U.S. President Donald Trump announces missile strikes on Syria while delivering a statement in front of portrait of President George Washington at the White House in Washington on Friday. Photo: REUTERS
world

U.S., Britain, France launch strikes against Syria

72 Comments
By Steve Holland and Phil Stewart

U.S., British and French forces pounded Syria with air strikes early on Saturday in response to a poison gas attack that killed dozens of people last week, in the biggest intervention by Western powers against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced the military action from the White House. As he spoke, explosions rocked Damascus.

British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron said their forces had joined in the attack.

With more than 100 missiles fired from ships and manned aircraft, the allies struck three of Syria's main chemical weapons facilities, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford said.

Mattis called the strikes a "one time shot," but Trump raised the prospect of further strikes if Assad's government again uses chemical weapons.

"We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," the U.S. president said in a televised address.

The Syrian conflict pits a complex myriad of parties against each other with Russia and Iran giving Assad military and political help while fractured opposition forces have had varying levels of support at different times from the West, Arab states and Turkey.

The strikes risked raising tension in an already combustible region but appeared designed not to trigger a military response from Russia and Iran.

Nevertheless, Assad's government and Russia both responded angrily.

"Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences," Anatomy Anton, Russia's ambassador to the United States, said on Twitter.

Syrian state media said the attack would fail and called it a "flagrant violation of international law."

It was unclear if the strikes will deter Assad from again using chemical weapons.

They seemed unlikely to have much impact on the balance of power in Syria's seven-year-old civil war, in which Assad's government has steadily gained the upper hand against armed opponents since Russia intervened in 2015.

Trump had tough words for Assad and his suspected role in last week's chemical weapons attack. "These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster," he said.

At least six loud explosions were heard in Damascus and smoke was seen rising over the city, a Reuters witness said. A second witness said the Barzah district of Damascus had been hit in the strikes. Barzah is the location of a major Syrian scientific research center.

A senior official in a regional alliance that backs Damascus told Reuters that said the Syrian government and its allies had"absorbed" the attack, and that targeted sites were evacuated days ago thanks to a warning from Russia.

State-controlled Syrian TV said Syrian air defenses shot down 13 missiles fired in the U.S.-led attack. The Russian defence ministry said none of the rockets launched had entered zones where Russian air defense systems are protecting facilities in Tartus and Hmeimim.

The combined U.S., British and French assault appeared to be more intense than a similar strike Trump ordered almost exactly a year ago against a Syrian air base in retaliation for an earlier chemical weapons attack that Washington attributed to Assad.

The targets included a Syrian center in the greater Damascus area for the research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological weaponry as well as a chemical weapons storage facility near the city of Homs. A third target, also near Homs, contained both a chemical weapons equipment storage facility and a command post.

At a Pentagon briefing, Dunford said the air strikes on Saturday were planned to minimize the risk of casualties among Russia's forces in Syria.

Mattis acknowledged that the United States conducted the air strikes only with conclusive evidence that chlorine gas was used in the April 7 attack in Syria. Evidence that the nerve agent sarin also was used is inconclusive, he said.

Allegations of Assad's chlorine use are frequent in Syria's conflict, raising questions about whether Washington had lowered the threshold for military action in Syria by now deciding to strike after a chlorine gas attack.

Mattis, who U.S. officials said had earlier warned in internal debates that too large an attack would risk confrontation with Russia, described the strikes as a one-off to dissuade Assad from "doing this again."

But a U.S. official familiar with the military planning said there could be more air strikes if the intelligence indicates that Assad has not stopped manufacturing, importing, storing or using chemical weapons, including weaponized chlorine.

The official acknowledged that could require a more sustained U.S. air and naval presence in the region, as well as intensified satellite and other surveillance of Syria.

Trump, however, has been leery of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and is eager to withdraw roughly 2,000 troops who are in Syria as part of the battle against Islamic State militants.

