Trump launches missiles against Syria; more false flags planned?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 18393
PAGE 8 of 15
Best analysis so far. I thought this part described the Trump pattern very well:
Both Trump and Tillerson are hard-nosed negotiators who know how operate under pressure. Trump, in particular, is a billionnaire largely by the dint of being an obstinate, almost unreasonable negotiator not afraid of brinksmanship. The same can be said of Tillerson’s tenure at Exxon. These two are not in the business of giving “freebies” to the competitors, and any letting down of the guard in Syria and elsewhere would be just that–a freebie. Setting up an unrealistic set of initial demands is part of Trump’s negotiating style, one that we have also seen in his rhetoric aimed at China and in the “bill” for NATO services given to Angela Merkel. Any concession down from “Assad must go” will therefore have to be paid for with Russian and Syrian concessions elsewhere. ...
Quote:
The Shayrat Incident: What is Donald Trump thinking???
By J.Hawk
Given the complexities of both international and domestic US politics, the US cruise missile strike on the Shayrat Airbase in the Homs Province in Syria cannot be subjected to causal reductionism. It is highly unlikely the decision was made on the basis of a single set of considerations. Rather, it was the outcome of several overlapping sets of problems with which the Trump Administration is coping right now. One can clearly argue and disagree over the relative importance of these factors. However, one should not deny all of them are present in the mind of Donald Trump (because yes, he has one) and in the minds of his cabinet and advisers. So, in no particular order:
“Only Nixon could go to China”
That’s because of Nixon’s impeccable McCarthyite credentials which meant that no matter what he did, he would not be treated as an appeaser at home. Even, in effect, giving away all of South Vietnam did not hurt his standing with the conservatives. Trump has no such credentials–he is a “Russian agent”, remember? But now that, in the words of Fareed Zakaria, Trump has become president, that cloud seems to be dissipating. Furthermore, even Nixon felt that before engaging in Vietnam negotiations he needed to escalate the war, which he did with enormous human costs. One of the demands of the US hegemony is the maintenance of the fiction that, no matter what the negotiation is, the US always negotiates from the position of strength. The demonstrated US ability to strike a Syrian military target in spite of Russian objections–though with a warning of several hours which evidently was necessary to avert a Russian retaliation–gives Trump the ability to reclaim that position of strength in the eyes of the US public. This is admittedly a rather optimistic interpretation–we’ll see whether the Trump team uses it in order to actually pursue negotiations in good faith. The calm Russian reaction so far, which after all included non-interference with the US strike, suggests that maybe the Kremlin understands Trump’s predicament.
The reason you don’t generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2017
China is watching
With China’s president being in the US even as the cruise missiles were raining on Syria, one can’t help thinking he was also an intended recipient of this message. Let’s not forget the US is placing ABM systems in South Korea and is threatening unilateral military action against North Korea unless China does something to make North Korea behave in accordance with US preferences.
The Swamp drained Trump
It is also unquestionable that Trump has been very effectively “tamed” by the establishment. Nearly every one of his promises is now highly unlikely to be implemented, be it health care reform, tax reform, immigration reform, boosting manufacturing, the trillion dollar infrastructure program…and the end to the war in Syria combined with reconciliation with Russia. While that does not necessarily mean that neoconservatives, neoliberals, and globalists have entirely taken overNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, I think this is his negotiation with the deep state, much more than with Syria. "I'll do this much" meaning posture against Assad. They'll keep pushing of course.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah Ok, You guys done spinning? May I interrupt? Here is some more reporting on the subject.
Shit, them pesky non-governmentally controlled reporters, huh guys. OK, back to spinning.
Official: Russia knew in advance of Syrian chemical attack
WASHINGTON — The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.
The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/official-russia-knew-in-advance-of
-syrian-chemical-attack/ar-BBzFdx8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=BHEA000
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seems pretty irresponsible for MSN to title an article "Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming" when the official offers no proof of it and hides anonymously. Then the very next paragraph says another (unnamed) official says that no determination about it has been made. lol
The real question is, why would Assad have gassed his citizens? What was there to gain from doing so? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Looks like possibly the MSM/Globalists/Neocon/Neolibs now have control over Trump. He's yours now T. You win!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
The real question is, why would Assad have gassed his citizens? What was there to gain from doing so? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Why? Why not? He's a madman, a bloodthirsty brute who used chemical weapons many times before without any consequences. He figured he has his Russian pals there to protect him, and the gutless all-talk West would never act, so there was nothing to lose. His "gain" was that he could do it, and the joy he gets from seeing dead kids. The fact that Russia, Syria, and Iran are criticizing Trump for responding but staying mum on gassing children tells you just how fucked-up these psychotic gangsters are.
