Syria

U.S. Launches Missile Strikes on Syrian Airfield

President Trump says attack was to protect 'vital national security interest' of U.S.

|

Syrian gas attack
Edlib/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The United States has launched a strike on the airfield in Syria believed to have been the source of a gas attack earlier in the week that killed innocent civilians. NBC first reported the strike and it has been since confirmed by several media outlets. Here's the NBC report:

The United States launched dozens of cruise missiles Thursday night at a Syrian airfield in response to what it believes was the Syrian government's use of banned chemical weapons blamed for having killed at least 100 people on Tuesday, U.S. military officials told NBC News.

Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired at least 50 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target — Ash Sha'irat in Homs province in western Syria, the officials said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired the banned weapons.

There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site, including the runway, were hit.

Here is a report from NBC about the four options President Donald Trump had been given prior to the strike.

Trump is supposed to be making a public statement soon. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: A statement from Trump getting passed along to the media:

UPDATE II: Sen. Rand Paul is not happy that the president didn't seek authorization from Congress:

UPDATE III: Rep. Thomas Massie reminds everybody that once upon a time Trump knew how this was supposed to work:

UPDATE IV: Here's the audio of Trump's statement:

UPDATE V: CNN is reporting that the U.S. military warned the Russian military in advance of the strike in the event that they had personnel at the airfield.

Advertisement

NEXT: Texas Contemplates Rewriting Psychologist Licensing Law to Get Around Court Declaring Previous One Unconstitutional

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Justin Raimondo, howbow dah?

    1. Walter Block, howbow dah?

      1. Cash me outside, Mises Institute. How bah duh?

  2. Hey guys, remember when there were all these fucking idiots telling us how Trump was the peace candidate? Where are they now?

    1. He could still be the most peaceable candidate.

    2. The CIA won their war against Trump. I expect 4-8 years of continuous war like we had under Obama.

      They ran the same fucking play that they tried under Obama: red line + chemical weapons = ERMAHGERD WE MUST ACT NOW!

      1. But Trump was dissing Obama about the red line. You can’t dis and then not act yourself.

      2. Just shut the fuck up. There is no “they”. Trump did this.

        1. Trump’s reaching out to the left with a humanitarian airstrike.

          If I wanted this shit I would’ve voted for GayJay.

          1. Yeah, but then you’d get cruise missiles at Christian bakers

          2. Anyone with half a brain predicted this. You were blinded by orange crush.

            1. Predicted an airstrike on a Syrian government airbase?

              1. Missile strike but non-ballistic missiles are essentially un-manned aircraft.

      3. Pretty much this. We are being played. Chemical weapons were used specifically to generate a US response. If they had used barrel bombs those people would be just as dead, but nobody in DC would bat an eye.

        Exactly what Putin/Assad hope to accomplish by drawing us in I’m not sure on, but I do not doubt the method or timing.

      4. The CIA orchestrated the chemical weapon attacks? Seems pretty far fetched. It plays much better for Trump based on all past rhetoric that the CIA or Rebels were responsible so he could say he was right all along about his “buddy” Putin rather than be the CIAs dupe and need to completely reinvent his foreign policy overnight. I think the unfortunate truth is Assad or his government forces committed these acts–probably testing Trump and now they need to figure out how to replace about 20 attack jets that are burning down on some shithole airfield in Syria. Hopefully everyone learned their lesson and that’s the end of 100 million dollar cruise missle strikes and keeps that shitbird Assad and his russian minders a bit more cautious about gassing people.

    3. Obama drew a line and had no balls. Boo!
      Trump has balls and a dick and there’s no problem down there, believe him, believe him.

  3. Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired at least 50 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target

    50 seems a bit overkill…

    1. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site were hit, including the runway and gas fuel pumps.

      Hey, it’s not like people were targeted.

    2. The target was an airbase.

      1. Staffed entirely by Decepticons.

      2. Staffed entirely by Decepticons.

    3. If Rand wouldn’t have voted for Sessions, it would have been 100!

  4. A billionaire unilaterally ordering missile strikes from his mansion? Ummm…#MAGA?

    1. I’m sure his oriental guests were quite entertained

  5. You kill 100 of your own people we’ll kill 10,000 NEVER ENDING WAR

    1. Because 50 cruise missiles aimed at an airbase is going to kill 10,000.

  6. Trump should be impeached for not getting congressional authorization.

    1. Just for some cruise missiles? It’s only a small kinetic military action.

    2. Did you ask that when Obama attacked Libya without Congressional approval?

      Fuck off.

