...that listened to NPR today? Gawd, it was great. They interviewed a bunch of people, interviewees praising Trump on NPR!! Interviewers sputtering and confused.
Basic call...Trump did well, Obama should have done this years ago. NPR interviewers basically flummoxed...but 'OBAMA,' and the interviewees were all like, "Sorry, Lightbringer should have brought more sound!"
It was great to listen to. Unless, of course, using sarin nerve agent gas is OK on civilian populations.

Really, Adam...five dozen Tomahawks and they're flying sorties out of there today? From a website in India? How fake is that?

Hell, the RUSSIANS posted a video of the destruction of the base, courtesy of NY Post:
http://nypost.com/2017/04/07/russia-releases-footage-of-syrian-air-base-...

Original Boris video:

https://www.facebook.com/tvzvezda/videos/vb.123251167724923/149220496416...

I have no clue what this means, but hey, it's friggin Russian:
Российские военные показали последствия ударов США по базе Шайрат: кадры с воздуха

"How fall downed s300 tomahawks we show?"

None, probably...LOL.

Gassing story was fake on 2013

By EM Painter on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 7:16pm.

could be fake this time too. Obama had one good moment resisting the war crazies.

Naw...

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 8:49pm.

.
I'm sorry, there's no way anything short of a massive Hollywood special effects budget could pull this off.
Bashar al Assad has been there a long time. Wants to continue. So, why the hell did he use sarin?
He's the war crazy.
I bet Russia deals him down the drain within a year, the rest of the Alawites hole up in the north and 'peace' happens.

No reason for Assad to use gas

By EM Painter on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 11:30pm.

He's winning the war. The rebels used it in 2013 and blamed Assad. Obama saw through it.

Missiles are the gesture of an impotent empire. It's a sign that we do not have the will or money to make things happen anymore.

McCain etc would like us to be committed w troops, and then have some get killed so we have to stay longer.

Democrats as usual are useless, directionless and incompetent. Spent six months baying for war with Russia, made Trump look reasonable. Now they get war and all they do is whine.

I agree with almost all you say

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 11:52pm.

Except for the missile part. Missiles are precise and can take out specific targets like buildings NOT housing WMD gas. You know, gas the Obama Administration assured us was not there.

Assad's reason for going this route? Hubris and miscalculating the new President.

The new administration was prudent to telegraph the punch by 60-90 minutes.

Missiles prolong Syria war for no reason

By EM Painter on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 5:05pm.

On one side Assad & secular Syrians, russia
On the other side Isis, Syria liberals, the USA

Is this post

By Michael on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 7:48pm.

meant to be sung to the tune of "We Didn't Start the Fire"?

Yes.

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 8:50pm.

Just sayin'.

Oh, I'm sorry ...

By adamg on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 8:54pm.

Don't like my original source?

How about Reuters or ABC News?

They quote the same Syrian Observatory, but ABC adds:

A U.S. official said Syrian planes took off from the base today but did not confirm the action taken by the plane.

The official noted that up to 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed in Thursday's airstrikes but added that the missiles did not no target every aircraft at the base and that the runway was untouched

The runway was untouched. Maybe Trump should have sent in the Chicago DPW.

Well, seems like they're behaving better.

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 9:08pm.

" Two Syrian jets took off today from the air base that was hit by U.S. missiles and carried out strikes on areas under ISIS control in the countryside of eastern Homs, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The Syrian government responded to Thursday night's U.S. strike on its Shaayrat air base by quickly fixing the base and allowing the two planes to take off from there, the human rights organization said. "

So, it looks like they didn't target the runway. Maybe there's a strategic reason for that.

So

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:07pm.

When are you going to enlist?

War and guns don't have to be an armchair fetish you know.

(FYI: yes, I served)

Thank you for your service

By dmcboston on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 12:34am.

and I don't give a shit what your MOS was.

So

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 6:22pm.

.
Please tell me how bombing el-Assad's chemical dropping jets will produce more refugees?

Expanding the war

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 6:47pm.

Kills people and drives them from their homes.

Duh.

Do you really think that any of this has to do with anything beyond posturing for simple minded chickenhawks?

You are a fucking idiot.

By dmcboston on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 8:59pm.

"Do you really think that any of this has to do with anything beyond posturing for simple minded chickenhawks?"

Yes. Yes I do. I think it is an honest effort to remove Assad's ability to drop poison gas on the population of Syria.

Duh. You suck.

not everybody thats wrong is an idiot

By Scumquistador on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 9:43pm.

not everybody thats wrong is an idiot

in fact, a lot of smart people are wrong a lot

How many Trump tweets from a couple years ago?

By SwirlyGrrl on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:05pm.

How many call out Obama for wanting to take action in Syria?

Meanwhile, this expensive airstrike that cost massively more than meals on wheels didn't do anything to disrupt Syrian air power whatsoever.

