attack"
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
What is worse, is this exact strategy was tried and proven false before:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world … syria.html
Many innocent american political junkies have to get there head out of your hineys , Chemical weapons cannot be used anywhere , By international treaty agreement If those of you cannot understand the bi-partisan needs to protect the innocent civilians anywhere , supported by the way by the major free nations in the west , than you don't belong in the free world.Trump is already showing more leadership strengths than Obama was even capable of showing in that respect .
I understand too that these forums are where the left's crazies always vent there incredibly shallow political emotions , I'ts a good thing there are sane people like ahorseback here to help awaken and guide the sissy factors of humanity .
Would like to be a fly on the wall when the talks with Chinese turns to N. Korea today. Did Trump just make a statement about willingness to take action in a foreign country?
A very strong statement and strategy. At a time when the Red Communist Chinese leader is a guest on President Trump's property in sunny Florida. I hope they can enjoy an intense round of golf.
And, I think that little lunatic president of North Korea found and felt where he puckers for the first time.
Ha! China is brilliant as usual, they knew these meetings with Trump were coming up... so they told N.K. to start shooting missiles into the ocean to stir up trouble.
It gives China a lot of clout, that only they can corral the crazy N.K. and keep them in check. If you know your history, you know N.K. is nothing more than a puppet state that does whatever China tells it to do... everything else is just a show put on for the rest of the world.
N.K. wouldn't exist today if not for China. And N.K. would do nothing of significance without China's approval. If N.K. ever tried to do so... China would make N.K. disappear overnight.
There are no conspiracies in the ongoing bi-partisan approach to SERIOUS diplomacy , Those new to forums and those older theorists are yet to evolve politically to see clearly that when the chips are down and the wheel spins against the one understanding of inhuman attacks on humanity , nerve gas , chem weapons , genocide of any kind , the two american political parties , more often than not , act in political unison .
There are some acts against humanity by some world tyrants that are an affront to ALL political ideologies , aside from the Bernie Sanders of the world, that is .
I see the bi-partisanship at work with the use of the chemical weapons violation.
This is the best article I have come across so far with photos and videos.
Attacking Syria again? You'll need to get through me: Russian battleship is positioned between US warships and runway hit by Trump's air strike
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Syria.html
It's all politics, right?
What Republicans were against, they now support. What Democrats were for, they're now against.
Here are some tweets by Donald Trump:
President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day! (Sept. 2013)
President @BarackObama's vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars----Unbelievable! (Jan. 2012)
I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid. Huckabee copied me. (May 2015)
@BarackObama has a record low 39% Gallup approval rating. Why so high? (Aug. 2011)
Why is @BarackObama spending millions to try and hide his records? He is the least transparent President--ever--and he ran on transparency. (June 2012)
@BarackObama played golf yesterday. Now he heads to a 10 day vacation in Martha's Vineyard. Nice work ethic. (Aug. 2011)
Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.Worse than Carter (Aug. 2014)
It just goes on and on.
Just proves Military Industrial Complex > President
NATO/U.N. > President
Doesn't matter who you vote in... Bush to Obama to Trump...
What are you talking about? We just witnessed a huge difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration? In reaction to a chemical weapon use in Syria.
Are you smoking something? No difference?
You are either deliberately naive or easily fooled...
I agree that both parties sometimes act in opposition to the wishes of the people thst voted for them...
Prime example is illegal immigration.
In this case, however, it is night and day.
Did the US know in advance of #44's rebels chemical attacks? Probably so...
Article from Nov. 2016
"ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says"
* https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl … .html?_r=0
September 12, 2013. President Assad ~
"When we proposed a project on the elimination of WMDs in the region, the US opposed it; one of the reasons was to allow Israel to possess such weapons. If we desire stability in the Middle East, all countries in the region should adhere to these agreements, and Israel is the first that should do so, since Israel has nuclear, chemical, biological and other types of weapons of mass destruction. No country should possess weapons of mass destruction. That would protect the region and the world from devastating and expensive wars in future."
* http://www.presidentassad.net/index.php … Itemid=471
Body Language: Bashar al-Assad (about 4 weeks ago)
The body language expert believes Assad in the video above.
So You believe in the equalization of the power of weaponry in the middle east ? Which essentially means you believe that Israel should be driven out of the middle east by ALL the rest of the nations there ?
There is no difference... just continuation... Bush to Obama to Trump
Iraq, Libya, Syria... who is next? I have an idea, even wrote a hub about it.
But go ahead, give me some examples of how America pivoted, and redirected, on any major international or corporate issue, from one President to the Next.
Explain to me how Obama got us out of the Middle East... oh wait, he didn't, we have more chaos and more fighting in the Middle East than ever...
There are powerful forces that control the U.S./D.C. government looking for an excuse to go to war... and if one doesn't exist, it will be created for them.
America created the WMD excuse to destroy Iraq.
America created the excuse to overthrow Libya.
America created the chemical attacks excuse to attack Syria... not once, but twice now.
If we are going to start a war... how about with the nation we are losing all our industrial might and jobs to... lets start a war with China, bomb them back into the stone age, that would force us to re-invigorate and re-build our industrial base, put millions of Americans back to work, restore our economy, and make us the World's leading economy by far once again.
We did nothing to stop Syria... we shot off some missiles, destroyed a couple fighters, didn't even make the airfield inoperative... its just noise.
A bit off topic here, just to note the continuation. There is a VERY interesting video where at one point Bush changes into Obama. The video is full of symbols and there are many explanation videos on the video. Best animation video ever, Seriously.
NEARLY 200,000 U.S TROOPS DEPLOYED TO 177 NATIONS
There are 195 countries in the world. If Taiwan is also counted then there are 196 countries,
that's 90 percent - that we know of, advance recon is probably 100%
I have a thought, (I know, I should just let it go), but I think the attack could stand for more than just a statement that we won't stand-by and just bleat recriminations while these types of atrocities go on - free of consequences.
Would U.S. inaction, (other than sharp words), have added to a world impression, (particularly Russia, China, N. Korea, and ISIS), that the U.S. is just a 'Paper Tiger'? (obviously I think so)
So maybe this was really a dual statement. Hmm...
For sure, President Trump took a strong stand and Russia, China, N. Korea, and ISIS needed to see that he will take action. I'm sure Iran was watching too. WMDs are a threat to our national security.
That bombing took place at the time President Trump was hosting Xi Jinping. I wonder if they watched it together. Anyway, that made a strong statement to his guest.
A strong stand? You are truly joking, right? He dropped a few bombs on an airbase that did pretty much nothing. Didn't stop Syria from doing much and now they're taking off from that same airbase.
Why not drop a bomb right on Assad? Bomb his residence. That would be a strong statement.
You forget Trump is not legally allowed to take out a foreign leader. Congress has passed specific laws back in the 1970s.. I think.
What would be a strong stance is to bring charges against Assad to the World Court for crime against humanity...
Let them deal with this. We can only play the referee and kept the fighting honest.
So Trump can't get rid of a dictator under that act. It happens to be the same act that people are using (and always use, no matter the political party) to claim that Trump did not have the legal authority to bomb Syria in the first place.
Perhaps. He can stop atrocities in the name of humanity. He can go after Assad for crime against humanity and for using illegal weapons... through the World court. These agencies like the UN were set up specifically to deal with these issues. How come we continue to funds these entities and they never do anything good when the time comes? It may be time to dump the UN for something better?
One will have to see what comes next... bombing an airfield that was the most used by Syria, and its ally Russia, to attack ISIS and the rebels in the western part of Syria however... might make it so that Russia & Syria can not operate in that region with their fighters.
This had nothing to do with a chemical attack IMO, it had everything to do with taking that airfield out and making it inoperable for fighters.
Hello Ken, you do have a thought to ponder.
I was only responding with my perspective of the message of the barrage. I am unfamiliar with the importance of the target selected. But my first thoughts on Pres. Trump's decision was that it did have everything to do with the chemical event.
I am not sure I can jump to the conclusion that Pres. Trump was just looking for an opportunity to make a U.S. statement.
I believe there is a reason why, despite the differences between Bush, Obama, and Trump... that America keeps essentially marching to the beat of the same drummer.
America took down Iraq, then Libya, then Syria... all three of those nations have something particular in common.
Despite Trump's rhetoric against NATO, he has continued on course with the deployment of tanks, artillery, missiles all along Russia's western border.
I don't know what the reasons are for the attack on Syria's airfield, or if those missiles really did target that airfield. But I am fairly confident from what little I know, that it wasn't Syria/Assad that used chemical weapons.
Sadly, so much is going on these days, that you could take right out of the history books, and compare it to the type of propaganda and misinformation that the Third Reich used as an excuse to invade Poland, and then turn on Russia later in the war. That's what our media's reporting reminds me of these days...
It was bad under Bush, and then Obama it was worse, peddling lies for him about Benghazi, about Syria...I admit, I have known this for a long time, I was in the thick of such deceptions, back in the 90s. But somehow, it seems so disconnected, so much worse... we are on the brink of beginning WWIII for real, and Americans are completely oblivious to that fact... or that we are the ones who are instigating it.
