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

[jsf]

I'm wondering if it's a way for Trumm to give to possibility to Russia to eliminate all CIA forces in Syria. Now Putin can do that without being accused of war against US forces but only logical retaliation. I hope it's that and not something worse.

 

[nicklebleu]

The only possible strategy I can imagine (invent?) to sustain my (wishful-thinking) hope is that perhaps--and this is a stretch--Trump is strategically making a lot of noise and just blowing up some "safe" targets like just some of the landing strips at the airport (which the US will ultimately rebuilt as foreign aid) just to make a show to pacify the war-hawks and "Deep State" false flaggers, derail all the Russia collusion propaganda, dodge the obvious neocon trap (being forced into a corner so he had to do what he railed against Obama for not doing: make killing children with chemical weapons a "red line"), forge party unity and increase Democrat cooperation (the latter two have been reported several times tonight as already occurring--you know, nothing bonds psychopaths together better than mass killing and destruction, right?)

I don't believe that for a second to be the case - I think the "Deep State" has Trump cornered - maybe they made an offer he couldn't refuse (a la Kennedy).

But even if we entertain that thought for a moment, it still wouldn't make a difference, as he now has started going down the slippery slope. I agree with many commentators out of the US, that the only chance Trump ever had was to go all out in clearing the swamp of DC, something that he would have needed to do from day one - first and foremost getting the Clinton orbit into jail.

To me it seems, he is now thoroughly compromised - and while I still (like you) harbor crazy thoughts about some "deep strategy" behind it all, my rational mind tells me it's game over now for anything good to come out of the Trump administration. And I also think that by his relative inaction he has dug himself his own (at least) political grave.

 

[JGeropoulas]

The only possible strategy I can imagine (invent?) to sustain my (wishful-thinking) hope is that perhaps--and this is a stretch--Trump is strategically making a lot of noise and just blowing up some "safe" targets like just some of the landing strips at the airport (which the US will ultimately rebuilt as foreign aid) just to make a show to pacify the war-hawks and "Deep State" false flaggers, derail all the Russia collusion propaganda, dodge the obvious neocon trap (being forced into a corner so he had to do what he railed against Obama for not doing: make killing children with chemical weapons a "red line"), forge party unity and increase Democrat cooperation (the latter two have been reported several times tonight as already occurring--you know, nothing bonds psychopaths together better than mass killing and destruction, right?)

I don't believe that for a second to be the case - I think the "Deep State" has Trump cornered - maybe they made an offer he couldn't refuse (a la Kennedy).

But even if we entertain that thought for a moment, it still wouldn't make a difference, as he now has started going down the slippery slope. I agree with many commentators out of the US, that the only chance Trump ever had was to go all out in clearing the swamp of DC, something that he would have needed to do from day one - first and foremost getting the Clinton orbit into jail.

To me it seems, he is now thoroughly compromised - and while I still (like you) harbor crazy thoughts about some "deep strategy" behind it all, my rational mind tells me it's game over now for anything good to come out of the Trump administration. And I also think that by his relative inaction he has dug himself his own (at least) political grave.

The only thing that fuels my hopeful view above is the C's recent comment implying Trump and the "Deep State" are pretty well matched in their tenacity and drive.

 

[Gary]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that the US strike on Syria reminds him of the attack on Iraq back in 2003, which was launched without approval from the UN Security Council.

“This reminds us of the 2003 situation, when the US and the UK, along with their allies, intervened in Iraq without approval from the UN Security Council, which was a blatant breach of international law,” Lavrov said.

The US didn’t bother to provide any facts to back its allegation that Damascus carried out a chemical attack in Idlib, Lavrov said.

“Which brings us back to the thought that Jabhat Al-Nusra is regarded by the West as an organization that should be preserved,” the Russian foreign minister added.

https://www.rt.com/news/383785-us-missiles-syrian-army/

From Joe's recent article:

One day after the St. Petersburg attack, a 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria's northwestern Idlib province killed at least 70 people, including 10 children. The speed with which the US, British and French governments blamed the attack on forces loyal to Assad and called an emergency UN Security Council meeting to condemn Damascus and, by association, Russia and Iran, and threaten unilateral military action against Syria would make anyone think they were just waiting for such an attack to happen, or even had prior knowledge. After all, in case anyone has forgotten, 'chemical weapon' attacks are the preferred casus belli of the US and its allies. First there was Saddam Hussein in 1990, and again in 2003 (both of which turned out to be false accusations). Then there was Syria in 2013 (also proven to be a false accusation) when a NATO bombardment of the country was narrowly averted by skillful Russian diplomacy.

https://www.sott.net/article/347373-St-Petersburg-Metro-Bombing-Syria-Chemical-Attack-Trump-Folds-to-the-Deep-State

Alex Christoforou of the Duran recently said "US President Donald Trump has started his first war attacking the sovereign state of Syria over alleged chemical weapons attacks. We have moved extremely close to a WW3 moment."

http://theduran.com/breaking-trump-attacks-syria-comes-support-isis-al-qaeda/

History does look to be repeating itself! One hundred years after the US entered into WW1 too.

