Slashdot Mirror
US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles (nbcnews.com)
mi writes: Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target -- Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria, the Defense Department said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired chemical weapons on Tuesday. 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, including the runway, were hit. Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago." The report also notes that the strike "dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition."
Yes there absolutely is. Apart from many people suffering with sarin symptoms, and the fact that Assad has done exactly this before, there have been autopsies on three victims:
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/05/...
Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.
Sure, I'll ignore the EU, Arab League, UN, UK, Israel, Turkey, France, Germany. Some random guy on ./ knows way more than them. You agree with Syria, the accused perpetrator, and Russia, their only real ally. That's a bold stance my friend. F*cking Hezbollah criticized Assad for launching the strikes. Hezbollah. Let that sink in.
Lest you disagree with me: Here's a nice summary: It dismissed the possibility that evidence supporting the US government's conclusion could have been manufactured by the opposition, stating it "does not have the capability" to fabricate videos, eyewitness accounts, and other information. The report also said that the US believed Syrian officials directed the attacks, based on "intercepted communications."[12] A major element, as reported by news media, was an intercepted telephone call between a Syrian Ministry of Defense official and a Syrian 155th Brigade chemical weapons unit commander in which the former demanded answers for the attacks.
Here's the actual US government report: https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...
Well, if the US had not destabilized the entire region by failing at nation-building it's unlikely that any of the current events in Syria/Iraq would have occurred.
This doesn't mean the US bears responsibility for actions that other countries perform, but it's just a matter of fact that US warmongering has created a massive power-vacuum in the middle-east which has lead to the rise of the current clusterfuck of issues.
Using overseas wars as a distraction from domestic politics comes with a price.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Obama's "cutting and running out of Iraq ASAP" was the result of an agreement with the Iraqi government that George W. Bush's administration put into place. Obama could either "cut and run", or he could place US troops in Iraq under Iraqi liability for war crimes.
The "creation of the power vacuum" was actually the result of Donald Rumsfeld PERSONALLY and UNILATERALLY deciding to disband the Republican Guard, rather than turn them into local peacekeepers. THAT SINGLE ACTION was what created the Iraqi insurgency and ISIS.
Sorry to disturb your narrative with facts.
Obama pulled them out on the timetable that was agreed upon by Bush and the Iraqi government. Iraq would not allow an extension for a large number of troops with immunity as the US demanded.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
It wasn't that the Iraqi troops were afraid of the small group of ISIS fighters comping from Syria, but they knew that the minute they showed up the Suni population was going to rise up against them and they would find themselves sourrounded, outnumbered and cut off from their supply lines
'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'
That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.
Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
This is how it works now. Lies are not as effective as false narratives, so you mostly see false narratives trending. They are harder to refute, and more convincing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
It is kind of ridiculous to think the US profits from war just because it is the #1 arms dealer. It is certainly expected that the country with the #1 GDP would also be #1 in arms dealing. And if you look at the size of US arms exports, this industry makes up 0.05% of US GDP. International instability is a far greater risk to the US economy than any gains it could have from arms exports.
If you include the potential strategic benefits of winning a war then you have at least a rational argument, but as it stands your entire comment is just trolling.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke