Trump orders attack on Syria, asks for other countries to join him.

My thoughts on this, is that it very significant thing which has occurred. I don't think however we will be pulled into another long conflict in the middle east. I think it's probably misreading the situation.

The United States I think is already "at war" with the major powers, for survival, to seize the most optimal position for the years to come.

I think there is a great deal unknowns. Of course there is both national and international motives to bring down Assad -- but more importantly what happen's after. So we can't say this response Trump has taken is a "victory" for any party. I believe it's going to be a long and unsteady road ahead, but I can't imagine "WW3". I think that no one of significant influence really acts for that cause, or that there is sufficient belief, or impending momentum for that.

Countries intelligences can cripple other countries much more effectively and less costly than by War. Putin, Trump, China, will all move defensively I think. Military action is the defense tool, covert action is the attack tool.
 
JGeropoulas said:
I’m not sure what to make of this video someone supposedly took of people staging a car bombing. It may be a hoax or from some movie that was being made, but the explosion is certainly real. Regardless, it succeeds in getting the most important point across: the deceptive, orchestrated nature of false flag attacks.
_https://www.facebook.com/4biddenKnowledge/videos/514994408675559/

I looked into this video a couple months ago (think it was around then). From what I could find, this took place in Iraq, and one of the Shia militias set it up to blame ISIS and film some "atrocity videos". Hard to verify, but I'm pretty sure that kind of stuff goes on all the time, on both sides.
 
Scottie said:
bjorn said:
Good, looks like things haven't chance much, just like their crappy patriot missile system.

59 tomahawks, only 23 hit their target. 50% seems about right.

That's actually both hilarious and sad. How can a 50% on-target rate possibly be described as "precision strikes"?

But then, when you don't care about "collateral damage", it's perfectly okay. :/

Hey, Scottie and others.

Just my 5c on this.

23/59 is about 40%. The 60% could easily have included many losses to MANPADs and AAA. Tomahawks fly low, not too fast and pretty straight, and are very vulnerable to simple air defenses provided by AA auto-cannons and Strelas/Iglas. The FR Yugoslav experience has clearly shown a large rate of kill of Tomahawks using tech not dissimilar to Syrian.

All you need to be is prepared to meet them, so even fewer could have reached the target even without the Russian help or guidance/missile failures.

Usage of late model S-300 or S-400 on Tomahawks launched from far away headed to a destination also far away from the S battery is problematic, not a great value for the buck (unless the cruise missiles are nuclear-tipped) and not necessarily a good strategic decision, if you are trying to hide away the performance of sophisticated late model AD.

We can only guess how prepared the Syrian Low-altitude air defences were, but my guess is, better than zero. Which leads me to guess that many of the 36 "missing" Tomahawks could have succumbed to those.
 
I do not pretend to be overwhelmed by opinism at all, but I see it relatively likely that in a third world war there will be total rebellion ... that is to say, the wave should influence to a degree that people, for the most part, Let the world be filled with radiation ... at least a good part is aware of this included of course the people of the powers ... from a certain angle is dibertido see that it will leave here for a couple of days or less...If trump "cedio" or is in a certain way aligned is very speculative even.have to see how "interesting" it gets. (In the second case there is a lot of controversy since the information they have put can be in certain points quite aligned with The "plan", but ironically contradictory in others ... who knows how much complexity round ... whatever the reason I hope other tracks fall in the next few hours ... at least for my part to make a comment less vague...
 
Windmill knight said:
Personally, I think he was "made an offer he could not refuse". You better take back what you said about not going after Assad, or else you or your family go Kennedy's way! (for example) So he tried, but they got him in the pocket already.

I agree with this view. US couldn't allow themselves to go into direct confrontation with Russia for obvious reasons. That's why they probably noticed Russia about the coming attack (which was officially confirmed by Dmitry Peskov, Russian spokesman). Russia could have intercepted the missiles but didn't because of the Air Safety Agreement with US. But what Russia could have done and probably did is to use its radio-electronic weapons to divert the missiles from their targets. This kind of action is not easily trackable compared to direct interception by S-300/S-400. Additionally, these kind of missiles is not very precise per se (as we know from the conflict in Kosovo in 1999) though they are guided by GPS. Maybe that's why so few missiles hit their targets.
 
Altair said:
Windmill knight said:
Personally, I think he was "made an offer he could not refuse". You better take back what you said about not going after Assad, or else you or your family go Kennedy's way! (for example) So he tried, but they got him in the pocket already.

