Oh FFS.
I have no reason to think that what was hit wasn’t targeted or that there is nuance in the objectives of this strike against Assad’s air base. It’s exactly what it looks like. No more, no less.
Unless actual evidence is presented to the contrary, the CW attack that preceded and prompted this response, is exactly what it looks like too, because Assad has done this before.
Well, I can see where skepticism of exactly what was damaged and how much is a reasonable position. Myself, I can only go by what’s been released and try and interpret the damage by looking at the pictures. It’s within the realm of possibility that 20 aircraft were damaged/destroyed…but who knows? The Russians say one thing. Syria said something else initially, then walked that back to something else. The US’s position has been, as always, a confused cluster fuck, since our current administration are idiots of biblical proportions and who don’t seem to be on the same book, let alone the same page.
The thing about not aiming from the planes seems to be a new meme…haven’t seen anyone confirm that and, at least to me, seems pretty ridiculous since if you are targeting an entire air base with 50-60 tomahawks it would be a bit of a stretch to think you wouldn’t hit any (and I have no idea why we wouldn’t want that in any case). I know we didn’t want to hit any Russians, but we tried to mitigate that possibility as much as possible, from what I can tell.
?
I was just asking where you got the “not targetting the planes” thing from. Doesn’t make sense and I hadn’t heard it before.
I was being snide. I’m prissy today. Please accept my appologies.
'Luci also brought it up above in this thread ETA: post 527. He said something about having heard that the US didn’t want to hit any planes (for some reason) but then crowing about hitting planes. But he didn’t say were it came from.
My memory isn’t as good as it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember.
I have been reading about this since before the latest thing happened, and that’s one of the things I read. The underlying theme, as I recall, was selling a very surgical strike, with limited potential for ghastly consequences. So, directed strictly and exclusively at support facilities. In any given day of news nerding, I may read any number of sources.
So, that’s what happened here. Now, since by implication if not insinuation my copybook may be blotted, I’ll see what I can do. If I entirely fail, I will tell you. If I find sources, I will show them, and assume that the reputation I enjoy is intact.
Nada. Closest to it, a statement from Trump defending the lack of targeting on the runways themselves, but that’s not even close.
I go now to the river, to perform the Ancient Albanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation…
Rest assured that your reputation is entirely unchanged.
Does anyone else feel that “We shot missiles at the airfield but didn’t aim for warplanes” is like saying, “Yes Your Honor, I shot him, but did my best not to aim for vital organs?”
You’re already shooting.
Neither am I giving the benifit of the doubt to a country that overthrows governments, willi nilly, bombs people whenever they feel like it or actually invades countries on the flimsiest of justifications.
Trump must have realized that there may be Russians there. It doesnt make sense that he would still hit Assad if he thought that Putin might be provoked into releasing material on him.
The attack really does blow a huge hole in the blackmail theory.
Good to hear that you don’t trust Putin and the Russians then…
Get it while you can, hoss.
Of course not.
On a more ironic note.
Syria claims that yesterday US-planes hit an ISIS chemical weapons store…
You couldn’t make it up.
Unless it actuallly is made up, of course. Nothing verified yet.
[QUOTE=Latro]
On a more ironic note.
Syria claims that yesterday US-planes hit an ISIS chemical weapons store…
You couldn’t make it up.
Unless it actuallly is made up, of course. Nothing verified yet.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a link? I did a search but there is nothing on it and it’s not on either CNN or the BBC which is where I generally get my news.
This seems to be Assad’s current stance (which differs from the Russians, interestingly enough):
So, it wasn’t a false flag OR hitting terrorist stockpiles of chemical weapons that magically mixed into deadly weapons…it never happened, it’s all made up by the West to give the US an excuse to strike Syria and in fact there wasn’t even a battle there! There IS NO SPOON!
I’m just…wow.
I’m confused. I thought you were talking about a new incident? This seems to be about the same incident we’ve been discussing…no? And it also seems different than what Assad was interviewed about.
No it is in the east in the territory controlled by the DAESH.
The only source is the Syrian government itself.
This is a red herring. The U.S. government is not the source for all of the initial reports accusing Syria of perpetrating the 4 April chemical weapons attack. The U.S., U.K., and E.U. were just the ones to point the finger at Assad after credible evidence clearly showed a chemical attack took place, particularly given that eye-witness accounts suggest the attack was carried out by aircraft. Of all the myriad factions in the Syrian civil war that operate in Idlib, only two have aircraft - the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Air Force.
This is opposed to the alleged incident in Deir al-Zor cited in the link you provided whose direct source was Assad’s military and did not feature any eye-witness accounts, pictures, video, or any other evidence.