Quake3World

50 tomahawks

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/worl ... .html?_r=0

Yep.

They must have expected it.

Good to see that warmonger Hillary isn't in office, right Memph?

$50 million dollar show.
Meanwhile Syrian refugees are still banned from the U.S.
I guess our caring only goes so far.

Whiskey 7 wrote:They must have expected it.

Of course, they had to warn the Russians to avoid accidentally killing some of them, who in turn warned the Syrians - who evacuated the site. All for show - probably to impress Xi, who was visiting Trump at the time.

SoM wrote:50 tomahawks

59... Moron...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633[/tweet]

[lvlshot]http://i.imgur.com/KZ9kBvl.jpg[/lvlshot]

Heh

https://www.rt.com/usa/383834-trump-syr ... ld-tweets/

Middle East nations — including Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia — were among the first to support the attack on a Syrian air force base.

"In both word and action, President Trump sent a strong and clear message today that the use and spread of chemical weapons will not be tolerated," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement hours after the attack. "Israel fully supports President Trump's decision and hopes that this message of resolve in the face of the Assad regime's horrific actions will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/i ... -1.3028091

And now the mainstream media flocks to support Drumpf for acting 'Presidential'. The bar is so low...

shaft wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633[/tweet]

oh wow

Base is already back up and running. Best $50mil spent ever.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jets-launch- ... 38343.html

For Trump, maybe it was ?

Transient wrote:And now the mainstream media flocks to support Drumpf for acting 'Presidential'. The bar is so low...

Russians warned. Syrians tipped. State Dept not notified. Congress not consulted. Base operational again. Russia-gate bumped from the news. Bi-partisan praise.

[lvlshot]http://www.billboard.com/files/media/donald-trump-7-26-2016-billboard-1548.jpg[/lvlshot]

shaft wrote:Base is already back up and running. Best $50mil spent ever.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jets-launch- ... 38343.html

LOL

America targeted al-Shayrat because it knew with certainty that there were no WMD in that location. It was a firework show. It had no military objective.

The first concern that comes to mind is why do you need a saxophonist to deliver the truth every military expert understands very well? Can’t the New York Times or the Guardian reach the same obvious conclusion? It’s obvious enough that if Assad didn’t use WMD when he was losing the war, it would make no sense for him to use it now when a victory is within reach.

So why did the White House launch a cruise missile blitz on a non-existent target?

We know who are the first to benefit from the current escalation. The Jewish State that gambled on regime change in Syria, consistent with the sinister Yinon Plan, accepts by now that Assad is there to stay. But here is the peculiar development: while the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times and the White House refer to Assad and his ‘chemical warfare’ with certainty, the Israeli press is actually very careful. The Israeli Ynet only refers to Assad’s ‘alleged’ gas attack. The Israelis do understand that the story, as it stands, doesn’t make any sense.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/08 ... con-again/

Ok the 'it makes no sense' tripe isn't a valid arguement.

And apparently he did use chemical weapons when he was losing, I believe thats why America wanted to bomb them and the UK took a vote on it, with Ed Milliband surprisingly winning. That pretty much blows the underpinning reasoning of the article out the water.

So they decided to bomb WMDs and chemical bombs and nothing happened, save for a few asphalt cracks. No explosive ordnance or lethal agents whatsoever.

And this is all after the UN and US signed off on the destruction of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles.

That makes perfect sense.

They targeted it because it made good media to a failing president. Just like the MOAB.

Memphis wrote:

losCHUNK wrote:he did use chemical weapons when he was losing

citation needed...

wouldn't be the first time it was all bollocks.

At the time it was in the news more than this, the UK took a vote on it ffs with Obama saying he was going to take a diplomatic route afterwards, having previously gone on about some 'red line' shite. I don't need to provide anything, if you want to counter what media sources were saying at the time then feel free.

But even then the article points to the Guardian / NYT, who I'm sure towed the same line about the previous attacks, so it's not so surprising that they would come to the same conclusion.

Stupid article is stupid, even if you believe it was Israel or whatever it can't even get what is openly available to the public right.

Just for shits and giggles

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/po ... t-him.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... line-obama

Like I said, whatever you wanna believe it still hammers the underpinning point behind the article. Making out both those rags all of a sudden started shouting nonsense so it must bollocks.

It was Asshat though unless you believe that the Malaysian plane was shot down by Ukaranians n all. Iirc the main reasoning about the 'false flag' 2013 attacks was that 'it made no sense' n all, that it was an excuse to bomb Syria, that his red line speech was pre emptive reasoning for war, only to later on be dismissed when Obama actually had problems trying to find a reason not to go in balls deep.

TLDR 'it made no sense'

He was an ambassador, like he knew wtf was going on. 'unnamed sources', 'journalists', 'reports'. Fluff. I can go find some of those 3 to prove that vaccines cause autism.

+ -1 for using the term 'fake news'.

>it was assad
>there needs a be a thorough investigation

pick one

Well there's the UN report who's really the only investigative team that had access to the site leaned towards Syrian forces using chemical attacks by analysis of soil samples, the origin of the attacks, chemical samples, rocket fragments, 'intelligence' and witnesses. An investigation team that was attacked, refused access and continually intimidated by the escorting Syrian army. The same report found that Syrian rebels may have had access to chemical weapons, with this information coming from witnesses only.

There's also documented eye witness reports from defected Syrian army generals and Drs who treated the injured

These attacks do not occur outside of Syria (rocket delivered Sarin - confirmed to be of Syrian army origin). Outside of Syria (IS, who also controlled large amount of Syria) tend to be chlorine attacks using a shell or IED.

Assad agreed to give up his stockpile shortly afterwards to give Obama a stepping stone to back down from his red line speech, with further reports of continued chemical weapon usage afterwards (the 2013 attacks wasn't the last one before the most recent). Proving that he had a huge stockpile, something that he continually refused he had.

So IMO, like Russias fiddling with the yank election and the Malaysia plane being downed by Russian backed rebels, all roads lead to Asshats door step. This is as close as you're gonna get to a smoking gun.