Ken, you are asking a lot.
History does provide the examples you speak of, but so does Hollywood.
My small world isn't big enough to accommodate such complex secret scheming in its government in any context that doesn't involve a viewing audiance.
Well GA, Hollywood can't come up with a convoluted enough plotline to equate to reality.
I have done an initial review of why I think we are doing the things we are doing, I have even written a Hub about it... I will review timeline events, verify military deployments, see what foreign nations are pushing behind the scenes... and then re-write that Hub to be more accurate.
But I believe one of two things will soon occur... Putin will be removed from power from within... or a war to remove him from without will begin.
Right now, the collective effort of America, Saudi Arabia, and others is to hold down oil and natural gas prices by maxing out production, they are supplying a good amount of EUs needs, to keep them from depending on Russia's supplies... which in turn cripples the Russian economy.
If what I suspect is correct, then this is similar in many ways to what we did to Iraq before Desert Storm... we move a massive amount of tanks, artillery, missiles, etc. along the border, and when we feel the opposition has been weakened enough, has no support from allies (or those allies have been made ineffectual), we will attack.
I think it is insane, but then, so much seems insane these days, including the people who are our politicians... so many of them seem like they belong as part of the cast of "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest".
Our MSM has been pushing that Russia is the bad guy, beating on that drum non-stop, our military assets are being deployed around the world to strategic locations to strike... and it seems plenty of people are itching for a war.
It seems Macovalian to me.
There are plenty of reliable sources, intelligence, that say and have seen Russian soldiers / UN troops training and living in Colorado (and other states). It is blacklisted from mainstream media and local media, but citizens and independent media reports on it.
What could Russia or China want?
Communist China owns a port "beach head" in California.
China's solar field in CA is operated by Chinese soldiers.
I think its time for a revival to sweep across America and change the atmosphere, or sometime soon. There's a revival happening in North Carolina and many Muslims are being called by Jesus Christ. I don't know what its going to take for people to realize the times we are in.
Many people believe Putin is a Christian, it certainly isn't banned in Russia. Christians are killed or imprisoned in China.
How the left loves to Hate G.W..Bush .....but how much more effective a leader he was than the Obama fiasco!
The thickest flying of BS I've have ever seen in a long time.
Go to RT.com and it's a Russian version of Faux News
Go to SANA and it says " US-led alliance, under the pretext of fighting ISIS, on Saturday carried out random airstrikes on Huneida village, about 35 km west of Raqqa province, killing at least 15 civilians, including 3 children and a woman."
So the locals are being duped into believing that the USA is at war with Syria killing Syrian children.
This Sh*t is flying fast and furious the last 3 days.
Yes Syrian did have Chem weapons destroyed, but there was also a blurb of Chem being held at the border of Syrian from Iran and the MID allowed it in. Pretty obvious it as Basher who Chem bombed and is trying to say - no all our stockpile was destroyed - must've been the rebels.
"Pretty obvious it as Basher who Chem bombed and is trying to say - no all our stockpile was destroyed - must've been the rebels."
You don't know what you don't know... there is nothing obvious.
Did you know we have been 'secretly' training 'rebels' on how to identify and use chemical weapons in that part of the world?
Did you know that airfield was the most heavily used by Syria and Russia in the Western part of Syria to attack ISIS and the rebels from?
Did you think that perhaps, if Syria found out that American backed rebels had stockpiled some chemical weapons, in preparation of using them, that Syria might bomb those supplies to keep them from being used against its people?
Did you think perhaps that America, to cover up that it was supporting or involved with those rebels, or those supplies, might then point their finger at Assad and say he is the one who is using chemical weapons?
Did you wonder for a moment if there was any truth to the use of chemical weapons at all? Or who had the most to gain from using them?
You don't know... what you don't know. And no amount of FOX news or MSNBC or CNN is going to clue you in... the most worthless source of legitimate information when it comes to international/military reporting is the American MSM.
How long will it be ,first and what will the anti-s warriors among you then do when a dirty bomb is used instead of chemical weapons ? There are too many here that are either extremely simple minded or deliberately anti- ANYTHING that Trump [ OR ANY PRESIDENT ]will do to protect the worlds innocents ? Will a dirty bomb , for instance , going off in San Francisco killing a half a million Americans turn these shallow minds around , Okay , what about if it goes off in Moscow ? Will that turn the minds and stomachs of some of you , What exactly will be enough ? Does it have to be here in America the next time chemical weapons are used ?
A lot of you here need desperately , to grow up .
