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."
Initial reports are a kindergarten and two hospitals were hit.
Yes. when the US does it in its own interests, it's 'warmongering.'
US is #1 arms dealer to the planet, if war is happening, US is profiting.
Neat, more than $93M ($1.59M unit cost according to wikipedia) gone in a single (non war related) strike. /s
Thanks goodness he saved money by cutting the budget of EPA and NSF!
Appropriate and measured response to the nerve gassing of innocent civilians two days ago. A clear message from the West to psycho Assad and trouble maker Putin.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There's no proof he used any Sarin gas. He relinquished his chemical weapons in 2013 and John Kerry even praised him for it.
He relinquished his chemical weapons in 2013
Apparently he and Putin lied about it. I'm as shocked as you are.
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...
Agreed. I want the US to have nothing else to do with Syria. But using chemical weapons is simply too awful and too horrific to ignore. We can't stop parties from making or using the things, but we can damned well make sure there are painful consequences to doing so.
If not Assad, then who? The Russians aren't this stupid.
I think the real question is whether Assad did it, or the rebels (in order to provoke a reaction from the US).
No sorry, that's not a real question just an attempt to sow doubt that you have been sucked into.
It's a "when will you stop beating your wife" question designed to imply that someone is beating their wife whether they are or not.
Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from. See what has been said about Crimea for the last few years for many examples. The "questions" about Ukraine shooting down MH-17 (instead of Russian troops who provided anti-aircraft support for rebels doing it, which appears to be that actual case) are some of the more obvious ones.
I imagine the political pressure on Trump to do something to show he's not Putin's puppet has been pretty high. That's not a statement for or against this attack... but the strike may have served multiple purposes for the President.
#DeleteChrome
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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
The first gas attack in Ghouta in 2013 was confirmed by the UN to be initiated by the (US backed) rebels.
Incorrect. The UN report only confirms that chemical weapons had been used, but said nothing about responsibility. This is the conclusion from the UN report on Ghouta:
108. The United Nations Mission concludes that chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.
Ghouta, 21 August 2013
109. The United Nations Mission collected clear and convincing evidence that chemical weapons were used also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale in the Ghouta area of Damascus on 21 August 2013.
110. This conclusion was based on the following:
(a) Impacted and exploded surface-to-surface rockets, capable to carry a chemical payload, were found to contain Sarin;
(b) Close to the rocket impact sites, in the area where patients were affected, the environment was found to be contaminated by Sarin;
(c) The epidemiology of over 50 interviews given by survivors and health-care workers provided ample corroboration of the medical and scientific results;
(d) A number of patients/survivors were clearly diagnosed as intoxicated by an organophosphorous compound;
(e) Blood and urine samples from the same patients were found positive for Sarin and Sarin signatures.
The US, UK, France and Human Rights Watch blame Assad based on the trajectory of the rockets and type of rocket used (see Appendix 5 of the report). The Russians claim the Syrian government handed them material proof that the rebels carried out the attacks, but to my knowledge neither Russia or Syria ever made that evidence publicly available.
You're free to believe what you like, but don't misrepresent what's in the actual report. We're Slashdot and we're better than that.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.
Can someone send me the memo from the Ministry of Truth as I missed that one.
Oceania has always been at war with Syria.
Please report to the first room on the first floor for further information.
So complicated false flag stuff is OK without evidence but a suggestion that someone in politics is lying is not?
I think you have it backwards.
A lie is a lot simpler than a massive conspiracy theory that involves a group with very little in the way of resources killing their own members instead of using the very effective weapons involved against their enemies.
Maybe instead of a complicated Tom Clancy plot it's a lot more simple to suggest that this is just Putin's obvious lie number 2000 or so.
Besides, it's an opinion. Why do I need evidence for my opinion when you do not need it for yours?
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.
The claim that the U.S. caused the Arab spring, even when its used derogatorily like you are doing, is pure bullshit American hubris. Your claim that Saddam was the guy that held the entire middle east together is a fucking joke, right?