The air strikes, however, risk dragging the United States further into Syria's civil war, particularly if Russia, Iran and Assad opt to retaliate.

"America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria, under no circumstances," Trump said in his eight-minute address.

"The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons," he said.

The U.S. president, who has tried to build good relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, had sharply critical words for Russia and Iran over their support of Assad.

"To Iran and to Russia, I ask, what kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?" Trump said.

May said she had authorized British armed forces "to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability." She described it as a "limited and targeted strike" aimed at minimizing civilian casualties.

Macron said on Saturday the attack would be limited to Syria's chemical weapons facilities.

"We cannot tolerate the recurring use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger for the Syrian people and our collective security," a statement from the Elysee presidential office said.

Last year, the United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the guided missile destroyers USS Porter and the USS Ross that struck the Shayrat air base.

The targets of that strike included Syrian aircraft, aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage facilities, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems and radar. At the time, the Pentagon said that a fifth of Syria’s operational aircraft were either damaged or destroyed.

The U.S.-led attack on Syria will be seen as limited if it is now over and there is no second round of strikes, said a senior official in the regional alliance that has supported President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian war.

"If it is finished, and there is no second round, it will be considered limited," the official told Reuters.

© Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

Strikes by the US, Britain and France have begun. Trump has moved along way from his position with Putin since his campaign until the current lowest state since the Cold War.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

For some reason, the movie "Wag the Dog" just keeps repeating itself in my brain...

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Strikes are over at the moment. Waiting for Russian response in the next 24h.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Over a long enough timeline, either we will hit one of Russia’s or they will hit one of ours.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I hope this was done after carefully weighing the options. Who am I kidding? Trump’s apparently been in a rage all day and he just had to do something to get his manhood back. Plus he gave Putin plenty of warning to move all of his military equipment out of the way.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

BintaroToday 11:20 am JST

Strikes are over at the moment. Waiting for Russian response in the next 24h.

Russia's response will be verbal. They will not take any action because there are 3 countries involved. Meaning they would need to strike 3 countries and trying to contain hostilities would be impossible. If it was the US alone they may have shot down a plane or something similar and small in nature.

The question is will the US and partners keep hitting Asaad or leave it at todays action. The hint is they will continue for now.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Well we knew this was coming. At least Trump isn't acting entirely on his own, suggesting that at least two other national leaders have thought this out calmly and rationally. Especially in weighing the downsides, and the probability of Russian response.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Seriously the use of chemical weapons should be condemned by every nation, (except Russia of course who have quite the history of using radio active and nerve agents on individuals). Do you remember the hostage situation at the opera house the nerve agent used killed most of the hostages. Russion government wouldn't say a word preferred its own citizens die than admit using a nerve agent. Now they back a regime that drops barrel bombs gasses its own civilians. It takes only a few good people to stop evil. And the use of gases, nerve agents certainly falls into the category of evil.

1 ( +11 / -10 )

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

if the chemicals exist, blow them up in civilian areas so Syrians will suffer. Do it illegally against US constitution and the UN. Sounds right...

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

I thought that one of the main points of Trump's campaign was not getting involved in foreign conflicts and withdrawing from the ones that the US was involved in.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

I'm in agreement with former Gen. Colin Powell who said that airstrikes without ground support usually just results in jamming a stick into a hornet's nest.

If the reports that the U.S. is staying clear of Russian target inside of Syria, Assad will quite likely just move his military assets to their bases and continue as before in a fit of anger.

Hopefully not, but it's a possibility.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

More Bolton than Trump. Bolton wants war against Syria/Iran/North Korea. Trump needs to keep his wild dog on a tight leash. Tomahawks with Bolton's name on them.

Putin upset with the Trump personal insults.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Hearts out to all Syrian people caught in this latest nastiness.

The competing empire's .01% are the only ones who might benefit from it. As will, of course, each nation's war industries.

Stop wars for oil and gas!