Remember when Trump said on the campaign trail that he would go in and blow up everything and take the oil that ISIS has taken to fund their terrorist activities? I was like who-ha when I heard that, seems Trump is going to keep that promise according to this article and other sources.
US expands air base in northern Syria for use in battle for Raqqa
* https://www.stripes.com/news/us-expands … OmFNPnyvIU
Trump: I'll Take the Oil (54 seconds)
The US economy is based on the petrodollar, and the terrorists need to be stopped. Well, Russia and China are basing their economy on gold and bypassing the dollar. I heard that Iran has starting to buy oil with gold.
Trivia: It was 100 years to the day that WWI started and the US bombed Syria on the April 6th.
Simple minded? Need to grow up?
Says the person who does not know, what they do not know.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m … e-rat-line
Nice try Ken , Is that the point at which Obama , Rice Clinton said " ........We have effectively negotiated the removal of chemical weapons from Syria without resorting to violence ..........." ? From the mouths of professional liars right into the ears of the professional believers .
You can defend the dishonesty of the dishonest people only by doing the same Ken.
Did you read a word of that... other than see the name of Obama, sniff at it in dismissal and decide you already knew everything?
No of course you didn't because you already have all the answers. You are so overwhelmingly under informed about what is going on over there you don't even know what you don't know... and are unwilling to put the time into reading real sources of information that would clue you in.
"Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin. Five of those arrested were freed after a brief detention. The others, including the ringleader, Haytham Qassab, for whom the prosecutor requested a prison sentence of 25 years, were released pending trial. In the meantime the Turkish press has been rife with speculation that the Erdoğan administration has been covering up the extent of its involvement with the rebels."
You just want to go along with what you are told... Assad is bad, he used chemical weapons, kill Assad, yay Trump, yay America.
You may now throw your insults and inflammatory comments as you see fit.
And of course you know the gas was used by who , the rebels that Obama - Clinton -Kerry supported , The Russians ? No ,? Let me guess , you think Trump lit the fuse while no one was watching , Type on Don W , everyone is waiting for your wisdom and inside view with baited breath ? ............ Not !
Wait . . what?! Why are you dragging me into your discussion?
Sorry Don , that was meant for Colorfulone..........:-]
"And of course you know the gas was used by who , the rebels that Obama - Clinton -Kerry supported , The Russians ? No ,? Let me guess , you think Trump lit the fuse while no one was watching , Type on Don W , everyone is waiting for your wisdom and inside view with baited breath ? ............ Not !"
This was for me, Ed? ... If so, I don't even know why you would ask. I haven't said who I think the guilty party is. Certainly not Russia, and certainly not Trump, and I don't believe Assad did it. I believe you are close in your educated guess though. We know who has always been pushing for wars.
Much like the Middle East, this conversation is extremely confusing and probably not worth intervening in.
Follow the money.
Who is dripping rich in the Middle East?
Hint: It isn't Syria (they had nothing to gain by it)
Hint: 9/11 and the JASTA law
What becomes confusing is when the propaganda is believed.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but I would think it would be patently obvious to everyone that nobody has a good solution for what's going on in the Middle East. The history of the U.S. role in the Middle East has largely been one of failure and that failure is not exclusive to either political party. Both have failed miserably. Quagmire characterizes it well. I find that any politician who tells me they have a solution for the Middle East is certainly lying. I'm certainly pretty partisan when it comes to politics, but I think all politicians who have meddled in the Middle East or propose meddling in the Middle East are nuts. I usually find myself respecting politicians who say some version of "it's complicated", but Americans generally hate that. We like it when we bomb something and support it until it involves American deaths and then we stop supporting it.
"We like it when we bomb something and support it until it involves American deaths and then we stop supporting it."
The economy prospers most from wars / the military industrial complex and the industry of burying the dead. I think not that sane people support that, but only the insane individuals who want to repeat tragic history and increase their power, capital gains and investments, etc.
The war in Syria is over the oil pipelines. America's fiat currency is based on oil. The agreement with Saudi Arabia to receive USD payments for oil, then they pump up our financial markets as part of the agreement and are dripping rich because of the returns, and those who have invested and or made backroom deals. (Islamic Banks are increasing their shares in the EU every year.)
"They that control the money, decide the fate of the people."
About the only way I see to stop the madness (and our involvement) in the Middle East is if the USD crashes, and we go to another system. It is inevitable. In a world wide financial crash the country that has the most debt gets to start with a clean slate, and America does have the most debt, our debt would be forgiven. I suppose in a way we can thank Obama for that nuclear option in our grasp. We cannot just keep printing paper and making digital transactions, and have continual wars and death. It would not surprise me if Trump shut down the stock market (this year ?), after the Federal Reserve crashes on its own.
