Trump Unleashes Military Strikes: 59 Tomahawk Missiles Hit Syria - Live Feed

Tyler Durden's picture

Update: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responds to US missile strikes on Syria - This "will resonate not only in Damascus, but in Tehran, Pyongyang and elsewhere"

*  *  *

As previewed earlier tonight, the United States fired a barrage of cruise missiles into Syria on Friday morning in retaliation for this week's alleged chemical weapons attack against civilians by the Assad regime, U.S. officials said. It was the first direct American assault on the Syrian government and Donald Trump's most dramatic military order since becoming president. According to NBC, only tomahawks missiles fired, no fixed wing aircraft involved, for now.

As AP notes, the surprise strike marked a striking reversal for Trump, who warned as a candidate against the U.S. getting pulled into the Syrian civil war, now in its seventh year. But the president appeared moved by the photos of children killed in the chemical attack, calling it a "disgrace to humanity" that crossed "a lot of lines."

The president did not announce the attacks in advance, though he and other national security officials ratcheted up their warnings to the Syrian government throughout the day Thursday. National Security Advisor McMaster, quoted by Reuters, said that Trump was given 3 options for retaliating and told advisors to focus on 2; he added that Trump made the decision on Thursday.

The strike early Friday morning in Syria targeted hangars, planes and fuel tanks at one Syrian military airfield, according to a U.S. official. The U.S. attacked with about 60 Raytheon Co. Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from two Navy destroyers.

59 U.S. Tomahawk missiles, fired from warships in the Mediterranean Sea, targeted an air base in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that American officials believe Syrian government aircraft launched with a nerve agent; hangars, planes and fuel tanks were targeted, a U.S. official sais. Two Navy destroyers launched Raytheon missiles against Syria two days after Bashar al-Assad’s regime used poison gas to kill scores of civilians

NBC adds that a high ranking administration official says foreign countries from Arab states to Canada supported tonight's strikes vs. Syria.

The decision to strike in Syria marks a stark reversal for President Trump, who during his presidential campaign faulted past U.S. leaders for getting embroiled in conflicts in the Middle East

The attack occurred while Trump was at his Florida estate after a dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping, where they were to discuss what to do about North Korea’s nuclear program and U.S.-China trade disagreements. Traveling to Mar-a-Lago from Washington on Thursday, Trump spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One about Assad, saying “what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity. And he’s there, and I guess he’s running things. So something should happen.”

It was not immediately clear if Trump's action had been precleared with Putin in advance.

According to local reports, "32 Minutes ago about hearing Very Loud Sounds & Sky Was Lit up from Airbase He says Now Its "QUIET""

The market's reaction was immediate:


According to the local press pool at Mar-A-Lago, Trump is speaking to reporters now about air strike in Syria. It can't be broadcast live because of technical restrictions at Mar-a-Lago.

The speech can be seen here, and here is the full transciprt:

My fellow Americans, on Tuesday Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children.


It was a slow and brutal death for so many, even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.


Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.


There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the UN Security Council.


Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically. As a result the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize threatening the United States and its allies.


Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria. And also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.


We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as american stands for justice then peace and harmony will in the end prevail. Goodnight and God bless America and the entire world. Thank you.

At the same time, Syrian state TV said that "American aggression targets Syrian military targets with a number of missiles." 

Rand Paul who has been vocally against any strikes, opined on twitter:

Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin said in a statement in support of the airstrike, but he stressed that “any longer-term or larger military operation in Syria by the Trump Administration will need to be done in consultation with the Congress.”

CBS further reports that two dozen members of Congress were notified by White House and Cabinet officials of the airstrike. The White House will be providing a list of these members shortly that includes people on both sides of the aisle.

Meanwhile, Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis says in briefing to reporters that it informed Russia ahead of the missile strike. He added that the "U.S. took great precaution to avoid Russian housing."

In the statement, the Pentagon said a total of 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles targeted aircraft, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radars. The Pentagon stressed that “extraordinary measures” were taken to avoid civilian causalities.  The Penaton confirmed that the strike targeted Shayrat Airfield in Homs.