      They’re both wrong.

  7. I don’t remember Gerald Ford well , but basically every other President in my lifetime has launched minor military actions (like this) without Congressional approval.

    Carter had that failed Iran rescue. Reagan had a pretty wide range of places, including actually invading Grenada. Clinton launched missiles and military strikes everywhere. I think GWB is actually the only president to get authorization for military force, at least in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Obama I think was the only one to actually help overthrow a major country like Libya without any thing (in addition to his various missile strikes and dronings).

    1. True. But, that still doesn’t excuse it

    2. It goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and the First Barbary War, actually.

      The Constitution doesn’t say a thing about whether the prez can order military action without Congressional approval. That’s noninterventionist libertarians projecting their wishes onto the document. All it says is that Congress has the power to declare war — doesn’t define what constitutes war. Blame it on the founders for being vague.

      1. This is nonsense. The separation of powers in the Constitution is quite clear and simple – and the explanation from James Madison is just as clear – The separation of the power of declaring war, from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived, to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

        What is lacking is not language but will. Congress has no will to do its mandated job and hasn’t for going on 70 years now so thus it doesn’t matter one whit what the language is. And since we keep reelecting and reelecting them, that blame is mainly ours.

        1. the explanation from James Madison is just as clear

          If they wanted to restrain the president from military actions without congressional approval they should have put it in the Constitution. It would not have been hard. “Declare war” is not that much shorter than “authorize military action”.

          The states didn’t ratify Madison’s personal writings or the Federalist papers, so they have zero legal status, and I really don’t care what they say for these purposes.

          As I stated above, Thomas Jefferson was already initiating military action without congressional approval barely a decade after the Constitution was ratified. So it’s hardly a modern innovation.

          1. When the constitution was written declaring war didn’t mean some symbolic official formality it encompassed starting wars through military action. There was no need to explicitly state that because it was understood. As I said below your reference to Jefferson is incorrect.

            1. When the constitution was written declaring war didn’t mean some symbolic official formality it encompassed starting wars through military action.

              Oh, here we go with the historical linguistic experts telling us how basic words in 1787 meant the opposite of what they do now…

              I’ve been down this road before with the commerce clause, with the historical linguistic experts swearing up and down that “regulate” meant nothing other than “prevent tariffs” in 1787. (Which makes the use of that word in the 2nd amendment 2 years later all the more puzzling) The libertarian penchant for changing the meanings of words to suit your argument nearly rivals the left’s.

              1. It’s not exactly hard to figure this one out when multiple key founders are on record noting that the power to start wars and approve offensive operations was in the hands of congress. And that the ability of the executive in Britain and other European monarchies to start wars unilaterally was criticized by then and contrasted with the new system. Why the hell would they give congress a symbolic power like that? Bombings missile strikes and invasions are essentially declarations of war even if those specific words aren’t said. It’s nonsense to think they gave the president carte Blanche control to start conflicts as long as he doesn’t call them wars.

                And i noticed you didn’t admit to being wrong about Jefferson.

      2. You’re correct – that Congress is the only body vested with the power to declare war is not the same thing as requiring that there be a declaration of war before the United States engages in a military action. It might be a bad idea (policy-wise) to launch a military attack without consulting Congress or getting their support but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

      3. This is wrong. Jefferson got congressional authorization for the Barbary war though it wasn’t officially a declaration. He explicitly stated at one point that he couldn’t go beyond defensive measures without the approval of congress.

        1. It was my understanding the President always went to Congress before acting.

          If anything, out of respect if the language is vague as I’ve read above.

      4. Here is what Lincoln thought about it…before he was President at least.

        Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose ? and you allow him to make war at pleasure. The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons.? Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved so to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing the oppression upon us.