I agree with this view. US couldn't allow themselves to go into direct confrontation with Russia for obvious reasons. That's why they probably noticed Russia about the coming attack (which was officially confirmed by Dmitry Peskov, Russian spokesman). Russia could have intercepted the missiles but didn't because of the Air Safety Agreement with US. But what Russia could have done and probably did is to use its radio-electronic weapons to divert the missiles from their targets. This kind of action is not easily trackable compared to direct interception by S-300/S-400. Additionally, these kind of missiles is not very precise per se (as we know from the conflict in Kosovo in 1999) though they are guided by GPS. Maybe that's why so few missiles hit their targets.

That seems like a large gamble on Russia's part: showcasing the capabilities of its radio-electronic weapons so prematurely into the (potential) US-Russia escalation. Unless they used them in a small enough way for the plausible deniability, I personally don't think it would have been worth the risk. I mean the Russians must be aware of the US poking around to try and test their capabilities, right?
 
whitecoast said:
Altair said:
Windmill knight said:
Personally, I think he was "made an offer he could not refuse". You better take back what you said about not going after Assad, or else you or your family go Kennedy's way! (for example) So he tried, but they got him in the pocket already.

I agree with this view. US couldn't allow themselves to go into direct confrontation with Russia for obvious reasons. That's why they probably noticed Russia about the coming attack (which was officially confirmed by Dmitry Peskov, Russian spokesman). Russia could have intercepted the missiles but didn't because of the Air Safety Agreement with US. But what Russia could have done and probably did is to use its radio-electronic weapons to divert the missiles from their targets. This kind of action is not easily trackable compared to direct interception by S-300/S-400. Additionally, these kind of missiles is not very precise per se (as we know from the conflict in Kosovo in 1999) though they are guided by GPS. Maybe that's why so few missiles hit their targets.

That seems like a large gamble on Russia's part: showcasing the capabilities of its radio-electronic weapons so prematurely into the (potential) US-Russia escalation. Unless they used them in a small enough way for the plausible deniability, I personally don't think it would have been worth the risk. I mean the Russians must be aware of the US poking around to try and test their capabilities, right?

Well, they did it before in a more overt way. Remember the incident in Black Sea as an outdated Russian jet with some high tec equipment on board disabled all the weaponry on the American ship?
 
The main problem I have with the theory that Putin and Trump are somehow coordinating their actions is: how? How would they coordinate without being found out and exposed by the deep state? Sure, maybe there's some "spy stuff" like encrypted phones, but even if the calls were encrypted wouldn't the NSA/whoever still be able to see that they were calling each other? It just seems unlikely to me.

On the other hand, as Adams points out
https://www.sott.net/article/347537-Scott-Adams-Trumps-gains-from-the-Syrian-air-base-attack said:
President Trump just solved for the allegation that he is Putin's puppet. He doesn't look like Putin's puppet today. And that was Trump's biggest problem, which made it America's problem too. No one wants a president who is under a cloud of suspicion about Russian influence.
I just don't see how they could formally coordinate it without being found out, but what do I know? :huh:


On a personal front I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about this whole situation. I was feeling a deep sense of dread all day yesterday for no apparent reason until I got home and glanced at the news headlines and posts here. I fell asleep last night hoping it wouldn't be my last. I don't mean to be dramatic, just sharing my experience FWIW.
 
Well, they did it before in a more overt way. Remember the incident in Black Sea as an outdated Russian jet with some high tec equipment on board disabled all the weaponry on the American ship?

That's true.
 
stellar said:
[...]
Trump has met with many foreign leaders already but not Putin. Why? Such a meeting would surely shed light for him on the reality of the situation. Maybe his pre-election bark was worse than his bite.

A good question I thought about as well. The best case scenario is that he has done it thus far for strategic reasons towards the deep state. The worst case scenario is that he really doesn't care, which would be more then a bad sign. I mean he has met quite a number of foreign leaders so far, with the exception of Putin. If I remember correctly, the russians said not long ago that they would be willing to meet, but there was still no request coming from the Trump camp.

In a sane world any good leader should first talk to Putin and establish good relations between the countries (and not just talk about it). That is kind of a no brainer for anyone paying attention to what Putin has done over the years.
 
Something else to keep in mind:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25731.msg306206.html#msg306206

There is a grave aura of danger over the locator of Israel. Something big, big, big is going to happen there. We can not say exactly "when", and will not say exactly what, but it will be decidedly negative!!!!]