On this point, the WaPo's Josh Rogin asks, "Russians were at that airbase but got a heads up. Still, why were they at the chemical weapons base?" Perhaps because there were no chemical weapons there?

Rex Tillerson added, however, that the US "sought no approval from Moscow." He added that Russia is either complicit or “simply incompetent” for not adhering to a 2013 commitment to secure Syria’s chemical weapons, the Associated Press reports. 

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the airstrikes “appropriate and just.” At the end of the statement, Ryan said he looks “forward to the administration further engaging Congress in this effort.” 

According to the press pool, Trump personally informed China's president Xi of the Syria strike.

* * *

While we await Russia's reaction, earlier in the day Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, warned on Thursday of "negative consequences" if the United States carries out military strikes on Syria.

"We have to think about negative consequences, negative consequences, and all the responsibility if military action occurred will be on shoulders of those who initiated such doubtful and tragic enterprise," Safronkov told reporters when asked about possible U.S. strikes. When asked what those negative consequences could be, he said: "Look at Iraq, look at Libya."

* * *

For now, the attack appears to be over with ABC quoting a U.S. official after U.S. missiles fired at Syrian airbase who said: “We’re done until another decision is made.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Kefeer's picture

All decisions are politically motivated - this is a calculated risk by Trump and a bad one at that. 

The fact that the Sarin gas attack was against civilians (if it is even true) makes for a great propaganda distraction and thus makes me believe it was the US backed "rebels" that carried out the attack as they did before.

The progressives should be smiling as they play both sides via their forked tongues.

amor terra's picture

You didn't happen to see the list of people supporting the strike, did you?  And you make it about "progressives?"  Good lord!  How many times will the play have to repeat itself before the brainwashing fails and people realize that our government is corrupt and psychopathic from top to tail, and from R to D?  It's all just different masks on the same criminal enterprise.  Progressives, my butt.

Arrest Hillary's picture

You have to rotate missles .... so they don't go bad .... makes room for some new models .... thanks for the opportunity to test our cruise missles in real time scenario and to refresh .... priceless ?

Nostradalus's picture


    Well, that was fast. America was sold out to the war pig neocons in less than 80 days. Way to go you fucking turd. You just lost half your base you asshole. What evidence did you have to attack a sovereign country's .gov facility, when you were elected to stop this shit war, and deal with this shitty economy? Rush to judgement much? Your newly-shuffled cabinet was a flashing red sign that you have changed course from concentrating on America's economic woes (why you were elected) to catering to the military-industrial-complex, and war. ON WHAT EVIDENCE? I feel like I'm watching the "Saddam Husein Show - Part Deux". Fucking backstabbing traitor.
    Arrest Hillary's picture

    Scott Pele .... what a dud .... I'd rather be "air boarded" .... with "Bill Press' Best" programs ? lol

    Last of the Middle Class's picture

    Was wondering why gas jumped 30cents a gallon yesterday before the strikes. Now it all makes sense, circle of friends got advanced notice for a trade or two with some price hikes throw in for a better bottom line for the quarter while absolutely fucking over the consumer once again just for shits and giggles. Makes perfect sense to me now.

    Nostradalus's picture
      Well, that was fast. America was sold out to the war pig neocons in less than 80 days. Way to go you fucking turd. You just lost half your base you asshole. What evidence did you have to attack a sovereign country's .gov facility, when you were elected to stop this shit war, and deal with this shitty economy? Rush to judgement much? Your newly-shuffled cabinet was a flashing red sign that you have changed course from concentrating on America's economic woes (why you were elected) to catering to the military-industrial-complex, and war. ON WHAT EVIDENCE? I feel like I'm watching the "Saddam Husein Show - Part Deux". Fucking backstabbing traitor.
        Pike Bishop's picture

        Paul: The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution."

