Friday, April 7, 2017

World Reaction To Last Night's U.S. Missile Attack On Syria

BBC: Syria war: World reaction to US missile attack

World leaders have been responding to US President Donald Trump's overnight missile strikes on a Syrian government air base suspected of launching a chemical attack on a rebel-held town on Tuesday.


President Bashar al-Assad's office has spoken out against the US airstrikes.

"What America did is nothing but foolish and irresponsible behaviour, which only reveals its short-sightedness and political and military blindness to reality," it said.

The Syrian National Coalition - Assad's main opposition - said it wanted to see more air strikes to impair the Assad government's abilities.
"We hope for more strikes... and that these are just the beginning," spokesman Ahmad Ramadan told the AFP news agency.
But the Free Syrian Army told Reuters it feared for acts of "revenge" by Assad, and his allies, against civilians.

Read more ....

More News On World Reaction To Last Night's U.S. Missile Attack On Syria

US strikes on Syria: How the world reacted -- AFP
Allies and adversaries react to U.S. attack in Syria -- CBS/AP
US polarizes world with attack on Syrian regime -- DW
Syria: Donald Trump praised, condemned as world leaders react to missile strike -- ABC News Online
Saudi Arabia, Iran, others react to US strike in Syria -- Al Jazeera
Syria airstrikes: global reaction exposes divisions over civil war -- The Guardian
U.S. strikes on Syria unsettle Europe’s attitudes toward Trump -- Washington Post
Allies praise U.S. strike on Syria as Russia and Iran condemn it - Politico
Congress greets Syria strike with mix of applause and anger -- Washington Post
Syria war: Trump's missile strike attracts US praise - and barbs -- BBC
UK government 'fully supports' US air strike in Syria -- BBC
Downing Street backs US missile strike on Syrian air base as an 'appropriate response to a barbaric attack' - and says May WAS told in advance -- Daily Mail
EU and Nato welcome US strike on Syria -- Financial Times
Syria strike brings rare criticism for Trump from France's Le Pen -- Reuters
Turkey welcomes US Syria strike, urges no-fly zone -- AFP
Turkey's Erdogan says U.S. attack in Syria 'positive' but not enough -- Reuters
Turkey calls for Assad's ouster, says supports U.S. missile strike -- Reuters
Jordan says U.S. strike on Syria was 'necessary response': Petra -- Reuters
China urges all sides to find political settlement to war in Syria -- Reuters
EU says understands U.S. strikes in Syria but political solution key -- Reuters
Merkel: U.S. attack on Syria is understandable given Syrian suffering -- Reuters
Italy says supports U.S. strikes on Syria -- Reuters
Netanyahu leads worldwide praise of Trump's airstrikes on Syria and says he hopes they will be heard from Iran to North Korea -- Daily Mail
Damascus to Blame for US Attack on Syria Air base - NATO's Stoltenberg -- Sputnik
Lebanon's Hezbollah calls U.S. strike on Syria 'idiotic step' -- Reuters
Iran issues threat over US strikes in Syria -- FOX News


Anonymous said...

Something seems fishy about this whole thing...

B.Poster said...


Something does indeed seem fishy. We have an alleged chemical weapons attack on 4/4. On the evening of 4/6 the Us launches an attack. There is no way that this would have allowed enough time to do a proper investigation into what happened, did this attack really happen or was it staged, and assuming it really did happen who was behind it? Such an investigation would have taken time, resources, and certain degree of circumspection. Then IF it is determined that the Syrian government was in fact behind it after the proper investigation we might have been able to enlist the help of nations such as Russia and China to help us deal with this as well as line up any international support we might need.

Assuming a serious effort really was made to ascertain the facts of the situation investigators including the media failed to ask the most basic questions such as who has motive and opportunity, who has the most to gain from such an attack, and who has the most to lose? The side with the most to gain is the "rebels." They gain media support and perhaps even foreign/US support. This would not be the first time the US has allowed itself to be conned into enter fights on behalf of others in their power struggles due to its own stupidity and biases. Since Assad was/is winning and it would take an extraordinary change in the situation on the ground to change that trajectory, his forces have nothing to gain and much to lose by engaging in this action.

As such, the beginning assumption any first year police investigator would work from is either the "rebels" conducted the attack perhaps against other rebels, the rebels conducted the attack in hopes of luring the US or others deeper into their fight, or the whole thing was staged for the same reason. As the medical profession says to roughly paraphrase, "when you see hoof prints, first look for a horse, not for a zebra." In other words begin with the obvious. When the obvious proves not to be the case, then move onto the exotic.

We haven't even had time to conduct a proper investigation let alone exclude the obvious!! either we have lousy analysts or the leadership is up to something no good. Given past US intelligence failures, incompetence is certainly possible.

Add to this the fact that on pretty much every front POTUS is experiencing epic fail. Now this happens!! How convenient?!!? Does he have the power and influence to pull something like this off. As I recall, during the 90s Serbia turned out to be a convenient distraction while team Clinton was going through some rough patches. Now Trump's epic failures may have been moved off of the front page for awhile. Examining all this it does appear that there may indeed be something fishy going on here.

Anonymous said...

Also trump did it for the red line (not just to show he's "strong", but to him more importantly he hates Obama and does everything to make him look bad and weak retrospectively)

You should know. ..I thought you Russians study your enemy lol

B.Poster said...


I'm assuming that was directed to me. I'm not Russian. If you read my posts in their entirety you would know this. Very respectfully please read the posts in their entirety before commenting.

Now, if Mr. Trump did this to make Obama look bad, he and his entire team are mentally insane and should be institutionalized. By taking this action they may have undermined America's position irreparably. There's a whole host of areas where we need are going to need Russian and Chinese cooperation in order to achieve good outcomes for us. Now this will be all but impossible.

Anonymous said...

Bposter you are fooling noone

fazman said...

Please call me comrade lol

fazman said...

Please call me comrade lol

B.Poster said...


If I were trying to fool soneone, I would not encourage them to read my posts in their entirety. If my posts afd read in their entirety, it would be obvious that I'm neither commie nor Russian.


Perhaps you would not find this so amusing if it were Aussies on the chopping blick instead of Americans. Actions have consequences. If Aussies had to bear the consequences of such folky, you probably wouldn't be laughing. War is a very serious matter. To greet it with laughter indicates unseriousness and lack of maturity. Such people should leave such important ddcisions as this to those who are mature and well informed about such matters.

At this time, an assault on Assad = support for ISIS/Al Qaeda and risks hot war with Russia. We need neither of these right now. Senator Rand Paul has an informative essay at Fox News that does a good job explaining the flaws in this operation. I would suggest reading it. You might learn something.

RussInSoCal said...

B Poster, I have to say I disagree with you. My predict is that the trump strike in Syria will have anoveralll calming effect. At least for a short while. Russia has already decided to stand down. Putin would be crazy to involve with US Navy ships in the Med. tillerson is headed to Russia next week. I'm very interested in those talks.

/oh, to be a fly on that particular walll

B.Poster said...


I may well be wrong and you may be right. Actually I hope I am wrong.

Trump supporters seem WAY to giddy about this right now. While I HATE the game analogy when applied to something as serious as war, if we were to use it, this is like the first 30 seconds in an American football game, a play has been run, and it is much to early to assess the outcome of the play let alone how its going to end.

Frankly, I'm not sure Putin is backing down. As I understand it, Russia is sending a battleship to the region. Supposedly it is "routine." If anyone really believes it is "routine" I have ocean front property in AZ to sell them.

It certainly would be interesting to be a fly on that wall.