2 ( +9 / -7 )

It would be nice if the various governments could possibly share some of their intel on the chemical attacks in Syria (and the UK) with the public. I suspect that Russia may be the 'bad guy', but I also have my doubts about the honesty & intentions of western governments including my own. As Oldman said above, it feels like we're the dog that is being wagged.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Before these strikes, Assad/Putin were the leading forces in Syria. After these strikes Assad/Putin will still be the war leaders.

More missiles, more bombs, more destruction, more deaths, more hurt little children.

Putin threatening direct strikes against America/Britain/France.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

full statement by Russia's ambassador to the US, Anataoly Antonov:

The worst apprehensions have come true. Our warnings have been left unheard.

A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences.

All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.

Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible.

The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

In re: the action. It's a measured, one-time blast, to remind Syria not to use chemical weapons, per general Gen. Mattis. The US and the UK and France will do it again if Syria violates the no chem weapons rule again

In re: coordination with the UK and France. Looks like NATO is still a thing. That's good (See below).

In re: the legality and constitutionality: Using chemical weapons opens up a nation to this. Not saying I agree, just saying thems the rules of international law. Constitutionally, some Dems saying the attack exceeds Presidential authority. I dunnow abou that, but it allows Dems wiggle room to support the action but oppose Trumpty Dumpty.

In re: Trumpty: Trump sounded like a zombie when reading the teleprom, er "prepared statement." Which he obviously did not write and likely understood only about half. My read: he did not want to do this. He is being managed the grown-ups, woops, I mean "his generals."

Conclusion. No wag the dog. A just and proper use of American and allied force. BonusL NATO stocks rising and Russia stocks flagging in "Trumps America."

0 ( +7 / -7 )

The invincible Russian air defense system failed against US, UK, and French forces. A global embarrassment for Russia. Anticipate Russian and Iranian retaliation.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

The invincible Russian air defense system failed 

The Russians didn't respond to the attack, Syria only.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Viewing that picture, Trump should try to let his fringe grow out like George Washington. Hopefully he will be enlightened enough to let Syrian women and children come to the US.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Just one question. Which country actually fired the first missile?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Back to negotiations TPP and now attack on Syria?

Maybe Trump meets with Mr. Henry Kissinger?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not a fan of Trump or May but its about time someone took action against that barbarian Assad. The Americans, Brits, French, and Israelis could no longer let the Russian-Iranian-Syrian act get too confident. My only complaint is that this should have been done before the Russians were allowed to fly strikes from the Mediterranean. The one big plus point for Nato is that Israel will never allow that Iranian-Syrian pact to grow too strong.

Putin has nothing to complain about. What is he doing in Syria in the first place. Those attacks against children were carried out under Putin's watch.

Nice to see Australia's Turnbull talking the talk but not walking the walk. Despite the Aussie governments right wing bleating, they don't actually put their military where their mouth is. Not surprising and embarrassing for the Australian electorate.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Putin threatening direct strikes against America/Britain/France.

This will never happen. Putin does not want to get involved in a war with the U.S.

He understands he will lose.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

if the chemicals exist, blow them up in civilian areas so Syrians will suffer. Do it illegally against US constitution and the UN. Sounds right...

You clearly have no idea what the US constitution allows.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

The whole thing makes no sense at all. Assad slaughters his people, and we do nothing. Assad uses chemical weapons to slaughter his people, and Trump thinks this merits firing a few missiles. But Assad does not care about Syrian casualties, so a few missiles will not dissuade him. Plus Trump wants to leave Syria, yet he also wants to control how Assad conducts himself.

This is what happens when you have a commander in chief who cannot think beyond the next five seconds, if that.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Hey Crazy Joe,

Show me 1 shred of evidence there was even a chemical weapons attack AT ALL!!

Why would Assad, who was winning and 90% of the way finished THAT BATTLE, suddenly be like, "Hmmm, great time to used a banned weapon and bring world condemnation and guarantee US involvement."

OF course, soon as Trump brings in Bolton, 1 week later there is a magically chem attack and US military response.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Does seem a bit odd he would chemical weapons when he was winning. A miscalculation? US should've said if you use chemical weapons again you will be personally targeted. That might more of a difference to a dictator.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Well with all the scandals surrounding trumps I am surprised it took this long, but even Stevie wonder could have saw this coming.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Paul Joseph Watson describes the mess in his youtube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-WuPFlMThw&t=2s

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Pointless exercise again, wasting public money simply to bolster support at home, Whilst at the same time edging us closer to an all out confrontation with Russia...

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I guess they had to attack before too many people caught on to the alleged chemical attack being a false flag.

I guess the leaders of US, UK, and France realize that their citizens will continue to believe whatever their fake news tells them.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Wimper of a strike.

All they did was hit a University and they steered clear of anything remotely of military value as there might have been Russians present at those sites.

But this is what the Syrian War has become, Assad wins a battle, the rebels stage a chem attack and then NATO tries to drop the Syrians down a notch to even the score.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

According to some news agencies, about 1/3 of the 110 missiles fired by US, UK, France were intercepted by Russian-made SAM operated by the Syrian.

This means that Sub-sonic missiles like Tomahawk, Storm-shadow and the likes are already obsolete in this present-day warfare.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Cant be so sure if it were staged. A Chemical attack would presumably have made sense to Assad as it would be an effective way of rooting out the last of the die hard rebels holed up under ground. But it's hard to know these days what is truth and what is not, for certain I have little trust in the UK & US Politicians, especially when they talk about WMD and other things.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Show me 1 shred of evidence there was even a chemical weapons attack

I'd like to say the OPWC inspectors have provided that evidence, but it seems their inspection is due to start today. Strange timing.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Strikes by the US, Britain and France have begun. Trump has moved along way from his position with Putin since his campaign until the current lowest state since the Cold War.

Is that a compliment or a put down?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Even though the OPWC has confirmed the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and in the UK, people still refuse to accept they happened. They also think the Moon landings were faked and that the Earth is flat.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Why would Assad, who was winning and 90% of the way finished THAT BATTLE, suddenly be like, "Hmmm, great time to used a banned weapon and bring world condemnation and guarantee US involvement."

A great way to clear out the last, but most resistant forces, many underground, saving money and troops. No reason to think that the West would do anything about it, he is not friends with them and he has Russia's backing. He also has used chemical weapons before and clearly considers them a valid weapon of war.

Also, do not give Assad the clarity of your logic. He does not care about "world condemnation" and there was no "guarantee" of US involvement - the US president has spoken many time that he does not wish to intervene abroad.

You also ask where the evidence for the attack is (ignoring the eye witness accounts and still unverified footage). But are happy to suggest that the lack of this evidence is in someway evidence that it is a total conspiracy by the West to set Assad up for the sole purpose of starting a minor conflict. And this itself is largely based on your tenuous interpretation of what Assad's motives were (or should have been, in your opinion).

Russia says that it has proof that this attack was staged by the British. I look forward to seeing this evidence. If it really was a British conspiracy, it will be the biggest political scandal ever.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Go Trump / Go Pence.

The Democrats are kicking & screaming cause both France & UK are on the same page as Trump.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

They burnt the de-ecelation line and got the areas outside of Russia's responsibility. The latter was brilliant. The former . . .

Sad it even came to this. Innocent people died.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The inspectors were en route to investigate the circumstances of the chemical attack and whether Assad govt forces or the Al Quaida linked opposition were responsible. Why wouldnt the allies give them a day or two to probe the facts before launching the strikes? Something stinks and as always the poor Syrian civilans are the ones suffering the terrible price throughout the whole thing.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Wimper of a strike.

Unless you were in the vicinity of a target. Tomahawks are no joke.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

All this does is guarantee that it will happen again. The terrorists know that whenever they are losing and approachig the end, all they have to do is kill some kids with chemicals and the US will come and save them.

Funny how these chemical attacks never seem to kill any militants!

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

No-one can beat Trump in the stupid, douche-bag depatment. No-one. And, frankly, his bombing decisions are, let us be honest, divorced from reality and, gauging his personality, in contrast to any reasonably sharp military minds. But, there you are. Bill Clinton lobbed bombs at the Taliban and Reagan lobbed bombs at Kadafi's tent. Way late in the game you have Trump doing what he is doing. Trump is another Middle-East sucker... Better to mire a presidency (from his perspective) in oil and god worship than step up to the plate and tell dictatorships like the CCP and Putin their time is done.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The liberal talking points on this are all over the place. Hope someone puts those to together for you in the next 24 hours as to if you wanted this or didn’t want this.

from me I want us out of Syria and I am disappointed Trump allowed this to happen under his name. I think his heart is in the right place but we elected him to get us out of crap like this not do more of it.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

All this Prodding of the Bear would make you think they are trying to provoke a response. A response then would justify the further Prodding i guess and testing of new expensive toys to justify the tax payer dollars spent on them

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Only 3 injuries reported so far, 1/3 of "smart" US missiles intercepted by 1970s era Soviet systems operated by the Syrian Air Defence Force.

Russian systems were not activated since the Russians were informed beforehand by the US of the exact flight paths and targets.

Main damage is to a civilian science center, which happened to house analysis equipment that the OPCW was expected to use in their investigation.

So basically, the biggest victim in this whole strike is the OPCW, as their investigation has just been hampered.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

from me I want us out of Syria and I am disappointed Trump allowed this to happen under his name. I think his heart is in the right place

Agreed 100%.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I have no problem with a targeted use of force against anyone who uses chemical weapons.

I just wonder why we ignored the last 12 times Syria has used chemical weapons this year.

I just wonder how Prezident Bonespurs can justify a strike on a sovereign nation for using WMDs when he himself threatens to use them against North Korea.

I just wonder how Ole' Spanky can accuse Obama of telegraphing our military strategy to an enemy while Trump phones up the close ally of the person he's lobbing missiles at to warn them ahead of time.

...

Basically, I don't exactly object to a just military strike, but I have trouble believing this one is anything but theater meant to distract from Trump's many legal troubles at home.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Using chemical weapons opens up a nation to this. Not saying I agree, just saying thems the rules of international law.

It's certainly a violation of international law to use chemical weapons, but for better or worse the only legal mechanism we have to deal with these violations is the UN Security Council, not vigilantism. Unilateral strikes on another country are equally a violation of international law and the UN Charter.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

How can 100 missiles explode in chemical weapons facilities without the toxic chemicals being released into the air and poisoning people in the surrounding areas?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

How can 100 missiles explode in chemical weapons facilities without the toxic chemicals being released into the air and poisoning people in the surrounding areas?

Good point, but don't worry, no chemical weapons were destroyed. The only thing the US destroyed was the locally supplied scientific equipment that the OPCW was going to use in their investigation.

Now we'll never find out what really happened, but perhaps that's what these strikes were all about.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Burning Bush

Good point, but don't worry, no chemical weapons were destroyed. The only thing the US destroyed was the locally supplied scientific equipment that the OPCW was going to use in their investigation.

Did you go ang look or just repeating what your Russian master told you? You accept that Syria produced a large quantity of chemicals weapons but you believe that Assad has never used them, and in fact we're all handed over to the Russians which guaranteed their destruction. You believe that only the terrorists and rebel groups have used chemical weapons and the previous investigations by the UN were incorrect.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

from me I want us out of Syria and I am disappointed Trump allowed this to happen under his name. I think his heart is in the right place but we elected him to get us out of crap like this not do more of it.