 

[Pierre]

I think this US operation in Syria might be a concerted bluff by Putin and Trump. Several data suggest so:
- the weak attack conducted by the US: 59 Tomahawks that are precision missiles of a limited size (about 3000 pounds)
- the target (Shayrat Syrian Air Force base) which is not an highly strategic Syrian target
- the number of casualties (6 according to the MSM) which suggests a limited strike and possible forewarning (see the witness testimony above reporting prior evacuation of the base, and the fact that the US signalled Russia about the coming strike)
- the weak Russian retaliation: Russia only reaction so far is to cancel the airspace coordination agreement. Also, Russia has its own military area in this base, as a consequence the base is probably defended by S-X00 systems which Russia did not use to neutralize the incoming subsonic Tomahawks.

It's too early to draw conclusions. If the military activities escalate, Trump might have indeed caved in, if it stops here, it might be indeed a clever bluff. All the more clever that until now, the US conducted bombing of civilian facilities, without being provoked and without presidential orders. In this sense, Trump might have attempted to set a precedent where US operations are now retaliatory, ordered by the President and targeting military assets.

That would also suggest a behind-the-scene coordination between Putin and Trump which would be quite an encouraging thing.

If this US operation marks the beginning of WWIII you can consider the above as the worst analysis ever :O

 

[JGeropoulas]

I've been caught up in this all day. First thing this morning, I posted a letter similar to the one below to Nikki Haley's FB page pointing out how proud I'd been to see my Governor (of SC) appointed to the UN.--until today.

Then later in the day, FWIW, I emailed the letter below (in 4 sections due to character limitations ;)) to Trump at the White House. In contrast of many in power who willfully ignore facts, I believe there are many in leadership positions who are ignorant of many facts because they get busy in their own little bubble and don't make time do a lot of reading from independent, insightful sources to balance out all the controlled information they're fed. So, as you can see in my letter, though maybe a little presumptuous, I made some suggestions for their research and reading list.

President Trump,

My delight that you prevailed over Hillary and company has been ongoing since November. But that delight has become absolute despair as I see you perpetuating the lie that Syria’s Assad has used chemical weapons on innocent Syrians. This wasn’t true back in the 2013 attack Even U.N. official Carla Del Ponte said it was most likely done by the rebels. https://www.sott.net/article/326468-Witness-of-2013-Ghouta-gas-attack-in-Syria-reveals-who-was-responsible-for-the-tragedy. And it’s even more likely that it isn’t true in this latest attack.

As Ron Paul and others have pointed out, http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-syria-chemical-weapons-attack/ even if Assad were the monster claimed by your justly-hated western media, it would make zero sense for him to do such a vile act that he’d certainly know would bring him nothing but condemnation. And even if he wanted to kill a bunch of children, there are ways to do that much less dramatic than poison gas! And above all, why would he want to incur international antipathy when the efforts of the Syrian and Russian forces have almost retaken the country, peace talk are looming and the continuation of his widely-supported (88.7%) Presidency is being secured?!

But those same reasons are exactly why the military-industrial complex and “Deep State” profiteers would resort to orchestrating a “false flag” attack in Syria. In fact, in November, Paul warned that false flag attacks could be used by the American “deep state” and foreign actors to draw the your administration into foreign engagements (research “false flags” and you’ll see this is a very familiar scheme for hijacking our foreign policy). One of the most basic, and easiest early steps in assessing such attacks is to ponder, qui bono--who benefits from it.

Just a quick glance at the photos show these victims were in a terrorist compound, not neighborhoods. This video shows a supposedly dead child peaking her eyes open as the camera passing over her! https://www.sott.net/article/347351-Western-media-quiet-as-Russia-exposes-lies-at-Security-Council . Former CIA Director Brennan and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have both said Syrian terrorists have manufactured and used chemical weapons. https://www.sott.net/article/334269-OPCW-chief-ISIS-likely-produced-mustard-gas-used-in-Syria-Iraq-attacks

It’s so disappointing to see you seemingly marching lock-step with the nefarious scheme to reduce Syria to yet another vassal state to be exploited for its oil reserves and securing pipeline access for Saudi oil to Europe. And worse, for its strategic location for the ultimate hubris—attacking Russia! https://www.sott.net/article/289907-H-R-758-anti-Russia-law-An-historic-decision-and-a-total-news-blackout.

Do you not realize the “intelligence” you read can be distorted to manipulate leaders like you into actions that benefit the elite of the "Deep State"—not our country nor all of us who put you into leadership positions? http://www.thenewatlas.org/2016/08/has-cias-plot-to-covertly-kill-russians.html and http://russia-insider.com/en/declassified-cia-memo-shows-how-us-has-been-plotting-syrian-regime-change-decades/ri18918 . Have you already forgotten that Dick Cheney created his own intelligence agency, which then deviously provided the lie that Saddam had WMD’s, which launched the disasterous war in Iraq?

Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF (retired), served as the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy years. He was directly in charge of providing military support for the clandestine activities of the CIA. It would serve you well to read his book, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World

Please read broadly to gain objective insights from independent analysts, such as Paul Craig Roberts, who was Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/10/24/by-cooperating-with-washington-on-syria-russia-walked-into-a-trap-paul-craig-roberts/

Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in history, concluded after retiring, when he began “to think (for himself) for the first time in 30 years: “War is a racket” and the military men are “just thugs for the bankers”. Don’t you think that patriots like Prouty and Butler should be honored by giving credence to their warnings?

You’re a savvy, logical man. Surely you can see the blatant logic Ron Paul has laid out. During the campaign, you said you wanted to cease a “nation building” foreign policy, that the Syrians should decide who should run their country. That was one chief reason I became an ardent supporter. For me, this issue was just as important as replacing ObamaCare and controlling immigration!

President Trump, I’m a child of the ‘60’s but in the decades that followed, I retreated into political apathy. But when you launched your campaign, I became energized and hopeful for the first time in 30 years! If you fall for this Syrian “false flag” trap, on the heels of the travel ban fiasco and failed ObamaCare replacement, it will completely undermine my confidence that you’re wise and nimble enough to prevail over the “Deep State” and my optimism will sink to record lows. And I dare say I’m not the only supporter who feels this way.

Respectfully yours,

 

[Azur]

I think this US operation in Syria might be a concerted bluff by Putin and Trump. Several data suggest so:
- the weak attack conducted by the US: 59 Tomahawks that are precision missiles of a limited size (about 3000 pounds)
- the target (Shayrat Syrian Air Force base) which is not an highly strategic Syrian target
- the number of casualties (6 according to the MSM) which suggests a limited strike and possible forewarning (see the witness testimony above reporting prior evacuation of the base, and the fact that the US signalled Russia about the coming strike)
- the weak Russian retaliation: Russia only reaction so far is to cancel the airspace coordination agreement. Also, Russia has its own military area in this base, as a consequence the base is probably defended by S-X00 systems which Russia did not use to neutralize the incoming subsonic Tomahawks.

It's too early to draw conclusions. If the military activities escalate, Trump might have indeed caved in, if it stops here, it might be indeed a clever bluff. All the more clever that until now, the US conducted bombing of civilian facilities, without being provoked and without presidential orders. In this sense, Trump might have attempted to set a precedent where US operations are now retaliatory, ordered by the President and targeting military assets.

That would also suggest a behind-the-scene coordination between Putin and Trump which would be quite an encouraging thing.

If this US operation marks the beginning of WWIII you can consider the above as the worst analysis ever :O

I hope you're right, Pierre. But who are they fighting, if they're coordinating against this ruse?

Someone ordered this gas attack.

 

[RedFox]

So far the data may be leaning tentatively towards a clever bluff:

https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/

US missile strike on Syria airfield was ‘low efficiency’ – Russian MoD

The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added.

The strike on the Shayrat airfield in Syria’s Homs Province destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station.

The runway, taxiways and the Syrian aircraft on the parking apron remained undamaged, the ministry said in a statement.

The ministry described the combat efficiency of the strike as “quite poor.”

“On April 7, 2017, between 3:42am and 3:56am Moscow time, two US Navy destroyers (USS Porter and USS Ross) fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Shayrat airfield in Homs Province, Syria, from an area near the Island of Crete in the Mediterranean Sea.

“According to our sources, only 23 of them reached the Syrian airbase,” the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that the points of impact of the other 36 cruise missiles remain unknown.

The ministry also slammed the US actions as “a gross violation” of the memorandum of understanding signed by Moscow in Washington back in 2015 to prevent flight incidents in Syrian airspace.

Of the 23 that hit, the first footage from the ground looks like very little damage (see link for images/videos)
https://www.rt.com/news/383857-video-syria-missile-attack-us/

1st footage of destruction at the US-hit Shayrat airbase in Syria (VIDEO)

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.

The video shows a heavily damaged reinforced aviation hangar, its roof penetrated by an apparent direct hit. It’s unclear from the footage whether there had been aircraft inside the hangar.

A number of undamaged hangars with aircraft inside are visible in the distance.

The concrete runway and driveways seemingly sustained minor to moderate damage, as only relatively small holes can be seen in them.

The video was filmed by Russia24 correspondent Evgeny Poddubny at the scene. He also posted a couple of photos on social media – one shows an undamaged runway littered with shrapnel and the other an intact Syrian MiG21. Nine of the aircraft stationed at the base were destroyed by the missile strike, according to Poddubny, citing “preliminary” data.

 

[Laura]

Otherwise, I'll stick to my rant from an hour ago:

Of all the labels pinned on him, who’d have thought we’d ever see the words “Donald Trump” and “sucker” in the same sentence? But anything can happen these days—and seems “anything” just happened when he “whiplashed” (as the media refers to it) in his policy towards Syria. The consensus of TV’s talking heads is that Trump is flexing his muscle in Syria to show the world he’s a force to be reckoned with. But what has really happened is that, with this second contrived chemical attack, the “Deep State” has flexed its “false flag” muscle to show him they’re the actual force to be reckoned with. In other words, Donald Trump has been a sucker for the “Deep State’s” most predictable, threadbare scam: “false flag" attacks.

And while I’m venting my disillusionments—despite my best effort to avoid illusions—let me say, I thought Reince Priebus was supposed to act as Trump’s "Super Well-Connected Liason" with Congress, so what happened with the ObamaCare fiasco? And I thought Steve Bannon was supposed to be “Super Strategist” but so far it seems like the only Trump administration “strategy” has been little more than reacting to the superior strategies of their adversaries!

Donald Trump, the renown “Deal Maker”, has spoken frequently and passionately about insisting on “fair deals” for America. But how is it a fair deal for Syria when the U.S. absolutely ignores the fact that 88.7% of Syrians voted to have Assad for their president (cf. to only 46.1% of Americans who wanted Trump for president)? How is it a fair deal when it involves character assassination of Assad by the western media? How is it a fair deal when it relies on questionable intelligence from agencies with documented histories of deceit and treachery? Or implements a conspiratorial plan first hatched 70 years ago?* Or disregarding national sovereignty? Or launching 59 million dollars-worth of Tomahawk missiles?

I’ve never read Trump’s best-selling book, but are these the kind of things involved in the “art of the deal”? If so, Trump can deal me out and fight all his future political battles with one less person over-looking his flaws to cheer him on.


* Soon after its recognition as a sovereign country in 1946, Syrian President Shukri al-Quwatli faced difficulties in getting some firebrands in parliament to support passage rights for an Arabian American Oil Company pipeline from Saudi Arabian oil fields to the Mediterranean to supply Europe. Despite the potential economic benefits for Syria, these firebrands’ opposition was fueled by U.S. recognition of the state of Israel. Ignoring more benign options, Truman consequently authorized the CIA’s very first coup, which was to be led by Syrian army chief of staff General Husni al-Za’im. ( _http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/washingtons-long-history-syria-8717 )

They say, “history repeats itself” but what we’re seeing now in Syria seems more like history cloning itself.

I agree. Donald caved a lot faster than we expected.

 

[Ambrose]

So far the data may be leaning tentatively towards a clever bluff:

https://www.rt.com/news/383858-syria-us-strike-inefficient/

The syrian (patriotic, non "opposition") sources so far counted 7 dead in SAAF, another dozen or so wounded, up to a dozen aircraft destroyed or disabled. Possibly not efficient as such given the large scale of the attack (60 expensive cruise missiles) but still very hurtful to such a small air force and a military drained by 6 years of fighting this war.

It's certainly an act of war.

There are many questions that come to mind, not the last of which are what made him finally cave in and order this, and is he likely to repeat this or something even worse again if provided similar rubbish intel?

 

[Joe]

I agree. Donald caved a lot faster than we expected.

Maybe he did but then again, as Pierre says, maybe it was to appease the warhawks who have been demanding action on Syria. Of course, they're unlikely to be convinced by it without some further action, but Trump has now set a precedent for his admin of taking unilateral action without consulting Congress, and it's not the traditional kind of US action where they obliterate a country over a period of months. Of course, this is not possible in Syria with Russian involvement and defenses, whether the hawks in the USA like it or not.

 

[Alejo]

I agree. Donald caved a lot faster than we expected.

Maybe he did but then again, as Pierre says, maybe it was to appease the warhawks who have been demanding action on Syria. Of course, they're unlikely to be convinced by it without some further action, but Trump has now set a precedent for his admin of taking unilateral action without consulting Congress, and it's not the traditional kind of US action where they obliterate a country over a period of months. Of course, this is not possible in Syria with Russian involvement and defenses, whether the hawks in the USA like it or not.

After going to sleep, waking up and thinking about it, I actually considered the same theory as Pierre. I mean the only thing that never added up was: if they hate Russia as much as they do, why let them know? Why warn them ahead of time? Was the plan all along to give them a warning? Or did someone let the info slip? And could perhaps the US have received coordinates from Syria or Russia as to where to attack?

Something about this seems odd. But that could just be my wishful thinking.

Another thing I was thinking about was, this surely makes Trump look tough in front of Xi jinping. I can see the conversation "good evening, give me a second I have to go authorize a military strike on Syria".

We shall see.

 

[bjorb]

When 80 Syrian service men where killed by US coalition airstrikes last year Russia and Iran both threatened either subtle and not so subtle to engage the US.

I hear nothing like this right now. Why is that? Do the Russians know that this was not meant as a real ww3 starter? Just what is going on?

Still I don't get why Russia didn't take those down those subsonic tomahawks missiles. This was a good way of showing without causing any deaths that they can retaliate hard and precisely. And what if this exposes their air defences. Just relocate after. Missed opportunity if you ask me, but I am sure they had their reasons.

 

[Scottie]

Yeah, what happens next will be the biggest indicator of the direction things are headed.

In the meantime, I actually chuckled. Remember back in 1991 with Gulf War I? All we saw on TV in the USA was images of these crazy Tomahawk cruise missiles that were just, like, so cool?!

Well, fast forward 26 years, and we have:

Tomahawk missiles: Explaining the weapons the US used to strike Syria
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/tomahawk-missiles-explainer/index.html

Riiiight. The thing is, despite the upgrades of onboard electronics and stuff over the years, these are still the same basic subsonic missiles used back then.

So, it's particularly interesting to me that the Russians report that only 23 of the 59 missiles reached their targets. If they weren't blown out of the sky or flown into the sea or something, where are the impact craters where they veered off course? Even back in Gulf War I, there were reports on TV of stray Tomahawks, which was of course downplayed for public consumption.

So anyway, the effect is that Americans hear, "Tomahawk" and they start singing the national anthem and saluting a virtual US flag that they envision hanging in the sky in front of them. And then naturally, the Freedom and Democracy Effect kicks in, and suddenly everyone loves Trump.

But given the apparent lack of real damage, this seems much more like a propaganda stunt than a real declaration of war or anything. Trouble is, the boneheads in the USA "deep state" and possibly Trump himself don't realize that they're playing with fire.

OR... There was a behind-the-scenes thing between Putin and Trump, but even then, things could still very easily get out of control. Wishful thinking and all that...

So yeah, what happens next??

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Scottie]So, it's particularly interesting to me that the Russians report that only 23 of the 59 missiles reached their targets. If they weren't blown out of the sky or flown into the sea or something, where are the impact craters where they veered off course? Even back in Gulf War I, there were reports on TV of stray Tomahawks, which was of course downplayed for public consumption.[/quote]

Tomahawks are subsonic and outdated compared to their Russian counterparts but they do not miss their target from what I understand. (But hard to tell perhaps, just look at their overhyped patriot missile, which turned out to be complete rubbish.) If it's true that only 23 reached their target, something interesting might have happened or so I think.


[quote author= Scottie]So anyway, the effect is that Americans hear, "Tomahawk" and they start singing the national anthem and saluting a virtual US flag that they envision hanging in the sky in front of them. And then naturally, the Freedom and Democracy Effect kicks in, and suddenly everyone loves Trump.[/quote]

But those who voted for Trump or at the majority at least didn't voted for this kind of BS I believe. I doubt this will help him gain popularity. Unless Americans love their war machine so much that they indeed approve of it no matter what.