A place where ModDB members can debate civilly, and learn from each other's views.

  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
  • View media
Add media Report RSS US Strikes Syria (view original)
US Strikes Syria
view next
Share Image
Share on Facebook Tweet Email a friend
Embed Image

New ISIS offensives launched sporadically across the front, in seeming direct aftermath of US cruise missile strikes.

Everytime the U.S. pulls these stunts against Assad it just helps the terrorists. But what's worse, it was never confirmed the previous "chemical attacks" were Assad's doing back in 2013 either. There was conflict in the intel.


And as for the current attacks that Assad's regime purportedly committed. It makes no political or military sense for Assad to do the things he's been accused of. Covered most of this in my post before yours but in any case it deserves all the attention it can get. If a new war is started over this...

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Ominous-Spud Author

I must admit, this chemical weapons scenario blew up bigger and faster than I thought it would. And now we're here... I keep thinking it's impossible to get closer to midnight, yet we still do.

Reply Good karma+3 votes
Ominous-Spud Author

I am at a loss for words.

Understanding both the implications and the thinking behind this strategy is beyond me at this point.
This action, to me, is nothing short of an erratic, knee-jerk reaction to a war-crime that has not been verified and was likely carried out by opposition forces, forces that were likely in league with the US through both funding and weapons.

Even if, in the bizarre and logically impossible situation that the chemical attack was carried out by Government warplanes, this response would be incredibly dangerous, if not completely unwarranted. But the fact that the real story is likely completely contrary to the mainstream narrative means that the Trump administration is happy to carry out military action against targets that are protected and allied with a nuclear capable superpower on complete hearsay.

Trump, if this is appeasement to the deep state, well, they know exactly how to manipulate you then. This was a weak, pathetic, and politically-inept decision. The Trump supporters who can not see this event for what it is, need to reevaluate their positions.

Reply Good karma+5 votes

There's a report I have that it was really Al Nursra behind this chemical attack shelling the area. And the "jet attack" by Assad's forces took out the mortars responsible.

At this point, given all the conflicting reports and lack of consistency I agree, Trump's actions were irresponsible especially given a investigation wasn't even completed.

Things like this further had to skepticism.

Russia-insider.com (source talks of a group called the "white helmets" staging attacks like this for political reasons)

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes

"Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad"

"The USA contributes the most to the UN regular budget with 22%" Factly.in

If you want to address who may be behind the attacks, analyze this:
"Cheney, Rothschild, and Fox News’ Murdoch Begin Drilling for Oil in Syria — a Violation of Int’l Law"

Syria has 3 million Christians and Assad treated them like his brothers - being a secular government, being closely aligned with Alawite's who heavily support Assad, its one of many reasons for Sunni's opposing the government. The US globalists on the otherhand has plenty of reasons to oppose Syria:

1. Syria’s bank is state owned and not controlled by corporatists families.
2. Syria has no debt to IMF.
3. Syria doesn’t use GMO Monsanto seeds.
4. Syria newspapers are independent
5. Syria has gas and will build Iran-Iraq-Syria pipelines.
6. Syria opposes Israel.
7. Syria is a pathway for mass immigration into Europe.

Creation of corporatist bank to lend money with IMF aid after we destroy the infrastructure and make them debtors. Bringing Sunni's into power will Balkanize the region to create proxies for future wars and help spread chaos across the middle-east and Europe.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes

Welp, the Russian response is clear.

Any other actions like this and will have a confrontation.

Alex Jones gave an analysis which I found interesting on this whole situation.
(start at 9:39)

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Ominous-Spud Author

Now the dust has settled we have some interesting results.

23 of the 59 TLAMs actually got to their target (or so Ru MoD claims, feels like only credible source for me atm). That's 61% of missiles fired some how being lost in neverland. Also, Russian UAVs on station as missiles hit the base, so very good intel on what was happening for Russian side, to have UAVs on station and observing means they knew exactly what was happening as it happened.

Several possible reasons for this ranging from low quality batch of missiles (not likely, decline in manufacturing quality is possible, but this level of failure would be an alarming development for the USN, and serious questions would be asked), to Russian EW having a field day (Russian techies maybe picking through some Tomahawk airframes as we speak), or they physically shot down via Syrian AD, such as AAA or S-200 that were in vicinity (maybe Pantsir-S1 that Syrian AD has had for awhile? Usually thought to be stationed in Damascus protecting capital), easy enough given the nature of subsonic cruise missiles, especially if they had direct line with VKS radar data.

- Russian AD did not go active, no S-300 nor S-400, nor Tor nor Buk-M2 nor Pantsir-S2. I assume this is strategic, primarily do with not unveiling capabilities, in the same way they have ignored all actions that have targeted Syrian forces in Syria so far. I imagine they will only act if VKS is DIRECTLY threatened.

- Russians have gone into overdrive, officially are going to kit Syria with far more comprehensive AD network now (Israel is probably ******). Russian choppers apparently swarming Al-Sharyat as well.