The level of cognitive dissonance and projection in your "wooh hoooooo WARRRRR" blather is staggering - or were you looking in the mirror when you picked a subject line?

Meals on wheels? U kidding?

By Lou on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:27pm.

**Meanwhile, this expensive airstrike that cost massively more than meals on wheels didn't do anything to disrupt Syrian air power whatsoever.**

Do you think Assad will try to use chemical weapons again?

I don't. That's a step in the right direction....

** this expensive airstrike that cost massively more than meals on wheels**

This expensive air strike saved more lives than "meals on wheels".

oo this is gettin good

By Scumquistador on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:49pm.

the classic i know you are but what am i routine, i never saw it coming

None?

By dmcboston on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 12:24am.

"How many Trump tweets from a couple years ago?"

None. Trump wasn't even on the screen a couple of years ago.

You just don't get it. Stick to statistical analysis. Oh, and lecturing people. Clue...'your "wooh hoooooo WARRRRR" blather' is not really conducive to intelligent conversation.

Now that Obama's poll numbers

By Kinopio on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 10:10am.

Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate," tweeted Trump in 2012.

The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!-tweeted by Trump in 2013.
Trump can't go a day without looking like a fool and a hypocrite.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aol.com/amp/2017/04/07/past-trump-tweet...

Swirls missed the MSNBC memo

By Brian Williams on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 9:08pm.

Hey Swirls better catch up on your Rachel Maddow talking points. You're supposed to give Trump grudging approval here, then posture like you care about refugees.

**Kills people and drives

By Lou on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:18pm.

**Kills people and drives them from their homes.**

Peoples "homes" were at the airbase?

They need a plan

By BostonDog on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 6:57pm.

Without a solid plan for how to topple Assad or end the civil war this will do little but increase the casualties. America should respond to chemical slaughter but a single airstrike without follow-through will do nothing to improve the situation.

If America wanted to have at least have some moral high ground we'd start accepting waves of refuges looking to escape the violence and starvation.

**Without a solid plan for

By Lou on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 10:21pm.

**Without a solid plan for how to topple Assad or end the civil war this will do little but increase the casualties.**

Was this supposed to do all that? And bring world peace too?

This strike prevents him from using Chemical weapons again.

End of story. A measured approach.

idk i think a lot of syrians are ok with this

By Scumquistador on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 6:44pm.

that is what the media is telling me anyway and it makes sense. doubt there were many syrians in that group anyway, but i admit i didnt ask.

Tomahwaks = Refugees?

By Lou on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 9:47pm.

I love when people who condemn this action by Trump try to connect it to the ban on Syrian refugees.

Their answer to Assad using nerve gas is, what? Bring more Syrians to THIS country.

I know people dislike Trump with a passion, but how does the above logic make sense?

Trump, in one feel swoop, probably destroyed their capability to laucnh any more chemical weapon attacks...and if they can still launch them, he has warned them about our response. End of story.

Bringing more refugees here would probably allow Assad to be even more brutal.

I don't understand the

By anon on Fri, 04/07/2017 - 9:50pm.

I don't understand the message of the protest. Your headline isn't expanding much.

Protesting Syrian attack that

By anon on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 7:23am.

Protesting Syrian attack that failed to stop Syrian air force

There are 2 things going on here.

1) The protesters are protesting Trump's attack on Syria.
2) Adam is upset that Trump's action was limited in scope (only hitting chem weapons and not even disabling the airfield).

The image conveys the headline.

By bulgingbuick on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 7:53am.

Come on now.

Keyboard POG's

By bulgingbuick on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 7:59am.

arguing military strategy is funny.

So the adults let Francis Buxton shoot off a few bottle rockets.

Bombing an airstrip in hardly the end of the story...

By Dave-from-Boston on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 8:12am.

"Trump, in one feel swoop, probably destroyed their capability to laucnh any more chemical weapon attacks...and if they can still launch them, he has warned them about our response. End of story."

Not convinced that this action mitigated anything…what was the strategic objective or tactical objective for that matter. What we know 24 hours later is that Putin is upping the air defense capabilities of Assad to include adding additional Naval capabilities with their version of cruise missile.

If the objective was to destroy their capability to launch chemical weapons attacks, it seems to me then, the target would have been the chemical manufacturing or storage facilities.

If the objective was to intimidate Assad, the target should have been some of the buildings around his residents (o let him know that we can take him out whenever we want.

If the objective was to stop the innocent slaughter of children etc., it would seem to me we should go after Assad's air force capabilities (in particular those planes that are used to drop barrel bombs - they are killing exponentially more civilians than chemicals).

This feels like a "Wag the Dog" response…the whole situation is a proxy war between the US & its Coalition Forces and Russian and Iran. It is understandable that the US wants to intervene but this $100 million dollar operation has changed nothing. What I really fear is that it the positive reaction to Trump's actions will embolden him to attempt something similar in North Korea…that folks, has WWIII trigger potential.