ADDED: The President said we are not going into Syria.
Indeed, it is beyond conceivability that one of these ‘rebel’ organizations might get their hands on ‘chemical weapons’ of some kind to stage this ‘attack'… the Ahrar al-Sham Sham Legion, nor the Jaysh al-Sunna, nor the Martyrs of Islam Brigade, nor the Army of Free Tribes, nor the Revolutionary Commando Army, nor Jabhat Ansar al-Islam, nor the Criterion Brigades, nor the al-Rahman Legion, nor the Al-Habib al-Mustafa Brigade, nor the Al-Majid Brigades, nor the Homs Liberation Movement, nor the Sultan Murad Division, nor the al-Moutasem Brigade… nor the HUNDRED other rebel factions, sects, clans or gangs could have done this. Right?
"Grow up"? Very mature, ahorse. Very mature.
Kathleen , Yes , it's true . I should have said " read up ", that way I could be all inclusive with my statement , read up a history book , the constitution , the treaty agreements of the middle east and superpowers , read up on current events , the history and UN proclamations against the use and responsibilities of all major countries in responding to WMD uses and or proliferation's , read up on the effects of Serin* gas on the four year old bodies , ...............
"Read up "and then grow up!
I think this is a step in the right direction. Yesterday, National Security Subcommittee Chairman Ron DeSantis and Congressman Jason Chaffetz sent a letter to Secretary Tillerson requesting documents and communications related to the 2013 chemical weapons deal made between the Obama Administration and Syria. I'd like to see it all on the table for everyone to see.
Agreed. What is the deal?
and I like to see the details of the Iran Nuclear deal as well that was negotiated by John F. Kerry...
I would truly like to know what the bottom line on that crazy deal was.
Want to know what the nuclear treaties under Obama contained ,
"Here , here's billions of dollars in US cash , all you have to do is Please ,please please please , don't abuse the use of them or your chemical weapons while I'm in office !"
Sign here X ____________________________
I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama /Clinton /Kerry said , "wait until Trumps in office "
I wish I had a snappy response, but I believe you are on target. There was plenty of time to shred any documents, or whatever it took. My thoughts go back to Obama's muslim (three brothers) rogue IT staff that were arrested. I wonder what they have confessed.
A bunch of political junkies in a political forum wanting to "see the treaties on the table " so what ? You can second guess the conspiracy theorist's ? There are a lot of alarmist's here apparently expecting the end of the world at any moment , I guess .
Look out , Trump's gonna nuke us all !
We may not be exactly on the same page, Ed. I am not an alarmist, that bell went off on 9/11 and that is when the good guys said they had enough of this and started working behind the scenes quietly. They got this!
I don't believe for minute that Trump is going to nuke anyone. I believe he is the man of God's choosing for such a time as this. I expect world peace to come out of this. Maybe it will look like this...
Russia + China + USA = World Peace
I believe things are going to be realigned for the better. I'm not worried.
North Korea is the nuclear threat, finally China is taking actions there.
by Deforest 7 years ago
It just happened in Syria and guess who did it? The so-called Free Syria Army. Most of the victims were civilians! But what do we care? We are so far!Where do those chemical weapons come from if not from the West? Since radical islamists possess chemical weapons with our blessing why did we make a...
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
Let's say Israel hadn't bombed the Syrian nuclear program into oblivion decades ago, or the world lets Iran develop nuclear capability and they ship some suitcase nukes to Assad, or North Korea sneaked some in. In any case, what I am posing is what if Assad had tactical nukes. Now,...
by Missing Link 7 years ago
Are we (the USA) really going to launch an unprovoked attack upon Syria? Really?Obama said a long time ago if the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in Syria it would cross a line. The last thing Asaad wanted was to have USA involvement. So, it makes no sense...
by Deforest 6 years ago
According to my source of information, those children were the ones who were kidnapped by djihadists. Experts are stating that they didn't die from sarin attacks since the symptoms don't correspond. In one word, we armed those dogs that killed those innocent angels. And God bless America right?...
by LAURENS WRIGHT 7 years ago
What are your views about Chemical Weapons In Syria ?Do you think that Syria is a threat to the US? Do you think that the US should declare war on Syria? Do you think that the US is trying to make a message? Do you believe that the US is leading the citizens for support of a...
by Suzette Walker 7 years ago
What should President Obama do to help the Syrian rebels now that Assad has used sarin against them?Assad has used sarin (a chemical weapon) several times against his own people - this has recently been certified by Obama and Congress. What should be the U.S. response to this...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|