drone

Footage released by the The Russian Ministry of Defense this afternoon of Shayrat Airbase in Syria, showing the aftermath of a US missile strike which killed at least six people this morning

Syria war: US missile strikes brings angry Russian response (RT)

US missile strike in Syria: What we know so far about target, victims & reactions (RT)

37 thoughts on “Triggered

  1. dav

    /pol/ and r/thedonald are in a right old state at the moment – hate filled Nazis turning on each other

  2. rotide

    Bodger holding up RT as the voice of reason?

    No chance this was all a false flag operation then Bodger, like Sandy Hook et al ?

    1. ivan

      which reminds me…where IS the pizzagate date by date, step by step thingy we’ve been promised…

      I know Alex Jones gave up on it and apologised for running with it, but has Broadsheet?

      1. Nigel

        I saw a rumour on RT that they have an informant ready to spill the sauce, but he’s a bit crusty. They’re calling him Deep Dish.

    2. f_lawless

      But what about the former British ambassado to Syria, Peter Ford, speaking on BBC this morning? In his considered opinion “it’s simply not plausible” that Assad would have ordered the chemical attacks and those who rush to assert so before any investigation clearly have an agenda.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU5taO5vRDo

      1. f_lawless

        I think it’s also worth considering that, as much as Western corporate media outlets would currently like to ignore it, it’s been an accepted fact that ISIS possess and have carried out several chemical weapons attacks in Syira and Iraq over the past couple of years. A 2016 report from IHS Conflict Monitor, a London-based intelligence collection and analysis service, put the figure at 52 confirmed attacks as reported here in the New York Times:
        https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/world/middleeast/isis-chemical-weapons-syria-iraq-mosul.html
        Only last month the UN condemned a chemical attack by ISIS in Mosul

          1. Nigel

            Thank God the calm, thoughtful, intelligent, knowledgeable candidate won, I’m sure he thought through all the angles and possibilities and considered all the evidence and intelligence before he launched the attack.

          1. Kieran Nice Young Chap

            The less credible means less mainstream, therefore it means MORE credible!

          2. jusayinlike

            “Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a Sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.”

          3. Kieran Nice Young Chap

            I see you CONVENIENTLY left out the Soros connection and the Italian food-based pedophile ring.

            Big Pasta has gotten to you, haven’t they!?

          4. f_lawless

            @Nigel –
            While I wouldn’t discount Assad’s historical use of chemical weapons, I have to say I don’t find the article you link to as making an entirely convincing case. There’s various things I find dubious in it. I’ll try to briefly list some of them:
            (a) the account for the Sept 6th strike is a secondhand one from a journalist based in Istanbul which was gleaned from “activists” in an area of Aleppo controlled by ISIS/Nusra Front. To quote journalist Patrick Cockburn:
            “The Syrian war is especially difficult to report because Isis and various al-Qaeda clones made it too dangerous to report from within opposition-held areas. There is a tremendous hunger for news from just such places, so the temptation is for the media give credence to information they get second hand from people who could in practice only operate if they belong to or are in sympathy with the dominant jihadi opposition groups.”
            So apart from assuming that civialians showed signs of chemical weapons exposure, what else can we really say with any certainty about what any of the circumstances were?
            (b) a report by the Syrian American Medical Society is referenced to bolster the case against Assad but when the US State Dept funds that society to the tune of millions, can we really rely on them to be impartial?
            (c) the 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta is also referenced, clearly implying that there’s no doubt Assad was responsible for it. Yet for some reason there’s not one mention of subsequent revelations: in 2015, the main opposition party in Turkey working together with members of the Turkish police presented evidence to the Turkish parliament that the sarin gas attack was actually orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in connection with ISIS members. This is also corroborated by a separate, earlier report by Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh.
            Rather than carry out a proper investigation, Erdogan (who, as we all now know, behaves as a crazed tyrant), let the suspects flee into Syria and then charged the opposition MP who made the claims with treason! http://www.globalresearch.ca/erdogan-mafia-state-turkish-mp-faces-treason-charges-for-revealing-how-isis-used-turkey-for-smuggling-chemical-weapons/5496387 Which side do you tend to believe?

            In regard to why Peter Ford thinks it’s not plausible that Assad would use chemical weapons right now I think you need to assess the current political situation: The attack was the eve of a Syria conference in Brussels and a week before peace negotiations are to resume – why would Assad want to seriously weaken his hand in those talks/negotiations? His forces are now clearly winning the war, retaking land all over Syria; why use chemical weapons now on his own civilians and give those in the Pentagon baying for his blood the pretext they need to start a direct bombing campaign against him? Also, just days before the attack, the US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, publicly signalled that Assad could now stay.
            You have to ask that old adage “cui bono”? Only the ones pushing for regime change are those who benefit.

          5. Nigel

            Obviously these are all points that need to be considered, but as far as I can tell Assad can act with impunity and not give a damn what anyone thinks – Trump’s strike is looking less and less impressive and more theatrical as time goes on. Ford’s just a touch too definitive in ruling it out for comfort.

  3. Harry Molloy

    Really amazing the footage they can capture from passing overhead. Anyone have any idea what height the drone would have been travelling at?

    1. edalicious

      I’d imagine one of the figures in the top left is the altitude. The top one appears to be range so I’d bet it’s the AAT/HTD figure, ~3500m, which is not all that high really.

    1. Sheik Yahbouti

      He has done it several times before – without any repercussion – why wouldn’t he?

  4. Nollaig

    Is it just me, but the damage seems minimal after about 59 missiles hit the base. though the runways would be chewed up and all buildings reduced to rubble. both look in okay condition..

    1. Deluded

      Yes they had particular targets, equipment and installations, but others use the runways too so they were preserved (There are reports of pre-warnings and evacuations). I read that suspected chemical stores were also avoided.

      1. Kieran Nice Young Chap

        The Pentagon say Russia were informed. Tillerson says they weren’t. What the hell is going on there?

Comments are closed.