The best thing we could do, over the long run, is to provide humanitarian assistance (in the form of a robust refugee program, competent diplomatic, and hardline sanctions to those enablers …invoking xenophobic rhetoric about why to ban refugees feeds into the instincts of some but not one of those missiles changed anything.

This action has only hastened the process of yet again putting American troops in yet another middle eastern country. Lebanon, Kuwait, Libya, Afghanistan Irag, Somalia, - now Syria - haven't we learned anything yet?

Small quibble

By Waquiot on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 10:08am.

Neither Libya, Afghanistan, nor Somalia are in the Middle East. Americans need to learn geography.

Also, U.S. troops left Lebanon back when Reagan was President. Americans need to learn history.

MENA

By anon on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 11:53am.

In the general region.

We shouldn't be the world's police, at least not without our wealthy (but militarily weak, minus France, Euro allies), and Asian allies. They're all for 'free' trade and globalization, but don't want to pony up the dough to protect and defend their GLOBAL interests.

Unimaginative & dull

By Dave-from-Boston on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 11:56am.

Pendantic comments are narrow, stodgy, and indicate ostentatiously learned insistence that we follow the rules exactly.

There is a period after the sentence before the lists of countries in that part of the world - it was not intended to characterize them as technically middle eastern countries - but now we know that you are a world expert on history and geography (according to your leading authority...you).

The point I was making (but not exclusively for you) was that we (US) keep getting militarily involved in other countries internal affairs to the detriment of our own well-being. I do not care whether you agree or not agree...if your only take away is that Americans need to learn history and geography based on a casual social media comment from a single poster perhaps it is your shortcoming in the area of cognitive and logic reasoning. For you to draw a global conclusion about people's educational levels based on narrow comment speaks to the point that you are basically stunningly superficial as well as unimaginative, dull and boring.

Fair enough

By Waquiot on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 12:54pm.

I honestly don't know how I feel about the US doing anything in Syria, but I do know this: in 1941 the US went to war against Germany, even though Germany hadn't attacked the US. Was that the right decision? I mean, that's another example of the US sending troops overseas to fight a war that had nothing to do with us (along with the other time we declared war on Germany).

Perhaps it is you that should brush up on your history

By Dave-from-Boston on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 4:56pm.

For you to imply or suggest that the US initiated aggressive military action against Germany in 1941 compounded by the false equivalency that Trump's attack on Syria is the same is intellectually dishonest or simple mental laziness. .

It is a matter of documented history that key events such as the The Destroyers for Bases Agreement, Lend-Lease, the Atlantic Charter, the hand-over of military control of Iceland from the United Kingdom to the United States, the extension of the Pan-American Security Zone, and many other actions steadily pushed the US, still technically a neutral country, towards war with Nazi Germany. Moreover US destroyers escorting American supply vessels bound for the UK (which were constantly being attacked by the Germany navy and by most accounts were already engaged in a de facto war with German U-Boats.

From the late 1930s up until 1941, the course of relations between Germany and the United States had being deteriorating steadily up until Hitler declared war on the United States 4 days after Pearl Harbor. The US did not
pre-emptively attack Germany as you represented but rather Germany entered into a formal state of war with the US. The US countered later in the day (December 11th) with its own declaration.

Perhaps you might be a bit more charitable in your comments and less condescending to others - you are beginning to sound a lot like the Fish.

Jeez, you made my argument better than I did

By Waquiot on Sat, 04/08/2017 - 6:57pm.

Which is that there was no practical reason for the US government to oppose Hitler. That said, it's tough to find people opposed to what the US did in Europe in hindsight.

My personal problem is that while the Baathists invite the comparison to other brutal dictatorships, l'm not sold on things getting better post Assad. Just look to North Africa to see how things could play out.

Re: Dave-from Boston

By O-FISH-L on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 6:24pm.

Perhaps you might be a bit more charitable in your comments and less condescending to others - you are beginning to sound a lot like the Fish.

With flowery but insulting language and a failed attempt at the moral highground, you manage to attack me and others. I had yet to comment on this post but thanks for thinking of me. Priceless.

“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

Obama left Trump at Morton's Fork. If Trump failed to respond to the chemical attacks on children, there would have been protests, especially with the fake Russian collusion meme peddled by the far-left and dutiful media. Now that Trump has ordered a measured response, there are still protests. Anti-Trump protesting is the new yoga.

But here's the thing

By Waquiot on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 7:21pm.

If the Democratic nominee had figured out a way to win Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she may have done the same thing. Afterwards, a lot of those opposing this would have supported it and vice versa. Thankfully, there are political types who transcended partisanship in this case.

Protesting Syrian attack that failed to stop Syrian air force

Comments

Support Universal Hub

In other Downtown news