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 NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @02:05PM (5 children)
As I commented just after the election [soylentnews.org], this was a fairly typical election in terms of results.
The real differences were that:
1. Older, blue collar Americans who had previously voted Democratic felt ignored by the Democratic party and voted for Trump in the mistaken belief that he was on their side;
2. African-Americans voted in smaller numbers than in 2008 and 2012.
The difference in the election was ~70,000 votes out of ~130,000,000 total votes cast (0.05%) to swing the electoral college.
It was never about "draining the swamp." Both houses of Congress had incumbent re-election rates of > 90% This was a pretty normal election cycle in terms of voting patterns and polling. Just about all the polls (within the margins of error) turned out to match the election results.
The issues are complex and the electorate is diverse, but in the end in came down to partisan politics for the vast majority.
We could be better than this, but I'm not holding my breath.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @02:56PM (4 children)
Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.
I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.
The #1 predictor of whether or not an obama voter switched to voting for trump was not economics, it was racial insecurity.
Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016.
— Fear of Diversity Made People More Likely to Vote Trump [thenation.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Friday April 07 2017, @03:20PM (2 children)
Why are you and so many others so determined to turn away from the actual research?
Its like you don't want to admit that america is full of racism.
There's plenty of prejudice in the US, including racism, sexism and religious intolerance. Please show me where I said otherwise?
The numbers are the numbers. Blacks didn't vote for Clinton in the numbers that they voted for Obama. Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.
Regardless, the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs. There's no doubt that the manufactured divisions between Rs and Ds (we have much more in common than we have differences) have complex admixtures of motives and "reasoning." Some of that is undoubtedly related to prejudice. But as the numbers show, the 2016 election cycle was pretty typical of the last four or five presidential election cycles.
Please show me where any of the above is incorrect.
I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)
? Older, white, blue-collar men voted for Obama and then for Trump. That smacks more of sexism than racism, friend.
The #1 predictor of switching from Obama to trump was racism.
The #1 predictor of switching from Romney to Clinton was anti-racism.
Friend.
the election results clearly show that the 2016 elections were pretty typical R vs. D affairs.
This is to ignore the fact that since LBJ the parties have gradually self-sorted into the party of racists and the party of anti-racists. Trump just finished what the dixiecrats started.
In other words, what a "typical R vs D affair" actually represented in terms of beliefs is very different today than it was even in 2000. Hell, in 2000 more muslims voted republican than voted democrat. Now it isn't even close.
I'll also note that since many of those who voted for Trump to give him his electoral college victory apparently voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. That gives the lie to your statement, don't you think? You know, since Obama is African-American and Hillary Clinton is lily white.
No, I don't think. And if you had bothered to read the linked article it explained that your simplistic binary understanding of how racism actually works in life is wrong you'd understand why your claim is just reductive foolishness.
(Score: 2) by Pav on Friday April 07 2017, @11:08PM
I'm an Australian, but I was interested in the election, and somehow got pulled into the racist angle and watched a lot of US black media online. BOTH the black electorate and the white working class didn't show up for Clinton, and it could be argued BECAUSE Clinton failed to commit to strong policy on race (or any policy for that matter).
It seems the black electorate weren't inspired by Clinton and figured she would just put a nicer face on the racism, and some were actually happier with Trump just leaving it out in the open. The more educated were more likely to vote for Clinton, but had no illusions about her racial credentials. The Clintons had presided over the legislation responsible for the vast increase in the "prison industrial complex", and other legislation which disadvantaged African Americans in a practical sense. There was also a sense of betrayal because Obama didn't roll back these measures. Apparently Clinton didn't even have any black staffers (before Donna Brazile, and she was definitely problematic)... with Trump at least having some.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @09:02PM
I can understand politicians not wanting to call a turd a turd because they need votes from some of those turds who have decided that the r-word is an insult to whites equivalent to the n-word for blacks. But fuck that stupid political correctness. The r-word is actually a description of thought and behavior. The people who take it as an insult are fragile little snowflakes who can't stand to look in the mirror.
Given that the word "Racist" covers everything from cowardly cross-burnings and lynchings at midnight to insufficiently checking one's privilege, it's no wonder that people take it as an insult. There's no way to tell what point on the scale is being talked about. Even the KKK has trouble identifying itself with the term. [cnn.com]
Calling someone racist derails the conversation the same way the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" does. Neither affirmation nor denial is useful as a rebuttal. It demonizes the accused to the point of social isolation. It puts the accused one step up the social ladder from pedophiles. There is no reason to expect this to change in the near future. Not wanting to take any part in such a conversation does not make someone a fragile snowflake.