        Wrong. Read the Patriot Act and particularly the Resolutions/Bill(s) of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

        It used IRAQ as the subplot. It forever(or until it is struck) gave the Oval Office the full and unilateral Power to start a "military action" ...gwith a few missiles shot, or 50K Troops....but only for 6 months. The President must submit for Review to Congress a report every 6 months. Then Congress can end Funding, or say "OK" see you in 6 months." guess which we do.

        Yes. Congress changed Art 1 Sec 8 by handing the keys to the President. Thus abdication of their responsibility "to declare wars". To change this would have taken an amendment to the Constitution. No Branch of Govt can "give away" any of their Powers proscribed by the Constitution.

        Pike Bishop's picture

        Paul: The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution."

        Wrong. Read the Patriot Act and particularly the Resolutions/Bill(s) of the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"

        It used IRAQ as the subplot. It forever(or until it is struck) gave the Oval Office the full and unilateral Power to start a "military action" ...gwith a few missiles shot, or 50K Troops....but only for 6 months. The President must submit for Review to Congress a report every 6 months. Then Congress can end Funding, or say "OK" see you in 6 months." guess which we do.

        Yes. Congress changed Art 1 Sec 8 by handing the keys to the President. Thus abdication of their responsibility "to declare wars". To change this would have taken an amendment to the Constitution. No Branch of Govt can "give away" any of their Powers proscribed by the Constitution.

        PoasterToaster's picture
        PoasterToaster (not verified) Pike Bishop Apr 7, 2017 6:15 AM

        Obama gave himself the right to murder anyone he wanted to including innocent Americans, and with the approval of the Dark Government of course.  No permission from silly old Congress needed. Even bragged about his hit list.

        Is there anything off limits?  In Rome the Senate was eventually dissolved by the tyrant.  That will never happen in the US. The Eternal Bureaucracy has been the true power all along. 

        There's nothing to change, no patricians to dismiss.  There is only the great unmasking of the Deep State as it rears its head and laughs at us openly.

        amor terra's picture

        "Is there anything off limits?"  Short Answer:  No, unless you mean acting like human beings--that certainly seems to be off limits.  Now we get to see whether the right-skewed sheeple will fall in line behind the next pied piper of death and destruction, or if there is still any remaining brain activity in the US.

        msamour's picture

        So two wrongs make a right for you? The time will come. It may not be today, or even tomorrow, but the time will come when Americans will get what they ddeserve...

        Abaco's picture

        Congress cannot change the constitution. The Patriot Act is an unlawful usurpation of authority.  Se. Paul is right and you are confused.

        Old Poor Richard's picture

        Seven days in April. Trump is cucked, pwned by warmongering globalists.

        31 Mar 2017 White House backs off regime change, McCain furious, launches a scheme.
        01 Apr 2017 Dr. Shajul Islam in Khan Sheikhoun receives shipments of gas masks.
        03 Apr 2017 Journalist feraskaram01 tweets about chemical weapon attack a day before it happens.
        04 Apr 2017 Alleged chemical weapon bombing occurs right on schedule.
        05 Apr 2017 Steve Bannon removed from NSC.
        06 Apr 2017 US bombs Syrian air base in retaliation for chemical attack.
        07 Apr 2017 ISIS and Al Qaida praise Trump's bombing of Syria.

        PoasterToaster's picture
        PoasterToaster (not verified) Apr 7, 2017 6:11 AM

        The last Baby Boomer president kicks it off.  Welcome to the opening act of the final Baby Boomer shitshow.

        C'mon, we all knew it was going to come to this.  He is what he always was; the stereotype of the worst elements of his generation.  Our only hope was that he was prideful enough to give the finger to anyone that tried to push him around.

        But hey, we can still have some fun.  At least the snowflakes will continue to melt and the clock will keep ticking. 

        After Trump, the deluge.

        Peterman333's picture

        Baby boomers ended america. 

        shortonoil's picture


        Prince Lucifer wins another hand. King Trump was an easy convert. The retribution will come with wailing, and the gnashing of teeth!

        Youri Carma's picture

        So they just blew away $50,000,000

        Each Tomahawk missile cost about $832,000. So 59 X $832,000= $49,088,000 ~ $50,000,000

        What are Tomahawk cruise missiles, how much do they cost and why has the US launched an attack on Syria?