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,18644.msg176209.html#msg176209

Q: (A) Well, we still we have one problem: the problem involvement of Israel. We were worrying about what is going to happen in Israel. At present, all the anger is directed at the United States. A: America may shift blame.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43250.msg690172.html#msg690172

A: Just hang on and observe what happens in the next 40 or so days. It will give you chills up your spine.

Q: (Joe) Why do you think Iran?

(L) Well, Israel wants Iran. Israel wants to destroy Iran and institute their god knows what... I dunno what they want!

(Joe) I think Iran's off the table at this point.

(L) But some of them are trying to put it back. Even Trump. The thing was that years ago, we asked what was going to be the ultimate outcome, and they said the destruction of Israel. All of this manipulating and maneuvering that Israel is doing, they will only end up destroying themselves.

I think Israel has been too happy with this latest outcome. An update from Russia Insider:

Pentagon Gave Israel Front Row Seats to US Missile Strikes in Syria

http://russia-insider.com/en/israeli-minister-syria-strike-restores-us-leadership-middle-east/ri19494?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Israel's intelligence minister said Tel Aviv was given box seats for Trump's missile attack, which "restored" US prestige in Middle East
 
Washington Has Crossed Russia’s Red Line
Paul Craig Roberts
4-7-17

Washington’s military attack on Syria is unambiguously a war crime…(and the) story of Syrian use of chemical weapons is totally implausible...

As Russia has made clear, the alleged chemical weapons attack has every hallmark of a Washington orchestrated event in order to launch a US military attack on Syria. As the Russian Defense Ministry explained, the US air attack had to have been planned in advance of the alleged chemical weapon event. The US air strike on Syria requires advanced planning, but followed immediately the event used as the excuse: _http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12117678%40egNews In other words, it was an orchestrated event.

Gilbert Doctorow says that the idiot Americans drowning in their own hubris have now crossed a Russian red line with consequences to follow. _http://russia-insider.com/en/us-missile-strikes-syria-have-crossed-russian-red-lines-and-risk-serious-escalation/ri19479

Insane Washington is driving the world to thermo-nuclear war. And where are the protests?

_http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/07/washington-crossed-russias-red-line/
 
Will Putin Be The Next To Surrender?
Paul Craig Roberts
4-6-17

Update: Washington has reopened the conflict with a Tomahawk missile attack on Syrian Air Force Bases. The Russian/Syrian air defense systems did not prevent the attack.

The Washington Establishment has reasserted control. First Flynn and now Bannon. All that are left in the Trump administration are the Zionists and the crazed generals who want war with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and North Korea.
There is no one in the White House to stop them. Kiss good-bye normalized relations with Russia.

The Syrian conflict is set to be reopened. That is the point of the chemical attack blamed by Washington on Syria despite the absence of any evidence. It is completely obvious that the chemical attack is a Washington orchestrated event. According to reports US Secretary of State Tillerson has warned Russia that steps are underway to remove Syrian president Assad. Trump agrees.

The removal of Assad allows Washington to impose another Washington puppet on Muslim peoples, to remove another Arab government with an independent policy from Washington, to remove another government that is opposed to Israel’s theft of Palestine, and for Exxon’s Tillerson and the neoconservative hegemonists to cut Russian natural gas off from Europe with a US controlled gas pipeline from Quatar to Europe via Syria.

By ignoring all of these US advantages, the Russian government dithered in completing the liberation of Syria from Washington-backed ISIS. The Russians dithered, because they had totally unrealistic hopes of achieving a partnership with Washington via a joint effort against terrorism.

This was a ridiculous idea as terrorism is Washington’s weapon. If Washington can move Russia out of the way with threats or more Russian misplaced hopes of “cooperation” with Washington, terrorism will next be directed against Iran on a large scale. When Iran falls, terrorism will start to work on the Russian Federation and on the Chinese province that borders Kazakhstan. Washington has already given Russia a taste of US-supported terrorism in Chechnya. More is to come.

If the Russian government had not dithered in cleaning out ISIS from Syria when Russia unexpectedly took the lead from the West, Syria would not face partition or renewed US determination to overthrow Assad for the reasons given above. But the Russians, mesmerized by dreams of cooperating with Washington, have put both Syria and themselves in a difficult position.

The Russians grabbed the initiative and surprised the world by accepting the Syrian government’s invitation and entering the conflict. Washington was helpless. The Russian intervention immediately turned the tide against ISIS. Then suddenly Putin announced a Russian pullout, claiming like Bush on the aircraft carrier, “Mission Accomplished.”

