Trump orders attack on Syria, asks for other countries to join him.
- Thread starter Alejo
- Start date
JGeropoulas said:
Geez!!! What a farce. All of a sudden we've had another, unexpected "turn of the worm" and the convoluted plot in Washington takes on new characters as the plot thickens. Jered Kushner, WHAT is going on with this guy and poor, Steve Bannon is looking a bit ill. In the immediate aftermath of the Syrian strike, it looks like Trump has taken personal hits on several fronts. People in his supportive base are turning against him and he has committed an impeachable(?) war crime. As others have pointed out, (Kathrine Austin Fitts for one) strategy to separate Trump from his advisers is in play and ongoing
This commentary by Roger Stone is very insightful as to what is happening inside the Trump administration with sabotage coming from the Republican party. This is from the Sott article "White House Infighting". A house divided can not stand.
lilies
The Living Force
Regards where the future will go, I think, undecided things stand, still: this is a dangerous and precarious extreme position, like the one of a wrecking ball, when it swings outward - and we are now there - , where for a couple moments the ball seems to stand still. (As far as I can see) When it finally begins to accelerate inward will it hit something or miss? As the ball comes in, events will show with increasing probability the path, where all this "Tomahawk consequence cluster" will lead, I think.
That letter and the videos still read that Trump has been coerced. Probably 5th column representatives were telling him:
- Where is your loyalty? To America? Then act like it! Or we will make sure the other one shows the right understanding we need. In that case we won't need you anymore and you know what that means, right?
And its all the observers' fault.
That letter and the videos still read that Trump has been coerced. Probably 5th column representatives were telling him:
- Where is your loyalty? To America? Then act like it! Or we will make sure the other one shows the right understanding we need. In that case we won't need you anymore and you know what that means, right?
And its all the observers' fault.
Joe said:
Well, in that case. Let them try
It's a relief to hear that.I once had something in mind to write about how the Israeli Iron Doom system is a complete farce by making comparison video's about showing how Russian air defence systems intercept missiles. And how the Israeli Iron Doom just simply doesn't. Isreal just shoot missiles in the sky that randomly explode up air to give the impression that they are under fire.
Israel has claimed that they have been under fire by hundreds if not thousands of missiles. When asked about the damage, they simply tell that 99% get's intercepted hence no damage. They never share radar data about those interceptions either. Because it's a lie.
I searched for video's that showed visible interceptions to point out the difference but I couldn't find that many, that's mainly because interceptions mostly happen out of visible range. But I found a small amount that did show a visible interception. And ofcourse those were all Russian.
Like this one (starts from 2:20 min)
angelburst29
The Living Force
Another fragmented piece to the puzzle - this article claims that CIA Director Pompeo and other intelligence officials weren’t at the table at Trump's meeting, during his decision to launch missile strikes against Syria?
Where Was CIA’s Pompeo on Syria?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/
There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where is CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?
Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier — and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.
At the time, I found the information dubious since Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior U.S. officials were declaring quite confidently that Assad was at fault. Given that apparent confidence, I assumed that Pompeo and the CIA must have signed off on the conclusion of Assad’s guilt even though I knew that some U.S. intelligence analysts had contrary opinions, that they viewed the incident as either an accidental release of chemicals or an intentional ploy by Al Qaeda rebels to sucker the U.S. into attacking Syria.
As strange as the Trump administration has been in its early months, it was hard for me to believe that Trump would have listened to the CIA’s views and then shooed the director away from the larger meeting before launching a military strike against a country not threatening America.
After the strike against Syria by 59 Tomahawk missiles, which Syrian officials said killed seven people including four children, Trump gave a speech to the American people declaring flatly:
“On Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”
As much as Trump stood to benefit politically by acting aggressively in attacking Syria — and thus winning praise even from his harshest critics — the idea that he would ignore the views of the U.S. intelligence community on an issue of war or peace was something that I found hard to believe.
So, I put aside what I had heard from the source about the discordant Pompeo-Trump meeting as the sort of tidbit that may come from someone who lacks first-hand knowledge and doesn’t get all the details right.
After all, in almost every similar situation that I had covered over decades, the CIA Director or the Director of National Intelligence has played a prominent role in decisions that depend heavily on the intelligence community’s assessments and actions.
For instance, in the famous photo of President Obama and his team waiting out the results of the 2011 raid to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, CIA Director Leon Panetta is the one on the conference screen that everyone is looking at.
Even when the U.S. government is presenting false information, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 speech laying out the bogus evidence of Iraq hiding WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet was seated behind Powell to lend credibility to the falsehoods.
At the Table - But in the photo of Trump and his advisers, no one from the intelligence community is in the frame. You see Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, strategic adviser Steve Bannon, son-in-law Jared Kushner and a variety of other officials, including some economic advisers who were at Mar-a-Lago in Florida for the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
However, you don’t see Pompeo or Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats or any other intelligence official. Even The New York Times noted the oddity in its Saturday editions, writing: “If there were C.I.A. and other intelligence briefers around, … they are not in the picture.”
