Syrian Civil War Developments

[Officer of Engineers]

You can move what was in them.

So what? There will be no new stocks until those factories are rebuilt. There will be no chemical weapons delivery at T4 until that depot is rebuilt. THOSE were the MISSION OBJECTIVES!

Nor did I refer to cows or excrement but hey ho.

Your comprehension is full of it. I'm saying you're posting bullshit. To this day, YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP IS COMPROMISED! JUST GIVE US ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE! Not third party rumours. Not your gut feeling. Not your wet dreams. Just GIVE US ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE! You have none.

[Double Edge]

Israeli arrogance is astounding. They're not saying that Trump made stupid choices. They're saying US war planners don't know what they're doing. Trump didn't choose the targets. The Pentagon did and they chosed targets that didn't matter if the Syrians had forewarning or not. Two factories and a chemical weapons storage. I don't care if that storage is empty or not. That airbase cannot deliver chemical weapons until that depot is rebuilt.

See what Israel said

"If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved," a senior defense official told Israel's Ynet News. "But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it's doubtful any of these objectives have been met."

An intelligence officer who talked to Ynet wasn't as forgiving.

"The statement of 'Mission Accomplished' and (the assertion) that Assad's ability to use chemical weapons has been fatally hit has no basis," the source said, likely referring to a recent tweet from President Donald Trump.

A priori there is nothing wrong with this. I don't think I heard in the briefings either by matis or at the Pentagon that these strikes are the be all and end all for chemicals weapons use in Syria. They were supposed to act as a deterrent against further use.

What happens next is up to Assad.

He is in an existential fight for survival here and his use of chems is to get the opposition to surrender. They already did in the two areas where the chems were used. Will he use them again if he thinks it will be easier than going street by street then yes.

[snapper]

You can move what was in them. Nor did I refer to cows or excrement but hey ho.

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't know what you read but I saw this:

"These officials also criticized President Donald Trump talking about the strikes beforehand.
The US and allies' strikes on Syria likely didn't change anything on the battlefield, and it's hard to know how much of the chemical weapons stockpile was hit."

I mean it is something that Trump (rightly in my view) criticised Obama for. When you give them nearly a weeks warning of course they will move what they can. Trump knows it. Question is why did he give them the warning that he said he would never do. The answer is blindingly obvious; the whole purpose of the 'mission' was to make Trumpkin look tough and you suckers are buying it. The OPCW, who the Muscovites said at the weekend would be given access to Douma have not been given access. The sanctions that Nikki Haley spoke of at the UN Trumpkin has refused to impose but no no... Moscow is sweet while Sputnik broadcast simulations of "experts" of nuke landing by the Whitehouse; https://sputniknews.com/us/201804171...d-white-house/ Get your heads out of the sand; Trump is compromised.

You CANNOT move 2 FACTORIES and a CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEPOT (You know, to make sure they don't leak before they're deliver) in a week! You are seriously deranged in understanding simple facts. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT TRUMP IS COMPROMISED!

Your head is the one being buried in cow excrement! What the hell does a model got anything to do with this topic, only your dellusion can answer.

[snapper]

The actual answer is that Trump's "criticisms" prior to his Presidency were stupid. He also implied we should have launched a sneak attack on Mosul when he heard news reports about the build-up to the 2016 attack. Cause we're going to stealthily move 35,000 troops to attack the biggest damn city in Northern Iraq.

Why give them warning? Political considerations? The last thing you want to do is blow up some Russians who were out repairing some Syrian aircraft and escalate this way more than we want to. Plus getting the UK and France on board.

So, I'd disagree with this part:

I tend to agree with the Israeli advice: "If you want to shoot — shoot, don't talk."

I would also refer you to Trumpkins tweet: "You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!" In other words if they get in the way tough titties. But of course at same he warned them. Their systems weren't even on. The whole purpose of the mission was to make Trump look tough on Muscovy - it was a PR stunt like everything else he over exaggerates and does. When a guy who says he is not going to give warnings about what he will do - whether you think it wise to or not - very clearly does the opposite it might be worth asking why.

[Ironduke]

He also implied we should have launched a sneak attack on Mosul when he heard news reports about the build-up to the 2016 attack. Cause we're going to stealthily move 35,000 troops to attack the biggest damn city in Northern Iraq.

Hmm... could have commandeered a hundred 747s from Delta, United, American, etc. and had them jump out DB Cooper-style into Mosul.

:-)

[GVChamp]

The actual answer is that Trump's "criticisms" prior to his Presidency were stupid. He also implied we should have launched a sneak attack on Mosul when he heard news reports about the build-up to the 2016 attack. Cause we're going to stealthily move 35,000 troops to attack the biggest damn city in Northern Iraq.

Why give them warning? Political considerations? The last thing you want to do is blow up some Russians who were out repairing some Syrian aircraft and escalate this way more than we want to. Plus getting the UK and France on board.

So, I'd disagree with this part:

I mean it is something that Trump (rightly in my view) criticised Obama for.

[snapper]

Israeli arrogance is astounding. They're not saying that Trump made stupid choices. They're saying US war planners don't know what they're doing. Trump didn't choose the targets. The Pentagon did and they chosed targets that didn't matter if the Syrians had forewarning or not. Two factories and a chemical weapons storage. I don't care if that storage is empty or not. That airbase cannot deliver chemical weapons until that depot is rebuilt.

I don't know what you read but I saw this:

"These officials also criticized President Donald Trump talking about the strikes beforehand.
The US and allies' strikes on Syria likely didn't change anything on the battlefield, and it's hard to know how much of the chemical weapons stockpile was hit."