        Lostinfortwalton's picture

        So, Assad bombed his own chemical and munitions storage site so the escaping gas would kill children? Who sold this gas to who, where, and when, for how much and how did it get in the storage locker in the first place and who controlled the gas and munitions lockers? And what about Susan Rice's assertion that there was no gas in Syria?

        GraveDancer's picture
        The Road to World War III: Can the Dark forces of anti-Freedom trump Humanity? Kindle Edition

        GraveDancer's picture
        The Road to World War III: Can the Dark forces of anti-Freedom trump Humanity? Kindle Edition

        napper's picture

        "Can the Dark forces of anti-Freedom trump Humanity?"


        They already did.


        Look at America. Isn't that obvious?!

        south40_dreams's picture

        ZH is overflowing with frantic cockroaches and snowflakes today. I'm enjoying the hell out of this

        sheikurbootie's picture

        Generation Kill meets Generation Pussy (millennial).

        sheikurbootie's picture

        As expected, the S300 and S400 are pieces of shit.  I'm one of the few here that has worked with Russian's and their shitty Russian military equipment.  

        I still find it hard to believe that Assad ordered a chemical attack.  It makes no sense.  Maybe it was a rogue general or senior leader?  And no, a soldier can't confuse a chemical bomb from a conventional bomb.   Marked different, weight is lighter, 2 or 3 part liquid chambers etc.

        gcjohns1971's picture

        Sarin corrodes everything.  After at least five years since production, a Sarin bomb would be visibly rusting and leaking trace amounts.

        A Sarin bomb will be the rusty one in the hangar where everyone gets nauseous and light headed.

        Sarin is also flammable.   If it was on this airbase, it likely just burned up.

        napper's picture

        It's a false flag, dumbass!

        Dark star's picture

        Those who planned this attack and smooched Trump into aggreeing to it intended it to destroy not President Assad, but President Trump.

        And they have succeeded.

        Dark star's picture

        And their success can be measured by the deluge of Trump "Supporters" suddenly appearing on ZH, oozing insincerity and trying to pretend that this was a "Master stroke".

        It wasn't, it was the action of an idiot, linking the strike to what was so obviously a false flag, without any pretence at investigation.

        Assad is fine, Trump is seriously wounded.

        beekeeper's picture

        Trump lost me. Acting like a buffoon was strike one. His idiotic comments on Crimea was strike two. Bombing Syria over what is most likely a false flag is strike three.

        sessinpo's picture

        I'm betting most that have been on ZH more then 4 years are not surprised and most of them aren't posting on ZH as much for a reason.

        Pumpkin's picture

        I though he wasn't a member of their satanic clubs.

        Stinkbug 1's picture

        I'm sure Hillary is cackling with glee in her chambers now that she has the war she so badly wanted. 

        kidbroge's picture

        "But you showed us no proof." "Shut up and get with the program, the truth is what we say it is, don't question it."

        elstrom's picture

        Game set match to the neocon warmongers.

        The Donald is a stupid ignorant fool, the neocon swamp play him as a fiddle.

        Pew Pew Pew's picture

        We've heard this lie before.  You know, the lie about someone doing something the war interests don't like.  We were told Iraq had WMD's back in 2003 and we've now been told twice (once by Obama in 2013 and again today by Trump) that Syria used poison gas.  I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.

        Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria written byrobert parry thursday april 6, 2017

        With the latest hasty judgment about Tuesday’s poison-gas deaths in a rebel-held area of northern Syria, the mainstream U.S. news media once more reveals itself to be a threat to responsible journalism and to the future of humanity. Again, we see the troubling pattern of verdict first, investigation later, even when that behavior can lead to a dangerous war escalation and many more deaths.

        Before a careful evaluation of the evidence about Tuesday’s tragedy was possible, The New York Times and other major U.S. news outlets had pinned the blame for the scores of dead on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. That revived demands that the U.S. and other nations establish a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which would amount to launching another “regime change” war and would put America into a likely hot war with nuclear-armed Russia.

        Even as basic facts were still being assembled about Tuesday’s incident, we, the public, were prepped to disbelieve the Syrian government’s response that the poison gas may have come from rebel stockpiles that could have been released either accidentally or intentionally causing the civilian deaths in a town in Idlib Province.

        One possible scenario was that Syrian warplanes bombed a rebel weapons depot where the poison gas was stored, causing the containers to rupture. Another possibility was a staged event by increasingly desperate Al Qaeda jihadists who are known for their disregard for innocent human life.

        While it’s hard to know at this early stage what’s true and what’s not, these alternative explanations, I’m told, are being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence. One source cited the possibility that Turkey had supplied the rebels with the poison gas (the exact type still not determined) for potential use against Kurdish forces operating in northern Syria near the Turkish border or for a terror attack in a government-controlled city like the capital of Damascus.

        Reporting by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh and statements by some Turkish police and opposition politicians linked Turkish intelligence and Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus that killed hundreds, although the Times and other major U.S. news outlets continue to blame that incident on Assad’s regime.

        Seasoned Propagandists

        On Tuesday, the Times assigned two of its most committed anti-Syrian-government propagandists to cover the Syrian poison-gas story, Michael B. Gordon and Anne Barnard.

        Gordon has been at the front lines of the neocon “regime change” strategies for years. He co-authored the Times’ infamous aluminum tube story of Sept. 8, 2002, which relied on U.S. government sources and Iraqi defectors to frighten Americans with images of “mushroom clouds” if they didn’t support President George W. Bush’s upcoming invasion of Iraq. The timing played perfectly into the administration’s advertising “rollout” for the Iraq War.

        Of course, the story turned out to be false and to have unfairly downplayed skeptics of the claim that the aluminum tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, when the aluminum tubes actually were meant for artillery. But the article provided a great impetus toward the Iraq War, which ended up killing nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

        Gordon’s co-author, Judith Miller, became the only U.S. journalist known to have lost a job over the reckless and shoddy reporting that contributed to the Iraq disaster. For his part, Gordon continued serving as a respected Pentagon correspondent.

        Gordon’s name also showed up in a supporting role on the Times’ botched “vector analysis,” which supposedly proved that the Syrian military was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas attack. The “vector analysis” story of Sept. 17, 2013, traced the flight paths of two rockets, recovered in suburbs of Damascus back to a Syrian military base 9.5 kilometers away.

        The article became the “slam-dunk” evidence that the Syrian government was lying when it denied launching the sarin attack. However, like the aluminum tube story, the Times’ ”vector analysis” ignored contrary evidence, such as the unreliability of one azimuth from a rocket that landed in Moadamiya because it had struck a building in its descent. That rocket also was found to contain no sarin, so it’s inclusion in the vectoring of two sarin-laden rockets made no sense.

        But the Times’ story ultimately fell apart when rocket scientists analyzed the one sarin-laden rocket that had landed in the Zamalka area and determined that it had a maximum range of about two kilometers, meaning that it could not have originated from the Syrian military base. C.J. Chivers, one of the co-authors of the article, waited until Dec. 28, 2013, to publish a halfhearted semi-retraction. [See’s “NYT Backs Off Its Syria-Sarin Analysis.”]

        Gordon was a co-author of another bogus Times’ front-page story on April 21, 2014, when the State Department and the Ukrainian government fed the Times two photographs that supposedly proved that a group of Russian soldiers – first photographed in Russia – had entered Ukraine, where they were photographed again.

        However, two days later, Gordon was forced to pen a retraction because it turned out that both photos had been shot inside Ukraine, destroying the story’s premise. [See’s “NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop.”]

        Gordon perhaps personifies better than anyone how mainstream journalism works. If you publish false stories that fit with the Establishment’s narratives, your job is safe even if the stories blow up in your face. However, if you go against the grain – and if someone important raises a question about your story – you can easily find yourself out on the street even if your story is correct.

