SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Following reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, President Trump authorized the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles against a base in Syria. The Russian government was notified prior to the launch as they have resources in the area that was attacked.
According to NBC News:
The United States launched dozens of cruise missiles Thursday night at a Syrian airfield in response to what it believes was Syria's use of banned chemical weapons that killed at least 100 people, U.S. military officials told NBC News.
Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target — Ash Sha'irat in Homs province in western Syria, the officials said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired the banned weapons.
There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site were hit, including the runway and gas fuel pumps.
Also at Al Jazeera:
The United States has launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syrian government targets in retaliation for what the Trump administration charges was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack that killed scores of civilians, a US official says.
The targets hit from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea included the air base in the central city of Homs from which the Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday's chemical weapons attack, the US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
[...] He [Trump] called on "civilised nations" to join US in "seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria".
Syrian state TV said "American aggression targets Syrian military targets with a number of missiles".
The poison gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on Tuesday killed at least 86 people, including 27 children, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Turkey said samples from victims of Tuesday's attack indicate they were exposed to sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent.
The New York Times adds:
The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime. "With a lot of Tomahawks flying, we didn't want to hit any Russian planes," he said.
[...] It was Mr. Trump's first order to the military for the use of force — other operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq had been carried out under authorization delegated to his commanders — and appeared intended to send a message to North Korea, Iran and other potential adversaries that the new commander in chief was prepared to act, and sometimes on short notice.
The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at Mar-a-Lago, sending an unmistakably aggressive signal about Mr. Trump's willingness to use the military power at his disposal.
Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.
[...] Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.
Wikipedia notes: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday April 07 2017, @03:58AM (23 children)
The war was turning in his favor. I fail to see how gassing a couple hundred civilians could help his cause. Not to mention, this looks staged for the media. Lots of pictures of dead babies, lots of videos of suffering civilians. It's not passing the smell test.
I've got a record on this site, I'm not a troll. I'm also not a political analyst. I don't have a clearance so I have no inside info.
Don't get me wrong, Assad is an asshole who deserves a tomahawk dedicated to taking him out. But this whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Methinks some rebels (ISIS?) did this, knowing it would be red meat for Trump to choke on.
99% of us will never know what really happened. The 1% will spin the hell out of it to ensure we interpret it like they want us to.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:06AM (6 children)
I'm not a troll.
Said every troll ever.
You are right though. You do have a record on this site. and damn if you aren't a troll, you sure are troll adjacent.
this looks staged for the media. Lots of pictures of dead babies, lots of videos of suffering civilians
Please, tell us about the crisis actors too!
The war was turning in his favor. I fail to see how gassing a couple hundred civilians could help his cause.
You really don't see how being brutally violent in order to intimidate the remaining opposition into giving up sooner would not be helpful to ending an expensive war as soon as possible?
If you aren't a troll, then you are a SMF.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday April 07 2017, @04:14AM (5 children)
I'm not a troll.
Said every troll ever.
I post under my name, not as an AC. Grow a pair, tell us who you are.
You are right though. You do have a record on this site. and damn if you aren't a troll, you sure are troll adjacent.
Howso? I have a pretty good record on this site. Nowhere near trollish, although some of my attempts at humor got modded troll.
If you aren't a troll, then you are a SMF.
WTF is an SMF?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:36AM (2 children)
> I post under my name, not as an AC. Grow a pair, tell us who you are.
Your parents must really hate you to name you "snotnose."
> Howso?
You literally just said the bombing was a false flag because a brutal dictator who doesn't give flying fuck about the lives of regular people would never just slaughter for the purposes of intimidation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @05:08AM
just said the bombing was a false flag because a brutal dictator who doesn't give flying fuck about the lives of regular people would never just slaughter for the purposes of intimidation.
Still not sure if you mean Assad or Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @08:55AM
The ex-UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford just said it might be a false flag a few minutes ago on BBC, comparing it to another chemical incident from months ago.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:48AM (1 child)
I'm not a troll.
Said every troll ever.
I post under my name, not as an AC. Grow a pair, tell us who you are.
I am snotnose, posting as AC to disguise that I am snotnose, because if I used my SoylentNews user name, everyone would know that I am actually William Witherspoon the Third, posting from High Muckymuck, Connecticut, but I just want to say, I am a troll. Not "troll adjacent", but full on, unapologetically, a troll. Full hard on troll. Really, really troll. Full metal jacket troll. That is how much of a troll I am. And, what were we talking about, before someone made it all about me and I took the bait that they trolled in front of me? Oh, dear, I am not a troll, I am a victim of trolling. I apologize to all Soylentils, present and past and future, active and inactive, and even khallow and jmorris. I am snotnose, and I approved this message.
(Score: 1) by charon on Friday April 07 2017, @11:52PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:21AM
At first I didn't like your comment. Now I realize that nothing outside of my bubble is real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:43AM (2 children)
Not to mention, this looks staged for the media. Lots of pictures of dead babies, lots of videos of suffering civilians.
What year are you living in?
Because in 2017 everybody has a smartphone with a camera, even in Syria.
What would be suspicious is if there weren't tons of pictures and video.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday April 07 2017, @01:50PM (1 child)
That makes is easier for this to be staged for the media. Because everyone is the media.
And "staged" could simply be a poor description of "false flag attack" for the media. But indirectly, for Trump. You couldn't have handed Trump a better reason to get into a shooting war and tweeting war.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:06PM
That makes is easier for this to be staged for the media. Because everyone is the media.
This is the logic of conspiracy theories.
All possible options 'prove' the conspiracy.
And "staged" could simply be a poor description of "false flag attack" for the media. But indirectly, for Trump. You couldn't have handed Trump a better reason to get into a shooting war and tweeting war.
So now trump planned the false flag?
JFC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:56AM (9 children)
But for the sake of argument, let's suppose he did launch an attack that resulted in over 80 deaths, at least some of them children and hence by our standards innocents.
How many times over that number have been killed by US air strikes in the region? Why is it that when we try to kill terrorists and wind up with dead civilians, it's just a tragic accident, but when the Syrians do the same thing it's just so awful and absolutely inexcusable?
It blows my mind that people actually believe this poor propaganda. The only thing I can compare it to is someone that thinks pro rasslin is real.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 07 2017, @06:10AM (7 children)
Why is it that when we try to kill terrorists and wind up with dead civilians, it's just a tragic accident, but when the Syrians do the same thing it's just so awful and absolutely inexcusable?
It's been alleged that Mr. Assad's forces used a nerve agent, rather than explosives. Such a weapon is deemed to be indiscriminate in its nature, which supposedly is what the fuss is about. America is criticised, from some quarters, for using cluster bombs (which can attract children) and for keeping thousands of nuclear weapons on hand.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 07 2017, @08:25AM (6 children)
Such a weapon is deemed to be indiscriminate in its nature, which supposedly is what the fuss is about.
Such weapons are banned by accepted international law. See: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/ [un.org] This is a war crime.
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Friday April 07 2017, @08:49AM (2 children)
Yes, absolutely, they are banned and their use is considered a war crime. I was skipping past the fact that they're banned to the reason they're banned. Your link tells us "the results were indiscriminate and often devastating." As for why they're indiscriminate, another commenter in the earlier story pointed out that they travel on the wind. I think that perhaps Arik knows these things and is just calling to our attention the fact that explosives can similarly kill and maim people in a large area.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by aristarchus on Friday April 07 2017, @09:08AM
There are several things that come into consideration when the international community outlaws weapons. Interestingly, one of the first efforts was in St. Petersburg in 1868, and one of the prime targets of that convention was the use of "dum-dum" projectiles in British muskets in India. Still a thing, no hollow-point bullets in war. So, excessive harm to combatants is one consideration, lack of "discrimination" (targetability) is another, and persistence is yet another. Blinding weapons are illegal because they cause permanent disability. Nukes should be illegal if only for the long lasting effects of radiation.
But you have already seen that the rules are far from consistent. Cluster bombs are allowed, even though they are indiscriminate, and often persistent? Other area weapons, hyperbaric and fuel-air bombs, are legit, not to mention nukes? Syria's use of chemical weapons cannot be condoned, but there are enough weapons with similar moral reservations that have been used by others to call the condemnation in this case into question.
Someone once proposed a rather more simple rule for the use of weapons in war, after one of the American conquests of Falluja: "Do not burn the skin off of children." This is a good guideline, and I, for one, think that all nations, and NGOs and even criminal organizations, should abide by it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @06:48PM
And in fact that's a distortion. Poison gas usually isn't very effective in practice, armies around the world were enamored with the idea for awhile but no one ever really got the kind of results they were hoping for. And it's extremely hazardous to handle, so it's probably more of a danger to your own people than the enemy. It got bundled into the 'WMD' category for political reasons, because the major powers were ready to give up gas, and making it sound like it was a weapon somehow comparable to nuclear bombs was a way to get good press. But really it's kind of like comparing a MOAB and a firecracker, oh hey! they're both explosives!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @04:55PM (2 children)
And, whatever the state of the treaties, in terms of which ones have been politically feasible and which ones not (banning gas went over because no major power relies on it anyway, but banning nukes and cluster bombs and other things that the major powers DO still use doesn't happen) let's not pretend that blowing someones torso off and leaving him to bleed out that way is any less heinous than filling his lungs with fluid causing him to drown using a gas.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 07 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)
Agreed, for the most part. A couple of quibbles: in international law, being a signatory is not necessary for jurisdiction if the vast majority of nations have signed on. At a certain point, a treaty can become customary law. Chemical weapons ban is in that category. Second, aggressive war is a "crime against humanity", as they put in in Nuremburg, not a war crime per se. So combatants are not responsible for the crime of conducting hostilities, as long as they were acting in good faith. The Leaders are the ones guilty of crimes against humanity.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday April 07 2017, @06:55PM
Even granting the first two points for the sake of argument, the third point would still need to be proven and probably cannot be, but that's a rather different topic. None of this is really relevant here, thanks to Russian diplomacy, Syria has signed the treaty, so the point is moot.
"Second, aggressive war is a "crime against humanity", as they put in in Nuremburg, not a war crime per se."
I believe "crime against peace" is the phrase you are looking for, and per Nuremburg it is "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @07:47PM
Of course you're right, it's absurd to think that Assad is behind this and it makes far more sense to think it's another jihadi false flag attack designed to trigger just this sort of stupid and destructive response.
Of course it makes sense to you.
Your post history shows rampant anti-muslim bias.
Its no great leap to start saying they are bombing themselves rather than russia's ally.
It blows my mind that people actually believe this poor propaganda.
It does? Really?
Yet you uncritically repeat russia's own propaganda about syria.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 07 2017, @03:24PM
Is Assad an asshole? If so, how big an asshole is he?
There are a lot of parallels to be made between Saddam Hussein, and Assad. Start with their political affiliation - Baathists. Starting from that point, one might presume that they are hated more for their politics, than for any specific humanitarian reasons.
Of course, Assad and Hussein have a lot of differences, too.
I just posted this article to my journal - it gives some insight into Syrian politics over the past few decades: http://www.mintpressnews.com/truth-syria-manufactured-war-independent-country-2/216688/ [mintpressnews.com]
More to the point, it explains why the west hates Syria. The west doesn't like independent countries. The west only approves of client countries that are dependent on the US/UK/British Commonwealth nations. Assad must go for the same reason that Iran's democratic government was toppled in the fifties. No independence allowed!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:32PM
There is a good breakdown of the evidence of the chemical attack being staged by rebels here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnSAB4qeDug [youtube.com] But three interesting pieces of info I'll mention are that the main media contact in the hospital there is connected with Al-Qaeda, one rebel media station broke news of the attack before it happened, and proper cleanup procedures are not being followed if it had been a chemical attack.