What we did was influence the Arab spring. We certainly crippled the government of Libya. We certainly funded the rebels is Syria. Leaving Iraq when we did was a bigger mistake than it had been to invade in the first place. Our mistakes in Iraq began with Bush Sr and continued under Clinton. If right from the beginning in 1991 we had been bombing with prejudice all the places the U.N. inspections had been interfered with, one way or another Iraq would not have been the thorn it became a decade later. We didnt enforce the 1991 capitulation.
All these rebel movements, the Arab spring, is a result of something older than any significant American interference in the region. The spring provides the manpower that enables our interference.
"His name was James Damore."
I don't pretend to know who did it, but I think a very relevant question is who gains from the release of chemical weapons? Right now I can see ways in which the rebels gain, Trump gains, the US military-industrial-complex gains, and even perhaps Russia gains some perverse way. Assad, on the other hand, what does he gain? Perhaps he thought he could simply get away with it and took a huge gamble that the international community wouldn't respond. That would demonstrate extremely poor judgment for a dictator who has held onto power for 16 years. In any case, I really hope politicians in the US can put a lid on things. This has the potential to spiral out of control fast.
Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive?
What price are you charging for yours?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
This is not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure you know that.
Yes, this is what happened but the thing is once a state the size of Iraq collapses into quasi-anarchy the conflict does not stay confined to the borders of said ex-state. Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now. There might and probably still would be a civil war in Syria, but right now that war is made a lot more complicated and bloody by isis, which is opposed by both Assad, Russia and the US but the defeat of which is made more complicated because said 3 factions are also opposed to each other. The US is trying to get rid of isis and Assad, Assad/Russia is trying to get rid of Isis and the rebels, and the rebels are trying to get rid of Assad and isis. There is no easy solution to this mess, because if the US removes Assad from power it's likely that Syria will be in even worse shape than it is now, as it is unclear which faction outside Assad's regime has the skills and the resources to maintain control of Syria.
Backing Assad means backing the sole Russian ally in the region which the US cannot do, but this also means that realistically speaking getting the conflict in Syria contained is extremely difficult, much more so than it would be if this was a war with only 2 sides.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Saddam held iraq together. With despotism and an iron fist for sure, but he did keep it together. The removal of him and failure to provide Iraq with a functional government lead to the formation if Isis, which together, combined with factors you listed has made the current geopolitical situation as complicated and as bloody as it is.
No-one is saying that without Saddam's removal there'd be total peace in Syria/middle-east, but it should be pretty obvious that the way Iraq was handled has contributed to the situation in a major, major way.
The US did not singlehandedly cause Arab spring obviously, but their geopolitics and interference in the region amplified the effects and not for the better.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Yeah. The UK are cunts too. They sell weapons to the Saudi barbarians. You have a point? There can be more than one cunt. Hope that makes it clearer for you.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
FYI, it actually was a milk factory. Although Iraq did put up a big sign reading "Baby Milk Factory" after the bombing and other such things for PR purposes. Iraq actually was using milk byproducts for BW research, but at al-Hakam, not Abu Ghuraib.
CIA's own assessment.
You don't exist. Go away.
Amazing how the rebels keep bombing themselves with chemical weapons while never hitting Assad-controlled areas with them. And how they keep simultaneously destroying their hospitals at the same time. Silly rebels!
You don't exist. Go away.
Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from.
After Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, after Nayirah's testimony, after Afghanistan involvement in 9/11, after a lot of other "facts" that I'm not listing here (including alleged atrocities committed by Gaddafi), I'd say that sort of "question" is quite legitimate.
Good thing everyone voted against Clinton and stopped her from starting another war in the middle east. Oh wait...
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.
While the second Iraq war provided the opportunity for ISIS/ISIL to form, they didn't become big players until two main events. The Arab Spring in 2011 caused unrest in the region; notably in Syria, which devolved into civil war giving them a window of opportunity to spread their influence (both by persuasion and by force). And the capture of massive amounts of U.S. military weapons that had been given to Iraqi troops. The Iraqis fled from ISIL's advance leaving the weapons, rather than stood to fight because U.S. troops had been withdrawn from Iraq to keep Obama's campaign promise. I think most would agree now that that withdrawal was premature, and the Iraqis could've used several more years of training and support before being left to fend for themselves.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Yeah Bush dropped the cake on the floor. But Obama tried to shove it under the carpet to meet a self-imposed deadline, instead of truly cleaning up the mess. Of course the ants were going to find it. And the situation with Syria being caught in a tug-of-war between the U.S. and Russia dates back to the Cold War, and arguably all the way back to the end of WWII and the formation of Israel.
If you really dig down into the root cause of instability in this portion of the Middle East, I'd blame the Europeans for carving up the region after they defeated the Ottoman Empire in the first World War. They drew those borders with little to no consideration for the indigenous cultural, lingual, and political boundaries. As a result, you have disparate peoples forced together into the same "country" trying to form a unified government. And (in the most extreme case) the Kurds - 28 million people spread across as minorities in four countries without a country to call their own.
Not only created a power vacuum, it left tens of thousands of trained Iraqi soldiers without jobs or means of income... many with families to feed.
Unlike the British and the French, who carved up the Middle East and Africa into colonial empires with no regard for the local population. They did just fine and bear no responsibility for anything.
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
Was the job in Germany and Japan not finished properly? You have to commit to it over decades, and you can't do it alone.
Just another day in Paradise
Nobody else sells nearly as much. But interestingly the top 5 arms dealers in teh world are ALSO the top-5 members of the UN security council and the only countries with veto rights.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Wasn't he supposed to be a Russian sleeper agent, or something? Slashdot has been telling me so for months, now.
Now reading from RT https://www.rt.com/news/383807.... The US managed to kill 2 civilians, three soldiers and injure seven others (so obviously the Syrians were fully aware of the attack and it looks like one of the missiles went a little astray), with a claim of 59 tomahawk cruise missiles fired, with an approximate cost of $1.59 million each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., excluding firing costs, for a total cost of $93.81 million, excluding firing costs, operation of vessels and crew, which could really blow that figure out, likely double. So who was punishing whom for what is looking like a false flag gas attack (did the US government just roundly punish US taxpayers), although people really did die but it is looking like they were kidnap victims from pro-Syrian government villages who were murdered. So all in all, just what the fuck is going on, this is looking all sorts of crazy. A profitable day for Raytheon McDonald Douglas but it makes the US look like a pack of idiots. So panic of the Obama spying on Trump disclosures, the Clintons are feeling prosecutorial heat, Trump has been set up for impeachment with an attack upon another country without Congressional or US approval or Raytheon McDonald Douglas, were bitching because profits for this quarter are a little low and demanded expenditure. Make no mistake, the attack was clearly rushed because the false flag story was falling apart and now the evidence will expose Uncle Toms Obama's Syrian rape brigades as the actual culprits and Trump will be blamed for acting with congressional approval, what a stupid debacle. It seems very much like the US spent more money than the damage they caused, especially when the US government values foreign people with brown skins at $2,500 per https://www.theguardian.com/wo....
The goal wasn't to kill people, it was to make it harder for Syria to undertake attacks like this in the future. So you take out hangars, fuel depots, aircraft, and runways. And when you are hitting an airfield, you don't just hit it once and call it a day. You have to put multiple craters on every runway as well as damage ramp areas and support facilities. One crater on a runway can be prepared pretty quickly. You put holes all along every runway and you knock that base out for weeks at least.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Since the Cold War, Russia has always tested the will and reactions of he U.S., especially when there's a new sheriff in town. Putin knew Obama wouldn't do anything when he put troops in Syria...he didn't do a thing when Assad crossed his "red line". Assad isn't acting w/o permission from his puppet master, and the gas attacks were getting top cover from the Kremlin, with claims they were caused by rebel production being hit...what utter bullshit. So, Trump is now calling the bluff, and I doubt we'll see a repeat of the gas attacks, but who knows for sure what the next move will be.
Just another day in Paradise
'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.
A great many people (at least one, here on slashdot in reply to me) however used that as a justification to vote for Trump. Because apparently it makes some sort of moral difference WHICH brutal dictator you suck up to and which you oppose (hint: it doesn't - a good president would be opposed to and, if need be, willing to go to war with BOTH Russia and Syria) ?
We were told that her tough stance on Syria was a reason to vote for Trump, because, his voters seemed to believe: he would stay out of the Syrian mess and not provoke Russia.
He has now BOMBED Syria. Do you seriously think Russia is happy right now ?
Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war, one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history. Now I won't say that hte US hasn't thoroughly fucked up in it's international role since world war 2 sometimes - hell I've repeatedly cited the fuckups, like removing a democratically elected leader in *insert list of over 50 countries here* to install a dictator, going to war in Iraq etc.
But, and this matter, over-all they global liberal order has stood - there has not been another world war. The US has kept wars local in this time, to it's own and the world's benefit.
Isolationism would dismantle all that, and almost certainly lead to a new world war.
Now the truth is also that the world, over the past 3 years, have reach the closest point to a world war since the last one ended. Tensions have not been this high in 70 years. Countries around the world are flexing their muscles and itching for a fight. I'm not a Clinton fan (I WAS a Sanders fan) but I did think she had the knowledge, experience and acumen required to hopefully keep a lid on things and calm things down. It was a longshot but it was also the ONLY shot. The one thing I was sure of was that a blustery buffoon like Donald Trump was the absolute worst possible person to have in charge of the US military at a time like this. A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.
Nobody saw world war 1 coming, the markets didn't even shift until 3 months after the events that started it. The tensions were there, the build-up is obvious in retrospect, but it was not visible at the time.
Now though, with the benefit of having seen it there - I see the same patterns in global geopolitics today. And it takes extremely skilled leadership to steer through this without igniting another one. No rash decisions can be made. 99.9999% very careful and skilled diplomacy, and the tiny 0.000001 surgical precision military strikes - that's what could keep things calm and resolve these tensions without breaking out.
Trump has none of the qualities required. Clinton did - she'd STILL be a longshot because of the other world leaders out there Merkel is ONLY other one who is up to the task. Could the two of them keep things calm ? I don't know - but there was a chance. With the election of Trump - there is no chance. Indeed a no-fly zone over Syria with diplomatic pressure to force Russia to accept it could potentially have been exactly the right approach. It would certainly have reduced the likelihood of bombing Syria today.
Do not be surprised if, in future decades, historians refer to this week as the week world war 3 started. And no, the poison gas attack would not be the start- Asad's been doing that for ages. It's this strike, this morning. This strike could very well be the first strike of world war 3.
I hope it isn't, I hope there is no world war 3. I hope that the leader of the free world Angela Merkel (oh remember the good old days when that title belonged to whoever was POTUS ?) and the leaders in her European alliances (France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) have the wisdom (and the scars) to manage to keep a lid on things even in a world where Trump has the big red button.
It's not a big hope, but it's hope and I cling to it. I have never so badly wanted to be wrong.
I just fear I'm right, because it's far more than a possibility, it's a strong probability.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
News is already coming in that the terrorists have launched a big offensive towards the town of Al-Furqalas (known to Google Maps as Al-Furqlus). Surprise, surprise! Turns out Al-Furqalas is just 20 miles - half an hour by the local roads - from the Shayrat Military Airport.
What a lucky coincidence that the terrorists just happened to have all the men, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and supplies to launch a major offensive just when the USA took out the airbase.
And just 20 miles away too!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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
Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.
For this strike, they used the newer type "E" flavor, which have two-way satellite communication features, rather than being strictly program, fire, forget.
That allows them to be re-targeted while in flight (and some of those flights can be lengthy) in reaction to revised intel about, say, the presence of someone or something in a spot they don't want to hit.
Interestingly, it took the two destroyers a good half an hour to get all of these in the air, so the early units actually loitered above the target, doing laps until the rest of them could catch up, and then all were used on their targets within just a couple of minutes.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.