I tend to agree, but Trump had to send a message, to a point he’s pushed by the hawks that want Assad gone and by the libs that demand he do something and then there’s Putin, he can’t sit there and do what Obama. He has to show he’s serious and Syria, Russia or any of our adversaries should remember, the wrong actions can lead to serious consequences and the US won’t put up with it. It’s multifaceted and deeply complexed.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

What a ridiculous waste of time and treasure. A meaningless gesture, designed to do nothing more than keep the pot boiling.

If Assad is really that bad, kill him. Can't be that hard to do. Target his military and command/control structure. What if he finally wins the war- what then? All is forgiven, come home to daddy?

Personally, I don't think Assad was that bad, especially compared to his neighbors. At least he was moderately secular and stable. More than can be said for any of his possible successors...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Putin did a lousy job of protecting his client state. The allied bombers seemed free to bomb were they liked.

Doesn't Russia have, like, around 20 military bases in Syria?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-un-mission-report-confirms-that-opposition-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-against-civilians-and-government-forces/5363139

The rebels had more to gain by launching chemical weapons. Assad's govt had nearly taken over. More likely the rebels did a last ditch effort to save their cause. That being said, Hitlr was stupid enough to invade both east and west, so Assad may have launched, but more likely the rebels, IMHO

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Well, of course the US and co wants to destroy the evidence and scene of crime just in case. I doubt that it makes any difference. The truth never comes to light. But their reaction is solid proof of their role in the chemical attack plot. It says more about them than the people they accused. It's a wonder that people look at this and think their reaction is justified. Reality is stranger than fiction.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Assad dropping chemicals on his own people right now would be like going to your birthday party and shooting yourself in the head. This is where I part with Trump. This was a mistake. A big one.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Another example of the US dominating the world. Even Putin caved in and let the US slap his face. Putin has now put the US under the boot of Washington. Next the US will push spineless Putin out of Crimea. Russia needs a strong leader not a talker.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Should be Putin has put Russia under the boot of Washington.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Chemical weapons have been universally condemned internationally since the end of the First World War. Unless we (that is the world) wants to allow by default that the use of these vile things become a norm we have to start to react to such incidents. This is a first measured step (I agree it should have happened when Obama claimed a red line and then failed to do anything) and puts any nasty little dictator on warning that action can and will be taken against them should they use such weapons.

I also think Assad and his Generals should be charged in the ICC with crimes against humanity.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I meant to add that I am not an Obama hater, some of the things he did I agree with, but internationally and especially in this instance he proved to be a weak and ineffectual President.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The strike, for the moment seems to be over but a large American fleet including the carrier Truman and two subs, are heading to Syria so can we expect to see more once it arrives?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

zichiToday 11:30 pm JST

The strike, for the moment seems to be over but a large American fleet including the carrier Truman and two subs, are heading to Syria so can we expect to see more once it arrives?

It's a "show of force" if Assad stops using chemical weapons, no. If he doesn't then quite possibly yes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

After the rhetoric that took place, I assume that the US, UK, and France are now at war with Russia, and we can expect NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST to begin imminently.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I assume that the US, UK, and France are now at war with Russia, 

Not more than last week. It's hardly a Pearl Harbor. Russia has not been targetted. Russian troups not targetted. Putin is supposed -from his declarations- to work at helping Assad against rebels, so protecting the factory (that officially did not exist) is not his contract. And he has no interest helping Assad using gas. He can still decide Russia is attacked.. but nothing new.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I assume that the US, UK, and France are now at war with Russia, 

They've already been in a state of semi-war, though shrouded largely in secrey. A column of Russian troops advanced on a US and rebel position in Syria a couple of months ago. The US responded by quickly and easily killing hundreds of the Russians, forcing a quick retreat.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-mercenaries-testing-us-lost-300-troops-reports-2018-2

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The U.S. – the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons – has no moral right to blame other countries.

They haven’t been used. Assad’s have.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Andrew Crisp - Paul Joseph Watson describes the mess in his youtube video

Who is this Watson person, and why should anyone other than Mrs. Watson care what he thinks? You should tell us what you think.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites