Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Friday April 07 2017, @02:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-that-go-fast-and-go-boom dept.

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 .

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @04:29AM (#490075)

    > Are you really going to say that there are literally only two reasons to vote for Trump, that you're rich or that you're racist?

    Racism was the number one focus of his campaign. Literally his opening statement when he announced his candidacy.
    Not to mention his most popular chant, "Build the wall!"

    You know what kind of person sees all that and decides it does not disqualify him?
    A racist.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by rondon on Friday April 07 2017, @01:25PM (3 children)

    by rondon (5167) on Friday April 07 2017, @01:25PM (#490200)

    Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:48PM (#490245)

      Completely ignore Miss "Superpredator" because it is convenient. Both parties ran a racist candidate, even if one was more racist than the other.

      Completely ignore that one candidate was ashamed of what she said 20 years ago and apologized for it [time.com] while the other reveled in what he was saying on a daily basis.

      You know who wasn't fooled by your idiotic false equivalence?
      Actual minorities: Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades [reuters.com]

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @10:45PM

        by Pav (114) on Friday April 07 2017, @10:45PM (#490577)

        ...and Clinton lost because she had a low voter turnout among ALL demographics. Seriously, Clinton previously lost to a black guy with an islamic name. Racism Did Not Decide This Election.

      • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday April 10 2017, @04:50PM

        by rondon (5167) on Monday April 10 2017, @04:50PM (#491725)

        Let me try again - both parties ran racist candidates, one was just much more openly, honestly, and hysterically racist than the other. That doesn't make either of them not racist.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:39AM (#490696)

    People supported building the wall because they are fed up the illegal immigrants. And they don't like illegal immigrants because they are illegal immigrants aka criminals that are breaking the law, not because they are racist. People supported Trump and building a wall because finally there was a candidate out there that showed they acknowledged and the problem and would do something about it. Heck, a lot of them didn't even believe that Trump would actually literally build a wall, they just took the talk as Trump saying he was serious about doing something about it.

    And besides, last time I checked Mexican was a nationality, not a race you stupid racist fuck.