Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Claire.

Trump weighing military options in Syria

1,743 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DarkHunter

This escalated rather quickly, Trump always did say he liked using the element of surprise.  Given the strength of cruise missiles it seems off that 50 to 60 would be used against a single airfield.  My gut is telling me they either expected some number to get intercepted so they did a swarm attack, or there was more targets then just an airfield.  I did read an article that did seem to suggest command and control areas along with air defense positions were also targeted, but it's possible the article was completely wrong with the attack having just happened.

As for the sarin being from the rebels, it's just not possible.  From the reports on the ground the chemical weapon that was used was sarin which means it couldn't be from a bombed facility.  First off sarin is never stored as sarin, it's always stored as precursor compounds.  This is largely done for two reasons.  First reason is safety cause sarin is incredibly dangerous with extremely low amounts being able to kill a person.  Second reason is more practical in that it's far easier to store the precursor compounds and they last much longer then sarin does.  The significance is that if a facility was bombed that was holding the precursor compounds while there would be some creation of sarin it would be in extremely low amounts and the death toll would be in the singular digits if any died at all.  Secondly the heat produced from a conventional bomb would break the chemical bonds of sarin and render it harmless.  Sarin is one of the if not most volatile nerve gas, which is both good and bad, good as a weapon in that it's really easy to get sarin to switch from liquid to gas, bad in that it's rather sensitive to high temperatures and will be rendered useless if the temperature gets too high.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

No Claire, the rebels used chemicals four years ago.   It's never been verified that Assad has used chemicals.  Is it possible that Syrian warplanes hit a "terrorist" warehouse?   Yes, IT IS.

But who cares about the truth.   Let's just do exactly what Hillary Clinton says, that wonderful terrific woman (that devil).  It's the darkest moments of US history like these that we find out who's really in the Clinton camp and who's not.

This would be happening under President Hillary too.   Coke or ****ing Pepsi. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

It seems a lot of people jumped on the blame Assad bandwagon with little to no evidence.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500319

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EllJay

I wonder if the Ash Sha'irat-airfield they dropped these 60 missiles on housed any Russian fighter planes? It probably did not, coz that would be an unnecessary provocation that would trigger Russia to some kind of response.

 

.

Edited by EllJay
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
8 minutes ago, Claire. said:

From The New York Times

The official said that the cruise missile strike was at the more limited end of the military options presented to President Trump Thursday by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The cruise missile strike, the official said, was intended to send a message to Mr. Assad about the American intention to use military force if he continues to use chemical weapons.

With the "cc" to North Korea and Iran.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, Yamato said:

No Claire, the rebels used chemicals four years ago.   It's never been verified that Assad has used chemicals.  Is it possible that Syrian warplanes hit a "terrorist" warehouse?   Yes, IT IS.

But who cares about the truth.   Let's just do exactly what Hillary Clinton says, that wonderful terrific woman (that devil).  It's the darkest moments of US history like these that we find out who's really in the Clinton camp and who's not.

This would be happening under President Hillary too.   Coke or ****ing Pepsi. 

No it's not in this instance based on the evidence and what witnesses and experts have stated.

Furthermore:

The key to a weapons program is not the facilities, but the researchers and scientists that can rebuild the stockpile. “In the quantities we’re looking at, you need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of effort,” says Kaszeta, “You need chemical engineers and chemists, you need a real chemical plant. You need infrastructure.” Because of the expense and expertise involved, chemical weapons are built by nations, not rebel groups. ”Which is why a rebel Sarin factory somewhere is really ridiculous: Those guys would spend the money on bullets,” says Kaszeta.

Source: Popular Science

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
5 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

With the "cc" to North Korea and Iran.

:lol:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
6 minutes ago, EllJay said:

I wonder if the Ash Sha'irat-airfield they dropped these 50 missiles housed any Russian fighter planes? It probably did not, coz that would be an unnecessary provocation that would trigger Russia to some kind of response.

No, they deliberately ensured they in no way hit any Russian aircraft.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato
12 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

This escalated rather quickly, Trump always did say he liked using the element of surprise.  Given the strength of cruise missiles it seems off that 50 to 60 would be used against a single airfield.  My gut is telling me they either expected some number to get intercepted so they did a swarm attack, or there was more targets then just an airfield.  I did read an article that did seem to suggest command and control areas along with air defense positions were also targeted, but it's possible the article was completely wrong with the attack having just happened.

As for the sarin being from the rebels, it's just not possible.  From the reports on the ground the chemical weapon that was used was sarin which means it couldn't be from a bombed facility.  First off sarin is never stored as sarin, it's always stored as precursor compounds.  This is largely done for two reasons.  First reason is safety cause sarin is incredibly dangerous with extremely low amounts being able to kill a person.  Second reason is more practical in that it's far easier to store the precursor compounds and they last much longer then sarin does.  The significance is that if a facility was bombed that was holding the precursor compounds while there would be some creation of sarin it would be in extremely low amounts and the death toll would be in the singular digits if any died at all.  Secondly the heat produced from a conventional bomb would break the chemical bonds of sarin and render it harmless.  Sarin is one of the if not most volatile nerve gas, which is both good and bad, good as a weapon in that it's really easy to get sarin to switch from liquid to gas, bad in that it's rather sensitive to high temperatures and will be rendered useless if the temperature gets too high.

Really, so put them in bombs then or fire them out of an artillery shell too like Assad got blamed for.  Makes sense.  

 

1 minute ago, Claire. said:

No it's not in this instance based on the evidence and what witnesses and experts have stated.

Furthermore:

The key to a weapons program is not the facilities, but the researchers and scientists that can rebuild the stockpile. “In the quantities we’re looking at, you need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of effort,” says Kaszeta, “You need chemical engineers and chemists, you need a real chemical plant. You need infrastructure.” Because of the expense and expertise involved, chemical weapons are built by nations, not rebel groups. ”Which is why a rebel Sarin factory somewhere is really ridiculous: Those guys would spend the money on bullets,” says Kaszeta.

Source: Popular Science

 

Sorry that's like saying the rebels didn't build their rifles so they can't have rifles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
Just now, Yamato said:

Sorry that's like saying the rebels didn't build their rifles so they can't have rifles. 

No, it's like saying what it's saying: that the rebels do not have the scientific expertise or finances to develop and stockpile chemical weapons like Sarin.

The following, by the way, is a scientific explanation on why the Russian explanation doesn't hold water:

Russia, the Syrian government’s main ally, claims the incident in Khan Sheikhoun happened when conventional air strikes hit a rebel-held cache or factory for chemical weapons. There are reasons to doubt this. For one thing, sarin is unstable, and the Assad regime chose to stockpile its precursor chemical, which would be mixed with another chemical just before use to produce sarin. Any rebel-made agent would probably be handled similarly. Hitting a cache of this would release little sarin.

Moreover, if Syrian air strikes released the agent by accidentally hitting an enemy cache, they were improbably lucky, as they managed to do the same thing at three separate locations in the area within 24 hours: SAMS reports two attacks on nearby villages the previous day that produced fewer casualties but with similar symptoms. And a Syrian government attack on a town near Palmyra last December also produced victims displaying symptoms of sarin. There was little international response, partly because “we cannot confirm the chemical used unless inspectors can take samples under proper conditions”, says Zanders.

Source: New Scientist

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
55 minutes ago, Yamato said:

The exact same pack of lies from four years ago taken down off the shelf and dusted off for another go round excuse for murder.   Start shooting fast before the false flag is actually verified.  So much for "evidence".   Shoot first ask questions later.   HORROR! 

Clearly someone's taking advantage of Trump's impulsiveness.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
17 minutes ago, Claire. said:

No, it's like saying what it's saying: that the rebels do not have the scientific expertise or finances to develop and stockpile chemical weapons like Sarin.

Many government bases have been overrun by rebels in the course of this conflict. It's just so very likely that they got their hands on chemical weapons too and used them on civilians. Why? To pin this down on Assad and it's tyranical regime and get NATO on board.

Edited by TruthSeeker_
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.

They have proof in the form of radar tracking and other data that the chemical bombing aircraft originated at the base that we bombed the crap out of.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
14 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Really, so put them in bombs then or fire them out of an artillery shell too like Assad got blamed for.  Makes sense.  

You do know that bombs and artillery shells that release chemical agents are completely different then conventional bombs and artillery shells right.  Bombs and shells that release chemical agents are designed to spray them over a large area instead of detonating.  In normal high explosives the temperature normally gets to around 5,500 K at the moment of detonation, far higher temperatures then an artillery she'll being fired or a bomb being dropped would experience.

I'm positive that if ground crews could get to the site of the chemical attacks they would fine the bomb casings that were used to disperse the gas.

Of course there is exceptions with the dispersal method, like chlorine gas can be dispersed by an explosion, but it wasn't chlorine gas that was killing the people either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EllJay

They suggest that Russia was informed of this attack prior to its execution, which will really put a strain on the Assad-Russia relations who didn't in turn informed Syria of the upcoming attack so they could relocate their fighter-planes, arms, and other resources from the base. But if Russia had informed Syria then US-satellites would have seen this relocations being done and Putin & Russia really shown on which side they really entrenched themselves with, and would have shown their deception.

Another interesting thing is how the conversations between Trump and Chinas president Xi Jinping transpired earlier today? Did he inform him on any of the plans or was he just presented to it as a fait accompli’ when it showed up on the news? I wonder in turn how the rest of the talk will turn out with Xi Jinping tomorrow?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
2 minutes ago, EllJay said:

Another interesting thing is how the conversations between Trump and Chinas president Xi Jinping transpired earlier today? Did he inform him on any of the plans or was he just presented to it as a fait accompli’ when it showed up on the news? I wonder in turn how the rest of the talk will turn out with Xi Jinping tomorrow?

Oh what I would give to be a fly on that wall. I'm sure the air strikes will be discussed, as will the subject of North Korea.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.ZZ.
3 minutes ago, EllJay said:

They suggest that Russia was informed of this attack prior to its execution, which will really put a strain on the Assad-Russia relations who didn't in turn informed Syria of the upcoming attack so they could relocate their fighter-planes, arms, and other resources from the base. But if Russia had informed Syria then US-satellites would have seen this relocations being done and Putin & Russia really shown on which side they really entrenched themselves with, and would have shown their deception.

Another interesting thing is how the conversations between Trump and Chinas president Xi Jinping transpired earlier today? Did he inform him on any of the plans or was he just presented to it as a fait accompli’ when it showed up on the news? I wonder in turn how the rest of the talk will turn out with Xi Jinping tomorrow?

Re bolded.

Exactly! We had eyes on them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crookedspiral
33 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

They have proof in the form of radar tracking and other data that the chemical bombing aircraft originated at the base that we bombed the crap out of.

They don't. A ''high degree of confidence'' is what they claim. What we are told is that Syrian aircrafts from that base have carried airstrikes on Idlib targets around that time. But using chemical weapons? No one went on the ground to verify anything. There was no investigation. The U.S. retaliation was done on a whim. An emotional reaction from Trump.

Edited by TruthSeeker_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EllJay
Just now, Claire. said:

Oh what I would give to be a fly on that wall. I'm sure the air strikes will be discussed, as will the subject of North Korea.

Yeah, and not to speak of the Taiwan-issue..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

A couple of updates:

"Tillerson: Russia 'complicit or incompetent'

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who also addressed reporters, said that Russia was either "complicit" in the Syrian government's chemical attack or was "incompetent" by failing to secure and remove chemical weapons from Syria. He added that the US cruise missile attack was a "proportionate" response and showed that President Trump was "prepared to take decisive action to respond to heinous acts"."

"US 'sought no approval from Moscow' for strikes

US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that while US officials did warn Russian forces in Syria about the strikes they did not seek approval from the Russians, according to CNN correspondent Jeff Zeleny."

Edited by LV-426
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Not sure if anyone has posted Trump's announcement yet. It's now up on YouTube.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
20 minutes ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

They don't. A ''high degree of confidence'' is what they claim. What we are told is that Syrian aircrafts from that base have carried airstrikes on Idlib targets around that time. But using chemical weapons? No one went on the ground to verify anything. There was no investigation. The U.S. retaliation was done on a whim. An emotional reaction from Trump.

Two days of intense discussions is not a whim. Furthermore, there are potential consequences to this action, so it's not a decision that was made lightly. Does emotion have a role to play? You bet. But ultimately, it does not override the practical considerations. As for not having anyone on the ground, that is false. We do. I can't speak to what if any investigation was conducted, but there are ways of getting information quickly.

As far as NATO is concerned, I don't think getting them onside will be an issue. It's already condemned the incident.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Well this happened crazy fast. How does this play into the Trump-Putin bromance meme? Thought they were besties.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
21 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Well this happened crazy fast. How does this play into the Trump-Putin bromance meme? Thought they were besties.

What? They can't have a lovers spat?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
1 minute ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

What? They can't have a lovers spat?

It looks a bit heavier than that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.