International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Trump Kills “Beautiful Babies” In Syria Because Killing Children Is “Horrible”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2017/04 ... ling-children-is-horrible.html
Published: Apr 7, 2017
Author: Brandon Turbeville
Post Date: 2017-04-08 12:41:27 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5555
Comments: 26
Only hours after a very questionable chemical weapons incident that may very well have been staged from the word ‘go,’ U.S. President Donald Trump stood before reporters and the nation and channeled his inner Barack Obama, feigning human emotion and sadness at the death of children in Syria. Trump repeated thoroughly discredited claims while attempted to drum up support for military action against the Syrian government by pulling at the heartstrings of the typically hardened American public. “Assad choked out the lives of innocent men, women and children” he said. “It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of god should ever suffer such horror.” But more children of God suffered such horror only hours later when Trump himself ordered a barrage of Tomahawk missiles to strike the al- Sha’aryat airbase near Homs, Syria. While many of the missiles did strike their targets – a tragedy in its own right – others missed, tearing into the al-Sha’aryat countryside, killing approximately nine civilians, four of whom were children. A US missile strike targeting an airbase in central Syria killed nine civilians, including four children, on Friday, state news agency SANA reported. The news agency said five of the civilians, among them three children, were killed in the village of Shayrat just outside the base of the same name. “An American missile also hit the village of Al-Hamrat, which killed four civilians including a child,” it added. “Another seven civilians were wounded when a missile hit homes in Al-Manzul, four kilometres (two and a half miles) away from the Shayrat air base,” it added. Of course, since these children were murdered by America’s missiles, we can only assume they were not “beautiful babies.” In fact, they must not have been children at all since no child of God should ever suffer such horror. They were, as they will be known, collateral damage; just numbers to Americans who have become the most bloodthirsty population on the face of the earth, second only to the population of Israel. Nevertheless, since these children will likely never be acknowledged, the Trump administration and all the blood-drenched warhawks in the American Congress can claim they took a stand for human rights. Business as usual in the U.S. government. Only days after showing signs that the United States was going to back away from the policy of destruction and destabilization of Syria, Trump has become the Baby Killer In Chief, taking over right where his predecessor left off. Indeed, one can only wonder the psychological state of a man who can order missile strikes on an army of valiant soldiers fighting terrorism where he knows that lives will be lost within minutes of his order, but who still goes straight to dinner as the missiles are raining down on his victims. In closing, Trump would do well to pay heed to his own words: Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria, and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types. We ask for god’s wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed. So do we all. But not all of us have blood on our hands. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
I want to see some proof. We should be able to see satellite video of the 59 (or 60) missiles hitting and be able to account for them and whether they hit anything outside the base. The Russians and others like Israel probably have reconnaissance video as well. This should not be mysterious. Some things our governments do know but seem to refuse to share with the public, even though no intel secrets would be compromised. It does seem they are hiding things from us. They think they just need some crappy video of a flag silhouetted against a missile launch and everyone will assume that baby Jesus wanted us to bomb those damned A-rabs. Of course, they are right that the American public is gullible beyond belief. I see today that they added to the rockets-red-glare-and-flag bit by telling us one of the two ships launching missiles was commanded by a Woman. Well, then surely baby Jesus is dancing for joy now since a Woman launched some missiles with a flag waving over a missile launch at night. They certainly seem to be avoiding offering any actual evidence that a sarin gas attack occurred and tying it to Assad's forces.
We should be able to see satellite video of the 59 (or 60) missiles hitting and be able to account for them and whether they hit anything outside the base. The Russians and others like Israel probably have reconnaissance video as well. This is from TASS, so take the claims with a grain of salt. MOSCOW, April 7. /TASS/. Only 23 out of 59 cruise missiles fired from US warships at a Syrian air base hit the target, according to Russia’s data recording equipment, Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said on Friday. "The combat effectiveness of the US massive missile strike on Syria’s airbase was thus very low," the ministry's spokesman stressed. "According to the data recording equipment, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian air base. The place where the other missiles fell remains unknown," the spokesman said.
That's quite a discrepancy. There should be craters that can be counted easily enough. Fly a little drone over the base taking pictures. Then start counting. It shouldn't be hard to hire retired photo-intel analysts to do the counting. They don't really want anyone asking for their evidence or anything that they might be accountable for. Much easier to play a few more rockets-red-glare-and-flag reruns and play more clips of the usual Beltway hacks chanting "Death to Assad", a favorite ditty over the last 4-5 years. It's a standard playbook they're running. And they don't really even pretend to offer any evidence or anything else to which they might be held accountable. Unfortunately, they may be correct that the only people who care about the facts are a very tiny minority in the West. The rest just believe whatever their government says.
As follows from objective monitoring information, out of the 59 missiles launched, only every fourth reached its target. Only 23 to 26 missiles fell in the vicinity of the Shayrat airfield itself. www.fort-russ.com/2017/04...f-59-us-missiles-hit.html
Guardian: 'The dead were wherever you looked': inside Syrian town after gas attack I find a lot of inconsistencies in this supposed first report. And the reporter is no independent source either. Another Sunni, no doubt.
Kareem Shaheen in Khan Sheikhun the reporter is no independent source either. Another Sunni, no doubt. What kind of muzzie is your source? I'm not convinced that Senator McCain didn't do the gas drop, and blame it on Assad.
I can't find any source I trust much. Someone is lying or just making stuff up. We have these conflicting reports. Did one Tomahawk miss or was it a half-dozen or more than a third? No matter what, there have to be craters and remains of 59 or 60 missiles somewhere. Yet we don't see them. And we do have a stake in demonstrating the (supposed) truth of our claims, the reliability of American arms (for deterrence and for arms sales to allies), etc. So why aren't we seeing our own satellite and drone footage just to prove that 59 missiles really did hit that base? After all, these Tomahawks are capable of hovering over target for hours and they carry cameras with satellite uplink. These 59 missiles should have 59 sets of video uploaded to the Pentagon. Yet we haven't seen even one film. Why not? We have the claims that we saw (on radar apparently) the two jets take off from the Syrian airbase and claim that we saw them "drop the bombs". But the Guardian account indicates that there was a single rocket that carried the chemical weapon. And we see no other strikes in the town or area even though there were at least 2 jets on the attack. So Assad flew two jets out and only one of them launched a single rocket according to the Guardian's account (not the same as seeing them "drop bombs"). A rocket fired from a jet would have a hot infrared trail which a gravity bomb would not have. And where are the photos of the other bomb craters in the town from the bombs these jets supposedly dropped (a good question for all parties)? Like I said, what we are lacking is any real solid evidence and what we do have are a lot of conflicting accounts, each of which has some serious factual problems, given what facts we do actually have and the unreliable statements made by all parties.
I've seen those photos and some others like them. I see nothing close to 59 missile craters, holes in the hangar shelter roofs, etc. I don't see why people just take all these claims at face value. We should have satellite and drone recon photos showing destroyed aircraft on the ground as well as the ones that got caught in a hangar or shelter. And we do have detailed photos of the area that show where all the missiles hit. Yet we see none of it. Well, since there's no proof offered for anything, we can always watch that cute rockets-red-glare video that FNC plays 5 times an hour to soothe the masses.
Yogi Berra would probably say, in this case with you … You seem determined to be overly skeptical about the number of hits, TC….any special reason for that? Perhaps the information below will be of help to you in your concern … First, notice the circles are different sizes. Then, don’t just count the number of circles to determine hits, count the number of dots within the circles. Can you see 3 or 4 dots in some of the larger circles? Does that mean there were 3 or 4 targets within that circle? Probably….Yes, one would think. Also, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [as well as other sources] stated that the missile attack damaged over a dozen hangars, a fuel depot and an air defense base. Now, notice closely and you see there are no target circles at the “Air Defense & Control Systems” site marked on the map and also none at the “Fuel Storage” area behind Sheppard Smith. Those unmarked target hits would need be added to the count. [If you compare those areas in the photos Shep posted with those redleghunter posted….it shows those areas with multiple hits in the photos redleghunter posted]. Additional consideration must be given to the fact that some of the most hardened targets were no doubt double targeted....the first strike to loosen it up for the second strike to penetrate more deeply. This was a policy for some targets for the AF when I worked in Combat Ops….and maybe still is now for the Navy. Personally, if the Navy says they had 58 or 59 hits [I forget which]….I have to go with what they say. But then, that’s just me. Because this is a case where the Navy cannot just pull a number out of their ass….far too many authorized people will be reviewing those BDA photos. I hope this information puts your mind more at ease, TC. I’d hate to see you become a Deckard, always getting greatly upset over nothing.
You mean like being lied to repeatedly by the Beltway establishment during the Bush/0bama regimes when they promised us only Good Things could happen as we destabilized Iraq, Egypt, Libya and others during their foul Arab Spring? Yes, I do have reasons. Do you have any reasons (other than being a gullible fool) for trusting the same people who have demonstrably lied to you and misled you as they took actions that caused death and suffering for millions of people and destabilized the Mideast and northern Africa? We have satellites, drones, operatives on the ground with smartphones and our missiles are equipped to shoot hi-def video and upload it in realtime to our satellite network. I want proof. Not talk, not clumsy deflections. If all is as they say, they should have no problem proving it. They have lied to us too often to ask us to trust them again.
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
Sounds good. Ping me when you get anymore confirmation than you have right now. Okay?
You and our adversaries want proof. Proof of how good our imagery capabilities are. You won't get it. I hope you don't. Frankly the Russian reaction is proof enough. They don't know what to expect from Trump now and probably wish Hitlery won.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)
I want to see some proof.
#4. To: Deckard (#3)
Russian military brass says only 40% of US missiles hit targeted Syrian base
#5. To: Tooconservative, Deckard (#4)
There should be craters that can be counted easily enough.
They say that the ones hitting the airfield, struck the Syrian Army's junk yard.
#7. To: hondo68 (#5)
#8. To: Tooconservative, Senator Gasious McCain, *Arab Spring Jihad* (#7)
Kareem Shaheen for the Guardian
#9. To: hondo68 (#8)
What kind of muzzie is your source?
#11. To: Tooconservative (#9)
#12. To: All (#11)
#13. To: redleghunter (#12)
#15. To: Tooconservative, redleghunter, All (#13)
(Edited)
I see nothing close to 59 missile craters, holes in the hangar shelter roofs, etc.
You cannot see what you cannot see, when you have not been shown what to see.
The last report I read, stated the Navy is still assessing the damage. This is something I know from long ago past experience….it takes more time than just a couple days when doing Bomb Damage Assessment [BDA] analysis on a multi-targeted location. 
#19. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#15)
You seem determined to be overly skeptical about the number of hits, TC….any special reason for that?
First, notice the circles are different sizes. Then, don’t just count the number of circles to determine hits, count the number of dots within the circles. Can you see 3 or 4 dots in some of the larger circles? Does that mean there were 3 or 4 targets within that circle? Probably….Yes, one would think.
Replies to Comment # 19. I want proof.
#23. To: Tooconservative (#19)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]