- A total of 9 Su-22s/MiG-23s hit... negligible damage to runway, apparently sorties were conducted from same AB today by SyAAF. Some saying intel was good enough to move aircraft in time, ones hit may have been junk/spares. Village hit just South of the base is what allegedly killed 9 civvies. Syrian personnel who were killed maybe to slow on retreat?

- Still unknown if Russian personnel were actually at Al-Sharyat at the time, if so, unlikely any were killed given apparent Early Warning Systems being, well, early.

Reply Good karma+3 votes

With such a low number actually hitting their targets I do wonder if something else is going on. Ive come across other theories, like this with "4d chess".


Is it possible this was coordinated? The reasons certainly can register for that. Overall things have played out a bit too well for everyone. With this, Trump gets rid of the narrative he's working with the Russians. The Russians have a excuse to strengthen Assad. The previous administration gets shown up. People get to see not all those who put Trump in office are warmongers. North Korea gets put on notice as the U.S. flexes "mass media hayday". And all this while Trump is in the middle of a big meeting with Xi. The fact the Russians were warned beforehand gives Assad an advantage too, minimized losses.

This is just a tin foil hat theory but it's something to ponder.
For now all that can be done is to wait and observe.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Ominous-Spud Author

I would like to believe this was the case. Truly.

The Pentagon has claimed only two missiles missed, however current footage seems to indicate ~23 missiles hit Al-Sharyat.

The biggest issues I have with the theory that this was coordinated with the Russians in some way is that (A.) the Russians have emphatically denied any coordination (and have suspended Flight Security Memorandum) and (B.) Syrians were killed [or maybe they weren't?! Inception music intensifies].

As for Trump, I want to see this as a political maneuver on the 4D chessboard, but his decision has only demonstrated that he has buckled to the warhawks (who were taking to the airwaves in unadulterated joy at the footage of US missiles leaving the DDGs in the Med) to alleviate the pressure on him to prove that he isn't a part of "Muh Russia!1!". Sadly, this has already fallen apart as he has promised more action in the future and called for a joint coalition. Not only this, but the Deep State isn't buying it, with CNN already asking why "Teh Russians didn't shoot down teh missiles? He must be Putin puppet". Succumbing to pressure has displayed the weakness of his administration which, let's admit it, is in complete disarray and is full of every piece of Globalist/Neo-con **** you can think of.

As demonstration of strength to the Chinese, again, I would like to believe it could be this simple. But this is the Chinese we're talking about. Launching 59 BGM-170s in a sudden and erratic display of aggression does not garner respect, it's like losing an argument so resorting to physical violence. It's a sign of weakness, not of strength, and no one sees that sort of thing clearer than the Chinese.

In conclusion Trump, and trust me, I want to see this another way, I really do, has lost:

- To the Neo-cons, by buckling to their calls for physical action against Syria

- To the media, as they prove, yet again, that their lying, conniving, voice makes a difference in regards to the US' foreign policy.

- To his support base on the homefront, as they feel betrayed by his direct aggression against a state that is a key factor in the defeat of ISIS.

- To Russia, who again, have been handed the ball, and in which they will not respond in similar fashion, garnering yet more popular support worldwide, and will take this event as an excuse to simply bolster Syrian AD.

- To China, who probably now view Trump as untrustworthy, if not a complete idiot, who can not control his own home.

For crying out loud, Hillary Rodham Clinton came crawling back out of her hole to give a few cheers...

Things are terribly, terribly wrong in the WH. I know this may sound pessimistic, but this is not a win for Trump, no matter which way I look at it.

Reply Good karma+3 votes

As painful as it is I believe you're right, Ive gotten worse news however and this could really take a dark path if it turns out to be fact.


There's a plan being proposed to send 150,000 U.S. troops to Syria. The source it's coming from I believe is credible enough. But if Trump green lights this, there's no way it can end in any other way but a confrontation between U.S. and Russian forces. The Russians have invested too much in Syria to let it go, and the neocons are too stubborn to give up on a regime change with Assad.

I needn't say what geopolitical impact this will have worldwide if that does happen. If the administration is really edging to go through with this the only way they can be stopped is for the U.S. economy to come to a grinding halt. That means for the war to become so expensive it forces a stalemate and withdrawal. The neocons may be powerful but this isn't the America before the invasion of Iraq. We have a economy in massive debt as well as a populace who wants social programs and infrastructure overhaul. They won't get the same eagerness they had back after 9/11.

Just as well, war protests are a very real thing this time around. Many who voted Trump in on the alt right and libertarians are anti-war. It'll be like Vietnam all over again. So not only will it be political suicide for him to do this, it'll drag the economy beyond death throes and into the abyss.

The mainstream media has a lot of skeptics as it is so I don't believe they'll be able to do damage control to fix this once the dam breaks.

In anycase Ive dealt with those who see it as a "show of strength" what Trump did. Needless to say they're the warhawk types. So I'd say it all depends on one's POV. I do agree however that doing something like this in the middle of a meeting with another superpower can be perceived as insecurity.

My one hope is that after all the waking up America has had the last decade (which is what got Trump elected in the first place since he promises to pull us out of this mess). Is that enough of those same people realize what he's done is wrong and will call him out for it. Which, I have been seeing among many of my alt right and virtually all of my libertarian friends. They're both shocked, and disgusted.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
Ominous-Spud Author

Well... given the time it took to get the invasion force ready for Iraq, I doubt the ability of the US in deploying 150,000 troops overnight. However, if this does indeed materialize, then the Russians will withdraw the light footprint they have into their main bastions in Tartus, Hmeimim and Latakia... the US wouldn't dare hit the Russians directly... but it would be the start of a full-blown proxy war with the US facing all manner of threats, threats they have not faced in any conflict post-90's thus far. This will lead to large scale casualties, and the complete breakdown of any support at home. I think the world would be horrified.

I can't accurately say what the Russian response would be... but attempts to keep the conflict from conflagrating would be their priority, likely to a fault.

Any of this extends beyond my comprehension, and I could only analyse it as it happened. I never imagined this would be even a remote possibility, and I am still stunned by recent events.

Reply Good karma+4 votes

Syria> Newobserveronline.com
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.

Trump contradicts his previous stance on Syria> Washingtonexaminer.com


The fact that they are doubling down is insane, or just the administrations (((neo-con))) coming out party. The question is who is giving him that information? So, Assad gave up his chemical weapons years ago and finally has Washington foreign policy "gurus" off of his back. He has also just obtained support from the Trump administration and has been beating the western backed terrorists in places like Aleppo. Why would he do something that non-sensical? Perhaps it was him bombing a "rebel" weapons compound:

They are pushing this Assad narrative with 0 evidence especially when in 2013 the UN found that the rebels did a similar gas attack on civilians. Moreover, this fake "moral" outrage is hilarious to me. The current administration has killed over 200 civilians so far & even if we knew who did it, does it change anything? No. Or, would you like to talk about the white helmets, the al-qeada/ george soros backed group that was dealing with Sarin gas without the right masks and no gloves as Joshua rightfully pointed out:
Youtube.com <2013 - They stage this stuff and the media is complicit.

*The "Moderate Rebels" are not so moderate:



Who it does help is Saudi, Qatar, (((neo-cons))), Israel, the "rebels" and islamic terrorists in his country.

*Further, Trump has stated, correctly, that by leaving a vacuum in Iraq it allowed ISIS and other radical groups to fill it. So, he then has his turn and is doing the same exact thing in Syria. Who is going to replace Assad? WTF is the day after plan? There is none. Its Balkinization. It will end up the same as Libya or Iraq.

He should just say it is for Israel, pipelines, & petro-dollar currency. I think it is pretty obvious that although not the best guy, Assad is better than the islamic militias that they want to replace him with. Or letting someone like Iran take over. I still think the USA should coordinate with Putin and Assad in regards to safe zones and getting rid of the terrorist militias. I like what Mattis is doing so far, for the most part. I think it is also hilarious how the administration believes that democracy can be instilled in places like Syria or Afganistan.
The sanctions passed by congress on Syria in February 1st are also causing a lot of damage! This is what Clinton and Bush senior did on Iraq - before the war on Iraq:

Trump, in order to make a deal, should reach out to Iran to discuss the Syrian conflict, pipelines, and how the process of rebuilding will be done.

Also, what do you think about the Kurdish and Turkey situation, especially as it relates to a potential deal in Syria?

In regards to Syria, do you think that coordinating with the Assad regime in regards to safe zones and destroying ISIS & al-nusra could expedite the process? We can also save costs by teaming up with Russia.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes

Very dangerous and erratic move on part of Trump. I've always known he sold out to the Establishment for a while now (ever since he took office with his insane cabinet picks and corporatist policies) but I honestly did not expect him to cave to the Neo-cons and war hawks and attack Syria. Him firing Steve Bannon from the Security Council is actually a net loss because Bannon is non-interventionist and a populist (the few good things about him).

If the US actually pursues full-on regime change, invades the country and succeeds in toppling Assad from power, we can say goodbye to any hopes that Syria will remain a Secular society. Have we learned ANYTHING from Iraq or Libya? What rises out of the vacuum is usually much worse than the authoritarian leader before it.

The worst part is how the media, once attacking Trump for being "Putin's puppet" are now doing fawning war propaganda for him.

Not a big fan of PJW (I despise him), but him being principled and being right on this issue deserves credit: Youtube.com

And of course my favorite Channel Secular Talk: Youtube.com

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes

Heres whats happening:
Youtube.com (Sanctions)
Youtube.com (Regime Change)
Proof the elites had their sites on Syria long before it was even in the public mind: Twitter.com

Here is why he may have done it> Youtube.com

Reply Good karma Bad karma+2 votes
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.


What we know so far:
~59 TLAC missiles targeted the Government-controlled Al-Sharyat airbase, launched from US Arleigh Burke destroyers in the Med. Russian personnel were stationed at the base as of the time of the strike.

US has stated that this is in direct response to the alleged Government chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians in Homs.

Very little in the way of response so far from Russia, but here it is all the same: Rt.com

Governor of Homs claims casualties, both civilian and military.

New ISIS offensives launched sporadically across the front, in seeming direct aftermath of US cruise missile strikes.

83 (1 today)
Embed Thumb
Add media