        No Skepticism Allowed

        Anne Barnard, Gordon’s co-author on Tuesday’s Syrian poison-gas story, has consistently reported on the Syrian conflict as if she were a press agent for the rebels, playing up their anti-government claims even when there’s no evidence.

        For instance, on June 2, 2015, Barnard, who is based in Beirut, Lebanon, authored a front-page story that pushed the rebels’ propaganda theme that the Syrian government was somehow in cahoots with the Islamic State though even the U.S. State Department acknowledged that it had no confirmation of the rebels’ claims.

        When Gordon and Barnard teamed up to report on the latest Syrian tragedy, they again showed no skepticism about early U.S. government and Syrian rebel claims that the Syrian military was responsible for intentionally deploying poison gas.

        Perhaps for the first time, The New York Times cited President Trump as a reliable source because he and his press secretary were saying what the Times wanted to hear – that Assad must be guilty.

        Gordon and Barnard also cited the controversial White Helmets, the rebels’ Western-financed civil defense group that has worked in close proximity with Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and has come under suspicion of staging heroic “rescues” but is nevertheless treated as a fount of truth-telling by the mainstream U.S. news media.

        In early online versions of the Times’ story, a reaction from the Syrian military was buried deep in the article around the 27th paragraph, noting: “The government denies that it has used chemical weapons, arguing that insurgents and Islamic State fighters use toxins to frame the government or that the attacks are staged.”

        The following paragraph mentioned the possibility that a Syrian bombing raid had struck a rebel warehouse where poison-gas was stored, thus releasing it unintentionally.

        But the placement of the response was a clear message that the Times disbelieved whatever the Assad government said. At least in the version of the story that appeared in the morning newspaper, a government statement was moved up to the sixth paragraph although still surrounded by comments meant to signal the Times’ acceptance of the rebel version.

        After noting the Assad government’s denial, Gordon and Barnard added, “But only the Syrian military had the ability and the motive to carry out an aerial attack like the one that struck the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.”

        But they again ignored the alternative possibilities. One was that a bombing raid ruptured containers for chemicals that the rebels were planning to use in some future attack, and the other was that Al Qaeda’s jihadists staged the incident to elicit precisely the international outrage directed at Assad as has occurred.

        Gordon and Barnard also could be wrong about Assad being the only one with a motive to deploy poison gas. Since Assad’s forces have gained a decisive upper-hand over the rebels, why would he risk stirring up international outrage at this juncture? On the other hand, the desperate rebels might view the horrific scenes from the chemical-weapons deployment as a last-minute game-changer.

        Pressure to Prejudge

        None of this means that Assad’s forces are innocent, but a serious investigation ascertains the facts and then reaches a conclusion, not the other way around.

        However, to suggest these other possibilities will, I suppose, draw the usual accusations about “Assad apologist,” but refusing to prejudge an investigation is what journalism is supposed to be about.

        The Times, however, apparently has no concern anymore for letting the facts be assembled and then letting them speak for themselves. The Times weighed in on Wednesday with an editorial entitled “A New Level of Depravity From Mr. Assad.”

        Another problem with the behavior of the Times and the mainstream media is that by jumping to a conclusion they pressure other important people to join in the condemnations and that, in turn, can prejudice the investigation while also generating a dangerous momentum toward war.

        Once the political leadership pronounces judgment, it becomes career-threatening for lower-level officials to disagree with those conclusions. We’ve seen that already with how United Nations investigators accepted rebel claims about the Syrian government’s use of chlorine gas, a set of accusations that the Times and other media now report simply as flat-fact.

        Yet, the claims about the Syrian military mixing in canisters of chlorine in supposed “barrel bombs” make little sense because chlorine deployed in that fashion is ineffective as a lethal weapon but it has become an important element of the rebels’ propaganda campaign.

        U.N. investigators, who were under intense pressure from the United States and Western nations to give them something to use against Assad, did support rebel claims about the government using chlorine in a couple of cases, but the investigators also received testimony from residents in one area who described the staging of a chlorine attack for propaganda purposes.

        One might have thought that the evidence of one staged attack would have increased skepticism about the other incidents, but the U.N. investigators apparently understood what was good for their careers, so they endorsed a couple of other alleged cases despite their inability to conduct a field investigation. [See’s “UN Team Heard Claims of Staged Chemical Attacks.”]

        Now, that dubious U.N. report is being leveraged into this new incident, one opportunistic finding used to justify another. But the pressing question now is: Have the American people come to understand enough about “psychological operations” and “strategic communications” that they will finally show the skepticism that no longer exists in the major U.S. news media?

        I'll tell you another thing:  If there was poison gas at a "rebel" depot, it more likely came from the U.S. via Saudi Arabia than it did from Turkey. 

        Abaco's picture

        So the intel community that falsely accused Assad of the chemical attack in 2013 now tells Trump that Assad executed this attack. This attack conveniently happens when the treasonous politicization of the intel community against the Trump candidacy and presidency is exposed.  The same intel community that unlawfully spied on Trump (and all the rest of us) and which has actively been conspiring to obstruct or destroy his presidency.  Trump accepts their word that is Assad and not the ISIS butchers the intel community has been supporting who executed the gas attack. In response Trump revereses his campaign pledge to avoid foreign wars and launches a shitload of missiles and kills a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the attack.


        This does not bode well.



        IranContra's picture

        Dialog With Syria
        Trump: Assad, you can stay if you cooperate with us on containing Iran.
        Assad: Iran is my ally.
        Trump: Missiles.

        Dialog With Iran
        Iran: We are a peaceful nation.
        Trump: You are HQ of Antichrist, ISIS, neocons, and World War III. Get out of Arab countries.
        Iran: No deal.
        Trump: War with Iran and its global assets

        Dialog With Russia
        Trump: Cooperate with us on containing Iran.
        Putin: Iran is our friend.
        Trump: Stay out of our fight with Iran.

        Aristofani's picture

        less 140 characters is it?

        tRump now a war criminal. sad.

        Emergency Ward's picture

        Donald "War Klown" Barack Herbert Clinton Shrub Trump.  War criminals won't prosecute other war criminals.  Now they are all part of the same "club".

        dexter_morgan's picture

        he be headin to the house a representin

        napper's picture

        Trump is being run by a giant war machine

        Scared to resist, he morphs into a stooge on the screen

        It does not matter if his voters are white and bright

        They can only whine all day, then wetdream at night

        - Pees-a-dent Pens
        for the Establishment

        ThunderStruck's picture

        So much for the Trump narrative that a strong military is one that you won't have to resort to using. However, in the interst of creating a $100,000,000 order to for Raytheon to replace the 60 cruise missiles fired at Syriia, Turmp has signalled he took a giant gulp of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Kool-Aid. This can only be to help secure positions for hiis Generals retiring in the future with the various criminally inclined defence contractors, not to mention a really nice contribution to Trump's 2020 re-election campaign. It was only a week ago that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assad can stay. With that said, does anyone believe that he would have launched a sarin gas attack on civilians when freedom from the ongoing assault by the U.S via the "moderate rebels" was so near at hand? NEVER!! Assad isn't an idiot, he's an opthomologist, a medical doctor, he's not stupiid like the rest of the leaders in the mid-east. The Russians claimed, the Syrian Air Force attacked "moderate rebel" ammunition depot which happened to be stocked with sarin gas which was inadvertently released. The facts showing this to be true will come out soon enough. And I wonder who supplied the sarin gas to the rebels?  I'm sure that Hitlary the queen cunt is rubbing her hands together with glee knowing full well that she put the sarin gas canisters into the hands of the "moderate rebels" So it would seem now that the Generals have their arm so far up Trumps ass that he has become nothing more then a neocon puppet.

        _freedom_lover_'s picture

        Trump, the new neocon in chief. Like every politician, Trump said one thing to get elected, then is doing the opposite once elected. Trump is showing his true colors : he is just yet another lying, dishonest politician. He completely lost my support. 100% in favor of impeachment if he doesn't back off from the neocon agenda.