I mean it is something that Trump (rightly in my view) criticised Obama for. When you give them nearly a weeks warning of course they will move what they can. Trump knows it. Question is why did he give them the warning that he said he would never do. The answer is blindingly obvious; the whole purpose of the 'mission' was to make Trumpkin look tough and you suckers are buying it. The OPCW, who the Muscovites said at the weekend would be given access to Douma have not been given access. The sanctions that Nikki Haley spoke of at the UN Trumpkin has refused to impose but no no... Moscow is sweet while Sputnik broadcast simulations of "experts" of nuke landing by the Whitehouse; https://sputniknews.com/us/201804171...d-white-house/ Get your heads out of the sand; Trump is compromised.

[Double Edge]

Authorisation to use force dates back to 2001 & 2002 where its been reused ever since.

Executive over reach ?

[citanon]

The strikes also accomplish a few other things:

1. They told Russia that the US will not stop strikes on its account.
2. They showed the world that neither Syria nor Russia can effectively defend against Western air power in Syria.
3. They are telling Assad that should he try again, bigger strikes are coming.

That should help keep a lid on the chemical weapons use for a while.

[Officer of Engineers]

Israeli arrogance is astounding. They're not saying that Trump made stupid choices. They're saying US war planners don't know what they're doing. Trump didn't choose the targets. The Pentagon did and they chosed targets that didn't matter if the Syrians had forewarning or not. Two factories and a chemical weapons storage. I don't care if that storage is empty or not. That airbase cannot deliver chemical weapons until that depot is rebuilt.

[TopHatter]

Israeli intelligence reportedly says Trump's Syria strike failed, didn't take out much of anything

Israeli intelligence officials have concluded that the US, UK, and France's missile strikes on Syria's suspected chemical weapons sites were a failure.
Multiple Israeli government and military sources criticized the strikes effectiveness in hurting Syria's ability to conduct chemical attacks.
These officials also criticized President Donald Trump talking about the strikes beforehand.
The US and allies' strikes on Syria likely didn't change anything on the battlefield, and it's hard to know how much of the chemical weapons stockpile was hit.

The US, UK, and France's missile strike on Syria's suspected chemical weapons sites involved 105 missiles fired from air and sea to rain down thousands of pounds of explosives on three sites across the country— but Israeli intelligence officers reportedly called it a failure.

"If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the US responded to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad's use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved," a senior defense official told Israel's Ynet News. "But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it's doubtful any of these objectives have been met."

An intelligence officer who talked to Ynet wasn't as forgiving.

"The statement of 'Mission Accomplished' and (the assertion) that Assad's ability to use chemical weapons has been fatally hit has no basis," the source said, likely referring to a recent tweet from President Donald Trump.

Unlike the strike in April 2017, the US and its allies did not target Assad's jets or airfields, though that attack was also apparently of low impact, as Assad's jets took off from the damaged airfield within 24 hours and reports of chemical warfare by his regime persisted.

Israel apparently not impressed with Trump's tough talk

The Tayfur, or T-4 military airbase near Homs, Syria. Google Maps
The Israelis seemed to take particular issue with Trump talking about his plans to strike before the military action took place. In comparison, Israel is suspected of carrying out a silent but lethal air war against Iranian-aligned militias in Syria, though it seldom ever comments on whether it took part in specific strikes, and always after the fact.

"If you want to shoot — shoot, don't talk," an Israeli diplomatic source told Ynet. "In the American case, this is mostly talk. They themselves show actions are not going to follow."

After Trump tweeted that Russia and Syria should "get ready" for incoming missiles, it appears they moved assets to more protected locations, potentially limiting the available targets for the strike.

Nobody knows how much chemical weapons Assad has left

The US said the strike had hit the "heart" of Assad's chemical weapons infrastructure, but admitted some residual capabilities remained. The strike certainly did not deal any damage to Assad's air force, which is suspected to deploy the chemical weapons.

While the Israelis estimated that the strikes didn't hit the bulk of Assad's chemical weapons, it's hard to know exactly how much or where the weapons stores could be, as international inspectors certified that Syria had removed their weapons of mass destruction as a result of a deal between then-President Barack Obama and Russia in 2013.

But reports of chemical attacks have regularly surfaced since then, and recent reports from Islamist rebels fighting Assad in Douma, the town where the most recent suspected chemical attack sparked the US and allies' strike, said Assad is using the terrifying weapons to win on the battlefield.

"They bombed and bombed and we weren't defeated by conventional weapons so they found the only way was to use chemical (weapons)," a rebel told Reuters.

Despite the US and allies' missile strike on Syria, Assad's regime has only strengthened and fortified its position by clearing out more rebel strongholds.

The UK has admitted that the strike did not intend to turn the overall tide of the war, and was essentially meant as a punitive action to compel Assad not to use chemical weapons. Link

[Versus]

Yep, FB was right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ocial-facebook

[TopHatter]

Should also be noted that Russian AD radars were turned off after the American warning that they were going to act. I can think of 2 reasons.

1) Fear of HARM
2) Did not want the Americans to know that they could not track the attack.

and
2b) To prevent whatever ESM birds, ships and/or stations in the region from vacuuming up everything they could glean about those AD radars.

[citanon]

Sad follow up to the Russian mercenaries story:

Russian journalist died from "mysterious" fall after reporting on the casualties

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43781351

Not really mysterious at all what happened after you look at the circumstances isn't it?