  8. Bill Clinton was a fan of cruise missiles. Maybe it will work out.
    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf#page=12

  9. This war is a bridge to a war with Iran.

  10. Gotta attack Israel’s enemies. No need to be concerned with America’s interests.

    1. Try harder. If that was the point, then attacking a nation involved in a civil war is a poor choice.

      1. Israel has hated Syria, like, forever. They’ve wanted Assad gone since he took power.

  11. I would be ok with this if Trump was paying for these Tomahawks with his own God damn money. But we are paying to blow up Toyota trucks and vintage Soviet aircraft in a shitty country.

  12. Neocons already calling for an expansion of war against Syria. Great.

    1. John McCain suggests boots on the ground.

      1. There are already boots on the ground in Syria. The USMC.

        1. And quite a few army special operations units plus god knows how many CIA assets.

    2. Not just neocons. The liberals on my facebook wall were exploding with bloodlust until Trump actually ordered an attack.

  13. This is what deserves a full day of pants shitting. Cheetos Mussolini has plunged us into another another middle eastern quagmire

  14. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKity FUCK.

    attack was to protect ‘vital national security interest’ of U.S.

    [citation needed]

  15. Not that it really matters when it comes to taking sides with a frigstick fighting poopstains, but are Trump’s people that sure it wasn’t ISIS that gassed people, in hopes their enemy would be blamed?

    Last I heard, it seemed very unlikely the nerve gas came from Syrian govt forces. What changed? Or is this Trump trying to appease his critics?

    1. McMaster, Mattis, and Tillerson are with him, and I would hope that if they were not sure the Syrian government did the gassing, they would take part in the attack.

      1. So the Syrian government gassed a bunch of women and kids not allied with ISIS and not a threat militarily, in order to do what, exactly? Get cruise missiles launched at their airbase?

        I guess they thought it was kinda unfair that ISIS doesn’t have any kind of airforce, so they hatched a scheme to get theirs taken out to level the playing field.

        1. You’re countering my speculation with your speculation? Would you like to have a guess off? I would hope – mind you, an optimistic hope – that those men would not have given Trump the go-ahead to order the attack if they weren’t sure the Syrian government did the gassing.

          1. “You’re countering my speculation …”

            It’s not just your speculation. You may not be aware of it but you’re parroting CNN right down the line. If that doesn’t put a damper on your hopes, then I just don’t know.

          2. There seems to be a lot of agreement on this being Assads call, all the top chumps, Dems, GOPers, Trump, Intel community–not exactly a crowd given to agreeing with each other. Pretty much the only disagreement is coming from the Russians who are playing their usual role with aplumb!

            “No no no comrade Assads forces were actually bombing a known rebel held chemical weapons dump”…fucking classic.

        2. Seems more likely that Russia encourage Syria to “cross that red line” in order to stir the pot with Trump. Kinda interesting how it directly coincided with Xi’s visit to the US.

    2. The Syrian civil war is not “Assad vs ISIS”. There are numerous factions all over the place which change sides fairly frequently. Syrian Kurds, the Syrian Free Army, and whatever A-Q is calling itself these days are all fighting Assad as well.

  16. I’m more worried about whatever comes next.

    1. What come next is that the Syrian government, crappy as it is, will be overthrown, and you’ll have the country ISIS and various warlords, all vying for territory. Just like Libya.

      Trump has the foreign policy skills of Obama, apparently.

      1. There is no way Russia stands idly by while Assad is overthrown.

        The only way that scenario takes place is if WW3 happens in between.

    2. I’m not getting too worked up over some tomahawks at an airport – that seems like a regular occurrence from our commanders in chief – but I would definitely like some idea of what the bigger idea is here. Of course the usual suspects are gonna call for boots on the ground an invasion, but is that what Trump’s more knowledgeable advisers are planning, too? Or just a short-term effort to look tough and save face?

      1. That’s being far too reasonable. Now what excuse do you have for cleaning your pants?

  17. This must’ve been the work of the Deep State. Trump’s non-interventionsim is his most consistent position, behind marijuana decriminalization. I have been assured of this.

    1. Whatever helps you look in the mirror, go for it.

  18. A Tomahawk missile costs something like $1.4 million. 50 of them is a cool $70 million fireworks. Methinks the Navy should have made a video of the hits for the viewing enjoyment of the American taxpayers who footed the bill for the show.

  19. This doesn’t fit the narrative of Trump as Russia’s puppet very well.

    1. They were in contact – cahoots! – with the Russians here. I think this means they violated the Logan Act.

    2. UPDATE V: CNN is reporting that the U.S. military warned the Russian military in advance of the strike in the event that they had personnel at the airfield.

      True. We have our puppets in the Middle East, Russia has theirs, and the two of us team up to put on one hell of a Civil War movie.

  20. Did the most recent administration shake-up play a part in the missile attack? Was Bannon the voice of non-interventionist reason, while McMaster or Mattis or whomever wanted to attack Syria, and this time they were the last people to whisper into his surprisingly warm, fickle ear?

  21. This was pretty stupid.

    I mean, look, I have sympathy for the position that some specific serious crimes against humanity — operating death camps, using chemical weapons on cities, maybe a few others — can be serious enough to pierce the Westphalian veil and justify attacking a country over something that happens inside its own borders. Westphalian sovereignty, after all, isn’t some inherent moral right of certain collectives, but a workable rule to avoid universal war.

    But inflicting property damage on an airfield at great expense, and doing so in a non-time-sensitive situation without the authorization of Congress? (It may be illegal to so act even in a situation that’s time-sensitive, but the Constitution isn’t mystically sacred, but another set of workable rules.)

    A correct strike in this case would a) have targeted Syrian command-and-control in an explicit effort to hit the people who ordered the chemical attack (and maybe chemical weapon production facilities), and b) have been authorized by Congress or, maybe, launched based on hot intelligence about the location of those responsible.

    1. A necessary requirement for sovereignty is that you control the territory within your borders — for years now, Assad’s regime has only controlled about half of Syria. He really has lost the privileges of sovereignty.

  22. THAY H8 US FOR HOUR FREEEEDUMZ!

    1. They H8 us because thay anus.

  23. You know which presidential candidate would NOT be bombing Syria tonight?

    1. Jill Stein?

    2. He’d be bombing Malaysia by mistake.

    3. What is Assyria?

      1. Are you Syrious?

    4. Bob Barr

    5. The same one protecting your sacred military pension?

    6. Vermin Supreme?

  24. Good to see the US acting as al quaeda’s air force again. Feels like old times.

  25. Good to see the US acting as al quaeda’s air force again. Feels like old times.

  26. Good to see the US acting as al quaeda’s air force again. Feels like old times.

  27. I can’t see an advantage for Assad to gas people right now, but I can see a huge advantage for his enemies to. Not calling it a false flag, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.

    I see 2 benefits to Trump here:
    1. This is a message to the world “Dont fuck with the Trump.” This puts him in a strong position in dealing with certain countries going forward.
    2. Attempt to boost his approval polls… Americans tend to love kicking ass ala Iron Eagle/Red Dawn

    I see 0 benefit for the US in intervening in Syria. Without someone decent to take over (which there isn’t) there can be no happy ending here.

    1. I’ve read the compound that was hit contained the chemical placed by the anti-Assad rebels. If true, it’s very much in their M-O. Think human shields.

    2. Assad has used chemicals previously…most recently chlorine. It hasnt been disputed much, although who knows with the chaos over there. Sarin, though, requires proper deployment. I dont think a random bomb into a sarin stockpile is going to disperse it well enough to get the nnumber of casualties it did. Cnn was reporting that intelligence had directly tracked the plane involved back to that airbase.

      As to why. There are big advantages for Russia to push the Syrians to do it simply to stir the shit with Trump while Xi is in the US. Either way Trump went, russia wins. If trump didnt respond, he looks very weak to Xi during their meet. If he responds, russia can churn the pot with the pacifists and paint trump as a warmonger.
      Ithink its quite likely syria did use the sarin intentionally atnthe direct behest of russia.

      1. “simply to stir the shit with Trump while Xi is in the US.”

        To what end? Putin had a huge domestic benefit of maintaining the illusion that he somehow got to hand-pick and control the president of the US. Assad gassing people would have no upside to Putin in general and the current outcome is, at best, pissing on Putin’s I haxxored america parade.

        1. “Putin had a huge domestic benefit…”

          That’s a bit of fantasy. No one outside of the loony left in the US thinks Putin “hacked the us election”.

          Putin has a very well documented history of pushing the limits of what he can get away with and then watching the world react. Crimea, Ukraine, Syria, Turkey, etc. Putin made Obama his bitch a half dozen different ways over the last 8 years, because the idiots the administration surrounded themselves with thought “leading from behind” was actually a thing. If Trump did nothing, Putin had another weak horse to play against in the ME. If trump did what he did, Putin can sit back and lecture about the war-mongering US at the UN for the next year.

        2. Mike, great points. I have it straight from a State Dept veteran that Putin’s primary strategy is chaos/destabilization. Putin pushing Assad to gas civilians does accomplish the prospective goal of flinging a turd at Trump’s head to see what he does, leaving him open to criticism however he reacts.

          1. I think you’ll have to explain to me exactly what that accomplishes for Putin – that theory would have far more credence if there was a strategic objective in mind (retaking Krim etc). Gassing people for sake of gassing people is asinine, even by old soviet tactical standards.

            To the other point, whether anyone outside of Bernie bros actually subscribe to the Russia hacked election is besides the point, the mere fact this is being discussed and/or investigated by congress is a huge political asset. Russians certainly eat it up, as demonstrated by his current record approval ratings.

  28. It’s been surreal arguing with some people on Facebook tonight (I guess it always is anymore).

    I expect people to come back at me with the War Powers Resolution, but when you have people arguing that a military attack isn’t a declaration of war, that a president can’t be commander in chief if he’s has to ask permission first, that we would all die if we had to wait on congress, or that other president’s did it so it’s ok….then you really have to ask yourself if we shouldn’t be bombing public schools with a lot of people in them instead of Syria.

    1. people arguing that a military attack isn’t a declaration of war

      Of course it isn’t. Why would it be? I think people are confusing “act of war” with “declaration of war”. Very different things.

    2. arguing with some people on Facebook

      No sympathy.

  29. Look people…. he said the magic words!!

    He said them! “National Security Interests” Those things are important!

    Case closed people. QED. Done and dusted. Mike drop.

  30. Just in time to slip Gorsuch in under the radar, and I mean PERFECTLY timed. Coincidence?

  31. It was for the children.
    http://www.thepolitic.com/arch…..hild-porn/

    1. OT much? If one argues against sex offender registries and laws that violate the 1st Amendment (protects any written, viewed, or spoken about “obscenity”), one needs to be careful in how they are phrased. Plenty of Americans don’t care about having government violate the constitution when it comes to their FEELZ about a topic. Having crimes against hurting children are perfectly constitutional and are the correct method for dealing with people who hurt kids.

  32. Disappointed in this. I still haven’t seen pure proof it was Assad.

    So much for Trump being a puppet of Russia.

    Well, Democrats and lefties should be happy. This is what they wanted: War with Russia. And Putin has reacted claiming it violates international law.

    1. “I still haven’t seen pure proof it was Assad”

      And you never will. At some point you have to trust that the folks in charge aren’t raving idiots, because we’ll never be given the full picture. Folks like to paint Trump as a lunatic, but at the end of the day he placed extremely well respected people in between himself and the war machine. Mattis and McMaster are both highly qualified and learned individuals. It seems a stretch to think they would be taken in by a false flag and it seems a stretch to think Trump would ride roughshod over their recommendations.

      It’s probably exactly what it seems to be. Assad (perhaps pushed by Putin) decided to test the waters yet again and see how much he could get away with with Trump. It’s not like he wasn’t just dumping using chlorine on people last year.

      1. Wow, already with the “TOP MEN” argument, and you aren’t even being sarcastic. What the hell?

        1. Grow up ffs.

          I never said blindly follow them. But they are doing their job and there is no evidence that they are unqualified to do that job.

          1. Seriously, you just told me to grow up using a stupid childish text-speak and then defended your amateur non-nonsensical argument?

            Yes it’s me that needs to grow up.

            1. Ah yes, the pointless complaining of an internet comment idiot, who has nothing to actually say. Good luck with that.

              1. Huh? I criticized the “information” you commented about. How is that someone “who has nothing to actually say?”

                Do you know how many times someone has written something like this “At some point you have to trust that the folks in charge aren’t raving idiots, because we’ll never be given the full picture” over the past, I don’t know, forever?

                It’s a tiresome argument that I never would have imagined finding itself to a comment on Reason. I can’t even argue substantively because the discussion itself is so completely shallow.

      2. I also would like to live in a world where agency issues don’t exist, alas…

    2. I may be off here, but I suspect this one-off telegraphed attack was designed in part to allow Trump the cover he needs to start making deals with Putin similar to what occurred when Turkey attacked that Russian jet. There was some big talk from Putin but eventually that attack brought those two countries closer together. I think that’s what happens here.

    3. Did you see “pure proof” the previous sarin attack was Assad (or someone else)? What kind of proof do you think you’d get, other than what has been filtered through western intelligence agencies?

  33. I’ve never understood why people think that the U.S. president (whoever occupies the office at the given moment) can fix the Middle East. It’s a very bitter centuries-long conflict that is beyond the powers of any one man, however wise. And when have we ever elected wise men to office? If a wise man becomes president it’s purely by accident rather than the “genius” of our electoral process.

    1. A flurry of tomahawks isn’t “fixing the ME”. It’s on par with sending one of the players into the penalty box.

      Unless Trump ramps up the boots that Obama has aready sent into Syria, we’re still net-ahead relative to the last 8 years.

      1. The pants shitting here today will be GLORIOUS. Let’s see if this escalates anywhere.

  34. UPDATE IV:
    Fox & Friends are creaming their jeans.

    1. It was an uncontrollable spooge eruption on Morning Joe too.

  35. Please explain to me what vital national security issue that Syria poses against the US. There are only 2 that I can think of. 1. The Saudi’s might stop funding the campaigns of our congressmen and women. 2.The Saudi’s may get rid of the petrodollar thereby destorying the US dollar. If you really want to bring peace to the world next time send 60 cruise misses to the House of Saud. Or maybe Russia should do it since Saudi Arabia poses a vital national security threat to their country, like starting a war between the US and Russia.

    1. It is vital to the national security interests of the US to not have third rate dictators slinging around nerve gas. The entire world has worked really really hard to keep that genie in the bottle. Let Assad get away with using Sarin, or hell, even the chlorine agents he was dropping out of helicopters last year, and we’ll see it start popping up all over the place.
      If 59 tomahawks help keep it from cropping up again in the near future, that’s a darn cheap investment.

      1. Agreed. You have to be firm with your Mr. Kitty. A few more stiff punches to the nose for some of these shitbirds may prevent some of the prolonged shitty wars we’ve been slogging through since the first Persian gulf war. I’ve never understood this concept of why it’s morally better to start a full scale war vs a good humiliating punitive strike or even better just bumping off the top shitbird (Assad, Hussein, Kim Jong etc etc). Full scale wars should be reserved for aliens invasions or stealing entire countries when you need more space.

  36. Its all a plot for Trump to show he’s not in bed with Russia and he had Russia’s full support otherwise they would have bombed something other than an empty parking lot.

    soon to be the talking points of conspiracy nuts and the left which are also nuts.

    I wish he had just left the whole thing alone, other nations are not our responsibility but we knew he wouldn’t due to his boisterous posturing.

    1. Who bombed an empty parking lot? The BDA for our strike was pretty specific it was 1 of 6 key Syrian airfields. The gas attack was on a hospital (allegedly run by some rebel faction) not an empty parking lot.

      It’s a hell of a theory though…Trump and Putin hand in hand skipping though Syria together, its a nice image.

  37. Our friend’s sister-in-law makes $71 /hr on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay check was $16542 just working on the internet for a few hours.open This Link.. http://www.cash-review.com

  38. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site http://www.cash-review.com

  39. In case someone is interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post, in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in that previous case, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump to conclusions. It’s more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make. I really believe it’s the most through discussion of the allegations against Assad with respect to his alleged use of chemical weapons out there. Please share it if you thought it was interesting.

  40. This is a terrible news, let’s hope it doesn’t escalate. In case someone is interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post, in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in that previous case, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump to conclusions. It’s more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make. I really believe it’s the most through discussion of the allegations against Assad with respect to his alleged use of chemical weapons out there. Please share it if you thought it was interesting.

    1. Sorry for the double post, I made a mistake!

  41. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincere getting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately started earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here.
    _______________ https://www.paybuzz7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.