But mission wasn’t accomplished, and Russia reentered, still with the initiative but set back somewhat from the irrational withdrawal. If memory serves, this in and out business happened a couple of times. Then when Russia has the war against ISIS won, they hold back on the finish in the vain belief that now Washington will finally cooperate with Russia in eliminating the last ISIS stronghold. Instead, the US sent in military forces to block the Russian/Syrian advances. The Russian Foreign Minister complained, but Russia did not use its superior power on the scene to move aside the token US forces and bring the conflict to an end.

Now Washington gives “warnings” to Russia not to get in Washington’s way. Will the Russian government ever learn that cooperation with Washington has only one meaning: sign up as a vassal?

Russia’s only alternative now is to tell Washington to go to hell, that Russia will not permit Washington to remove Assad. But the Russian Fifth Column, which is allied with the West, will insist that Russia can finally gain Washington’s cooperation if only Russia will sacrifice Assad. Of course, Russia’s acquiescence will destroy the image of Russian power, and it will be used to deprive Russia of foreign exchange from natural gas sales to Europe.

Putin has said that Russia cannot trust Washington. This is a correct deduction from the facts, so why does Russia keep putting itself in a quandry by seeking cooperation with Washington? “Cooperation with Washington” has only one meaning. It means surrender to Washington.

Putin has only part-way cleaned up Russia. The country remains full of American agents. Will Putin fall to the Washington Establishment just as Trump has?

It is extraordinary how little of the Russian media understand the peril that Russia is in.

_http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/06/trump-surrendered-will-putin-next-surrender/
 
Laura said:
I think at this point we all ought to be as pessimistic as possible without turning into Chicken Little. The reason I say that is that then we won't be let down with disappointment which can have a negative effect on the health.

As to what the Cs said in last session:

A: Yes. Implications are serious and dramatic beyond what is immediately apparent. From our perspective, the import is indeed chilling. Watch how it all plays out. The irresistible force has met the immovable object. Who is more clever?

What if they were talking about the Deep State vs. Putin, ultimately, and NOT the Deep State vs Trump?

Also, ya'll remember the "April Drop Dead Date" thing?

Looks like the Syrian Girl shares your perspective Laura:

 
A couple of points to maybe consider:

- This "chemical attack" is providing the empire with an ample opportunity to finally get rid of Assad, destabilize that country (and by proxy also the power of russia), since this time there are some crucial and hairy factual elements in their claims, namely: the syrians and russians admitted that the syrian army has bombed that area. This is an unprecedented situation (opportunity for the elites) in this conflict, that was not there before in all those years since it started. Before that point all and every such claims as "Assad killing civilians on purpose", be it with chemical weapons or otherwise, was completely made up, from start to finish, with no factual elements in it, that could even plausibly, let alone factually, support their claim to put the blame on syria/russia. As said, this time they have this admission, which they can use to "solidify" their claim. That is a whole different ball game and if we assume that the Trump team knew about how hairy that situation can really get quickly, they also knew that the "deep state" will have some hard data that they will push to the limit, to finally get rid of Assad and that possibly with a open intervention like in Libya. This hairy situation was quite obvious, to anyone paying attention, at least at the point the russians said that the syrian army indeed bombed there.

-Maybe the Trump team was then in the very unfortunate situation to have 1: either a pretty probable military intervention put in their hand or 2: Make a quick precautions move by openly bombing "the source of the chemical attack" to take the wind out of sails of those war mongers. Since that is such a hairy situation, they just thought that this is the most sensible thing to do, to avoid another open war. From this perspective the move might not be so bad after all. Cornered basically and seeing no other option to ease the pressure.

- Of course that would have been a third option, that is: Calling the chemical attack claims for what they are, namely fake news. Why didn't he choose to do it this way, this time? From my perspective that would have been the most sane thing to do. From Trumps perspective that might also have been the case, but he probably thought that this time it will make things much harder for him in his own country. The pressure his administration would have get from the war mongers would have been nothing compared to "the russian hacking" claim, since this time they have some actual facts that they can spin very well against Trump.

- Trump with this open attack, for the first time in this syria conflict, has openly committed a war crime against syria. Obama and Co. have used proxies and never admitted publically to have made such a military move against syria and pretended instead to actually "fight ISIS". This gives the russians now some hard data that proves that the US has committed a war crime there, by their own admission.
 
Back
Top Bottom