That made me wonder whether perhaps my original source did know something. The claim was that CIA Director Pompeo had briefed Trump personally on the analysts’ assessment that Assad’s forces were not responsible, but – then with Pompeo sidelined – Trump conveyed his own version of the intelligence to his senior staff.
In other words, the other officials didn’t get the direct word from Pompeo but rather received a second-hand account from the President, the source said. Did Trump choose to rely on the smug certainty from the TV shows and the mainstream news media that Assad was guilty, rather than the contrary view of U.S. intelligence analysts?
After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.
While Tillerson’s comment meshed with Official Washington’s hastily formed groupthink of Assad’s guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources.
Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that “high degree of confidence” assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack.
If so, such a dangerous deception more than anything else we’ve seen in the first two-plus months of the Trump administration would be grounds for impeachment – ignoring the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community so the President could carry out a politically popular (albeit illegal) missile strike that killed Syrians.
Tillerson calls his Russian counterpart Lavrov
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/tillerson-calls-his-russian-counterpart.html
On April 8, on American initiative, a telephone conversation took place between Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
They discussed the situation in Syria in the wake of attacks by the US armed forces on the Syrian troops on the night of April 7.
Lavrov stressed that an attack on a country whose government fights terrorism only plays into the hands of extremists creating additional threats to regional and global security.
The minister also noted that allegations of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops in Idlib on April 4 are untrue. He pointed out the need for a thorough, impartial and professional factual finding of the entire story.
The foreign ministers agreed to continue the review of the situation in the Syrian settlement in person.
Where Was CIA’s Pompeo on Syria?
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/where-was-cias-pompeo-on-syria/
There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where is CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?
Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier — and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.
At the time, I found the information dubious since Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior U.S. officials were declaring quite confidently that Assad was at fault. Given that apparent confidence, I assumed that Pompeo and the CIA must have signed off on the conclusion of Assad’s guilt even though I knew that some U.S. intelligence analysts had contrary opinions, that they viewed the incident as either an accidental release of chemicals or an intentional ploy by Al Qaeda rebels to sucker the U.S. into attacking Syria.
As strange as the Trump administration has been in its early months, it was hard for me to believe that Trump would have listened to the CIA’s views and then shooed the director away from the larger meeting before launching a military strike against a country not threatening America.
After the strike against Syria by 59 Tomahawk missiles, which Syrian officials said killed seven people including four children, Trump gave a speech to the American people declaring flatly:
“On Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”
As much as Trump stood to benefit politically by acting aggressively in attacking Syria — and thus winning praise even from his harshest critics — the idea that he would ignore the views of the U.S. intelligence community on an issue of war or peace was something that I found hard to believe.
So, I put aside what I had heard from the source about the discordant Pompeo-Trump meeting as the sort of tidbit that may come from someone who lacks first-hand knowledge and doesn’t get all the details right.
After all, in almost every similar situation that I had covered over decades, the CIA Director or the Director of National Intelligence has played a prominent role in decisions that depend heavily on the intelligence community’s assessments and actions.
For instance, in the famous photo of President Obama and his team waiting out the results of the 2011 raid to kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, CIA Director Leon Panetta is the one on the conference screen that everyone is looking at.
Even when the U.S. government is presenting false information, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 speech laying out the bogus evidence of Iraq hiding WMDs, CIA Director George Tenet was seated behind Powell to lend credibility to the falsehoods.
At the Table - But in the photo of Trump and his advisers, no one from the intelligence community is in the frame. You see Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, strategic adviser Steve Bannon, son-in-law Jared Kushner and a variety of other officials, including some economic advisers who were at Mar-a-Lago in Florida for the meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
However, you don’t see Pompeo or Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats or any other intelligence official. Even The New York Times noted the oddity in its Saturday editions, writing: “If there were C.I.A. and other intelligence briefers around, … they are not in the picture.”
That made me wonder whether perhaps my original source did know something. The claim was that CIA Director Pompeo had briefed Trump personally on the analysts’ assessment that Assad’s forces were not responsible, but – then with Pompeo sidelined – Trump conveyed his own version of the intelligence to his senior staff.
In other words, the other officials didn’t get the direct word from Pompeo but rather received a second-hand account from the President, the source said. Did Trump choose to rely on the smug certainty from the TV shows and the mainstream news media that Assad was guilty, rather than the contrary view of U.S. intelligence analysts?
After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.
While Tillerson’s comment meshed with Official Washington’s hastily formed groupthink of Assad’s guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources.
Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that “high degree of confidence” assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack.
If so, such a dangerous deception more than anything else we’ve seen in the first two-plus months of the Trump administration would be grounds for impeachment – ignoring the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community so the President could carry out a politically popular (albeit illegal) missile strike that killed Syrians.
Tillerson calls his Russian counterpart Lavrov
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/tillerson-calls-his-russian-counterpart.html
On April 8, on American initiative, a telephone conversation took place between Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
They discussed the situation in Syria in the wake of attacks by the US armed forces on the Syrian troops on the night of April 7.
Lavrov stressed that an attack on a country whose government fights terrorism only plays into the hands of extremists creating additional threats to regional and global security.
The minister also noted that allegations of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops in Idlib on April 4 are untrue. He pointed out the need for a thorough, impartial and professional factual finding of the entire story.
The foreign ministers agreed to continue the review of the situation in the Syrian settlement in person.
Eduard Popov gives a perspective including what is perceived in Russia about the attack.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-syria-strike-could-hit-donbass-and.html
Popov has a point. Trump's attack has only encouraged not only ISIS, but also Ukraine and others. Just as Russia is taking note of this, surely China is too and taking precautions, as they also are in conflict with countries or political groups who wish Uncle Sam to throw its weight around irrespective of whether it is in accordance with international law. We could see a turbo charging of color revolutions, where if especially children are sacrificed then Trump can get triggered and do thoughtless acts. An emotional center gone wild.
Thinking about this and the possible implications does send chills down the spine.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-syria-strike-could-hit-donbass-and.html
Popov has a point. Trump's attack has only encouraged not only ISIS, but also Ukraine and others. Just as Russia is taking note of this, surely China is too and taking precautions, as they also are in conflict with countries or political groups who wish Uncle Sam to throw its weight around irrespective of whether it is in accordance with international law. We could see a turbo charging of color revolutions, where if especially children are sacrificed then Trump can get triggered and do thoughtless acts. An emotional center gone wild.
Thinking about this and the possible implications does send chills down the spine.
Joe said:
That is my understanding of the S-300 Systems and upwards (S-400 and S-500) as well. If the system was in place, which I assume it was, I don't quite get why so many of those rockets even came through. It almost sounds like they were not deployed during that instance on purpose (or at least partly not deployed), for whatever reason.
One would think that the system would easily have shot allmost all of those missiles out of the air, if it was really used to its full capacity.
Press TV with a special guest from SOTT :) 
Here's something encouraging. Go chek the FB page of Avaaz, where they have a petition condemning the Assad "regime" for "gassing children", and read the comments, especially those more liked. They are overwhelmingly against it and calling out on Avaaz for promoting what amounts to war propaganda:
https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz/posts/10154788236843884
https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz/posts/10154788236843884
Windmill knight said:
Yes, this gives at least some hope and that people calling for what it is, a lie.
Pashalis said:
Eventually they were just waiting and not to go against any agreement, also when the US went against them, because then the media would cry out again and twist the facts that they attacked the US. Still a speculation could be as it was discussed that some other electronic systems were used to distract some rockets.
Pashalis said:
Yeah, on the other hand. If Russia would have intercepted all those tomahawks it might have escalated the conflict even further. Russia and it's allies are winning the real war against terrorism. There is no reason to escalate this further and that means you have to take a punch or two every now and then. I say cool heads prevail. The war like it's going on now is working in Russia and Syria favor regardless.
happyliza
The Living Force
Tom Duggan is a FB friend who lives in Damascus with his Syrian wife. We were chatting in February about the situation.
Here Tom explains what actually happened - and IS happening on a regular basis. Please share. Stay safe Tom!
125,966 Views
Hanin Elias at Damascus Kassa.
5 April at 17:29 · Damascus, Syria ·
My Interview with British Journalist Tom Duggan in Damascus Kasaa at the French Hospital
tells us about the chemical attacks accusations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOSZ6QgGgY&feature=youtu.be
The video has only had 49k shares. So please help distribute!
Here Tom explains what actually happened - and IS happening on a regular basis. Please share. Stay safe Tom!
125,966 Views
Hanin Elias at Damascus Kassa.
5 April at 17:29 · Damascus, Syria ·
My Interview with British Journalist Tom Duggan in Damascus Kasaa at the French Hospital
tells us about the chemical attacks accusations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOSZ6QgGgY&feature=youtu.be
The video has only had 49k shares. So please help distribute!
Windmill knight said:
Like many other people I too have been feeling quite a bit of doom and gloom over all this so this is very encouraging indeed! The majority of comments there do call them out on lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies.
And here's Putin patiently explaining the lack of Western logic again: https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/850895346809143300/video/1
Dakota said:
I think too, it's highly symbolic. Trump in the role of Krennic, delivering the weapon but the weapon hit a void tarmac. So I'm on the line of thinking that Trump try to satisfies all parties (hard to say if it's the right thing to do).
About a previous post about Trump not having "the guts of Kennedy" (who said no to air strike after the Bay of Pigs operation), well, I hope it's too early to judge. When you're dead you can't influence much in this world.
Here's Meyssan analyse:
My question is, if it's true, "what channel" Trump use to coordinate with Russia?