Quote:
Looks like possibly the MSM/Globalists/Neocon/Neolibs now have control over Trump.
Not at all, but of course you know that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:Quote:
Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:
The real question is, why would Assad have gassed his citizens? What was there to gain from doing so? He had nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Why? Why not? He's a madman, a bloodthirsty brute who used chemical weapons many times before without any consequences. He figured he has his Russian pals there to protect him, and the gutless all-talk West would never act, so there was nothing to lose. His "gain" was that he could do it, and the joy he gets from seeing dead kids. The fact that Russia, Syria, and Iran are criticizing Trump for responding but staying mum on gassing children tells you just how fucked-up these psychotic gangsters are.Quote:
Looks like possibly the MSM/Globalists/Neocon/Neolibs now have control over Trump.
Not at all, but of course you know that.
Ah, River has dipped into the toxic koolaid. Assad is not an American, so does not have human characteristics. Instead, he behaves like the subject of a racist cartoon. He cannot have run a successful country for over a decade, while America with all our brilliants plunged into debt with foreign wars because he is funny looking.
Srsly. Assad is a pretyt mind mannered, intelligent guy who has been running around making alliances with the militias we hire to kill him. That's how he won the war. He talked our hitmen into working for him. And against us. And so we had to hire more. And now we're cornered. So, we bomb a hospital and cover up and investigation so that we can blame Syria, pressure Trump into attacking.
River assuming you've been following this discussion, I take it you're backing Hillary Clinton for her use of ISIS against civilians? That's a logic pothole. If you missed something, I'll fill you in.
6ixString is spot on here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
fwiw I agree. False flag attack for sure.
I'm still puzzled in/ disappointed about Trump. Unless he's got some backchannel communication going on, it looks like he's in this for real. Trump knows how to aggressively negotiate which means come on strong and keep them guessing. But I'm not entirely sure he knows how to play either a long game or a long con. (I take that all back if it turns out he didn't become president by a fluke. In which case - he's brilliant.)
Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pardon me for being so off-topic.
Our fleet is now sailing toward North Korea.
Seems like a big deal to me, & perhaps necessary.
Needs its own thread.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
O look! I found a cookie!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G,
Not sure where you're getting the idea. Assad is quite popular at home, and there's no evidence that he's a brutal dictator. I used to use Syria when I was arguing against socialists here saying, why do you defend disasters or try to pretend that Europe is socialist, why not use Syria of an example where it worked? Here, like, for years.
So your logic works if CNN et al is right about Assad, but there's really zero evidence that they are. I think they're just obeying their neocon overlords and pumping out the same propaganda they've been milling since 2000.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What about the simplest explanation? Trump is a standard-issue hawkish, blustering Republican when it comes to war in the Middle East?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
fwiw I agree. False flag attack for sure.
I'm still puzzled in/ disappointed about Trump. Unless he's got some backchannel communication going on, it looks like he's in this for real. Trump knows how to aggressively negotiate which means come on strong and keep them guessing. But I'm not entirely sure he knows how to play either a long game or a long con. (I take that all back if it turns out he didn't become president by a fluke. In which case - he's brilliant.)
There would be absolutely nothing surprising about his cruise missile display against Syria, and nothing to suggest it represents a policy change of any kind. Why do so many people think otherwise?
Maybe because Trump ran as an American Firster, but that was mostly related to trade. When it came to military action, he didn't say much, but when he talked about Iraq and Syria his preferred solution was to "bomb the shit out of ISIS." In a primary debate, he suggested he might send 30,000 ground troops to Iraq. He described himself repeatedly as "the most militaristic person you'll ever meet." He wants to increase the Pentagon's budget by $54 billion, and he recently approved a multibillion arms deal for Bahrain.
Trump's a standard-issue hawkish, blustering Republican when it comes to war in the Middle East.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME