CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News

Status
Not open for further replies.
So US troops entered Syria via Jordan a few hours ago with armored vehicles and Air support


not sure if it was to defense against that ISIS car bomb against Refugees in the Jordan border safe zone or if they are amassing for something else

note that US troops are in Northern Syria since Obama's term with multiple Kurdish factions

and have also interacted with Russian troops near Manbij but they haven't had any activity on the Jordan Border for Months
 
TheRealTalker said:
So US troops entered Syria via Jordan a few hours ago with armored vehicles and Air support


not sure if it was to defense against that ISIS car bomb against Refugees in the Jordan border safe zone or if they are amassing for something else

note that US troops are in Northern Syria since Obama's term with multiple Kurdish factions

and have also interacted with Russian troops near Manbij but they haven't had any activity on the Jordan Border for Months
Click to expand...

It seems to still be unconfirmed

http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/9-april-multiple-unconfirmed-reports-are-spreading-that-us

Multiple UNCONFIRMED reports are spreading that US troops are on the Jordanian border alongside Jordanian special forces and some of the troops have crossed the border into Syria some say with around 20 tanks, no reasons have been given.
Click to expand...

fucked up shit keeps happening in Syria too

"U.S-led coalition aircraft struck two locations in northern Syria today, killing at least 21 people, including a woman and her six children who were on a boat fleeing clashes between IS and SDF/YPG fighters, activist groups said."

"Children as young as 4 years old were injured in besieged Fu'ah by rebels who launched missile at residential areas in the town, Idlib Governorate, Syria."

"Three civilians were killed in a Russian airstrike on Darat Izza near Aleppo this morning"
 
AcademicSaucer said:
It seems to still be unconfirmed

http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/9-april-multiple-unconfirmed-reports-are-spreading-that-us



fucked up shit keeps happening in Syria too

"U.S-led coalition aircraft struck two locations in northern Syria today, killing at least 21 people, including a woman and her six children who were on a boat fleeing clashes between IS and SDF/YPG fighters, activist groups said."

"Children as young as 4 years old were injured in besieged Fu'ah by rebels who launched missile at residential areas in the town, Idlib Governorate, Syria."

"Three civilians were killed in a Russian airstrike on Darat Izza near Aleppo this morning"
Click to expand...

Yikes....
 
I could easily see a large number of the Cruise Missiles failing to reach their target. We telegraphed the attack to the one nation who could run effective ECM etc. against the cruise missiles. Whole thing was a joke.

As for the hoax claims regarding the chemical weapons. This is a fantastic article that shows how a single pro-assad site creates a story and then Russian bots and the alt-right spread it to make it seem like it has credibility etc. Then you get former ambassador from the UK using the claims etc.

https://medium.com/dfrlab/how-the-alt-right-brought-syriahoax-to-america-47745118d1c9
 
antonz said:
I could easily see a large number of the Cruise Missiles failing to reach their target. We telegraphed the attack to the one nation who could run effective ECM etc. against the cruise missiles. Whole thing was a joke.
Click to expand...

We literally called up the enemy we were shooting at and told them we'd be shooting at them and a vague idea of the time and location.

That's not quite the same as a basic functionality test for antimissile systems but it's close.

It's amazing they didn't shoot them all down.
 
Arttemis said:
A lot of American media is incredibly critical about military operations. So much so that it's created a wide spread desensitization and apathy of our foreign policy. Iraq as only called a success by Bush and a banner or after the surge, but no one looks at Iraq or Afghanistan and thinks "huge success". Our history of policy is widely criticized.

On the opposite hand, Russia has a history of claiming our actions were massively ineffective. While not impossible, cruise missiles aren't easily jammed or shot down. They have to systems beyond GPS to target then to their designation. Earlier models has 85% success rate of pinpoint accuracy. Any ineffectiveness of this straight-forward strike is undoubtedly a sign of Russian assistance with their technology and advanced warning to clear out.

The strike was never intended to cripple. The possibility that this was all for the appearance to publicly reprimand Syria and ruffle feathers of their Russian ally while largely remaining uninvolved can't be dismissed until we see the whole extent of escalation.
Click to expand...
Yes, so incredibly critical of military operations that the airstrikes Thursday night had the top American newspapers offering no space for dissenting voices. They all ran a bunch of articles endorsing Trump's strikes. If they weren't endorsing Trump they criticized him for not bombing more (take a moment to think how fucked up that is). Tbf WaPo did have one dissenting voice but that was in comparison to eight pro-Trump/pro-war articles. Similarly cable news coverage didn't give any space for dissenting voices hours after the attack and instead filled their time with miliary people or reporters endorsing the actions. Only one gave a platform for two dissenting voices hours later after the strikes....in the midnight slot.

The corporate media excel at following the state when there's bipartisan support for things, like war which US loves more than anything else.
 
Wenger'sBakedBaguettes said:
Yes, so incredibly critical of military operations that the airstrikes Thursday night had the top American newspapers offering no space for dissenting voices. They all ran a bunch of articles endorsing Trump's strikes. If they weren't endorsing Trump they criticized him for not bombing more (take a moment to think how fucked up that is). Tbf WaPo did have one dissenting voice but that was in comparison to eight pro-Trump/pro-war articles. Similarly cable news coverage didn't give any space for dissenting voices hours after the attack and instead filled their time with miliary people or reporters endorsing the actions. Only one gave a platform for two dissenting voices hours later after the strikes....in the midnight slot.

The corporate media excel at following the state when there's bipartisan support for things, like war which US loves more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the opinion of those news organizations was overwhelmingly in favor of the strikes? Just because you disagree with what the media narrative was doesn't mean there is some grand conspiracy of state run propoganda. Let's not act as if organizations like the NYT are fans of the Trump administration. Suddenly because they publish a positive reaction to the strikes they are an arm of US government propoganda?

I don't know why people waste their time complaining about what opinions media organizations express. There are plenty of echo chambers on all sides available if you aren't able to handle opposing viewpoints.
 
C87FD4kXsAYfqNc.jpg
Click to expand...
.
 
pigeon said:
We literally called up the enemy we were shooting at and told them we'd be shooting at them and a vague idea of the time and location.

That's not quite the same as a basic functionality test for antimissile systems but it's close.

It's amazing they didn't shoot them all down.
Click to expand...

I think that is one reason 59 launched. It is assumed in their planning that a certain number won't reach their target for various reasons.

Having said that, I don't think that the Russians have the capability to shoot these missiles out of the sky or to mess with their guidance systems. It was my understanding that tomahawk missiles are programmed to fly close to the ground to avoid radar detection en route. Their guidance systems also include anti jamming technology.
 
shawnbuddy said:
So Trump makes the boom booms and the media loves him now? Disgusting.
Click to expand...
This is the singularly most disturbing thing about this whole ordeal. US media all hated him prior to this and they did a lightening fast 180 degree pivot in a matter hours.
Sijil said:
The airbase as of this morning.

https://twitter.com/NatDefFor/status/850687976267010048
Click to expand...
You'd never know it was targeted by 59 missiles just ~48+ hours ago.
MidgarBlowedUp said:
Made for good tv
Click to expand...
Bryan Williams masturbating on live TV off of footage of Tomahawk cruise missile launches was the most disturbing part of the disturbing media 180 degree pivot.
Tovarisc said:
They put up expensive pony show where everyone gets to look tough for reason or another, while not losing anything of importance.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Satellites watching that place like a hawk; Trumps tweet makes zero sense. Everyone would know that no aircraft were there hours before the strike.
 
rogue74 said:
I think that is one reason 59 launched. It is assumed in their planning that a certain number won't reach their target for various reasons.

Having said that, I don't think that the Russians have the capability to shoot these missiles out of the sky or to mess with their guidance systems. It was my understanding that tomahawk missiles are programmed to fly close to the ground to avoid radar detection en route. Their guidance systems also include anti jamming technology.
Click to expand...

This is a poor assessment, very poor one. More than anyone else Russia has the greatest capability to shoot those missiles down, it is another reason why such a Salvo was sent. The US more than likely anticipated losing Atleast half of the missiles through a combination of failures and shoot downs. Russia says only 23 of 59 made it to the airbase, the US says 58 of 59 made, the truth is somewhere between. I do think that the Russians just let it happened maybe to not demonstrate the capabilities of the s400, besides the strike teaches Assad a lesson which am sure they don't mind. If that Salvo was against its airbase in Syria, all but a few will hit the base.
 
GTP_Daverytimes said:
This is a poor assessment, very poor one. More than anyone else Russia has the greatest capability to shoot those missiles down, it is another reason why such a Salvo was sent. The US more than likely anticipated losing Atleast half of the missiles through a combination of failures and shoot downs. Russia says only 23 of 59 made it to the airbase, the US says 58 of 59 made, the truth is somewhere between. I do think that the Russians just let it happened maybe to not demonstrate the capabilities of the s400, besides the strike teaches Assad a lesson which am sure they don't mind. If that Salvo was against its airbase in Syria, all but a few will hit the base.
Click to expand...

It's money.

Shooting down a single missile with a S-300 or S-400 costs severeal times the amount than shooting a Tomahawk.

We are talking about several hundred millions dollars here... just to shoot down worthless Tomahawks.
 
PdotMichael said:
It's money.

Shooting down a single missile with a S-300 or S-400 costs severeal times the amount than shooting a Tomahawk.

We are talking about several hundred millions dollars here... just to shoot down worthless Tomahawks.
Click to expand...

Give me some receipts on that claim? I would actually like to see operating costs for those AA platforms.
 
pigeon said:
We literally called up the enemy we were shooting at and told them we'd be shooting at them and a vague idea of the time and location.

That's not quite the same as a basic functionality test for antimissile systems but it's close.

It's amazing they didn't shoot them all down.
Click to expand...

After being warned in time to move essential stuff, the easiest thing is to do nothing. Tomahawks can't destroy a runway and with little targets to hit there was only a risk of superficial damage. No sense to try to defend when little is at stake.
 
Tovarisc said:
Give me some receipts on that claim? I would actually like to see operating costs for those AA platforms.
Click to expand...

Depending on the missile they use it could get really expensive, the longer range 40N6 and 48N6E2 cost anywhere from 2-5 million dollars (for each single missile), they ain't cheap. If they wanted to intercept those 59 missiles with those longer range missiles the cost will be in the hundreds of millions, a mixture of both the short range 9M96 or the 9M96E and the longer range missiles will still cost em close to a hundred million dollars, advanced war is expensive.
 
rogue74 said:
I think that is one reason 59 launched. It is assumed in their planning that a certain number won't reach their target for various reasons.

Having said that, I don't think that the Russians have the capability to shoot these missiles out of the sky or to mess with their guidance systems. It was my understanding that tomahawk missiles are programmed to fly close to the ground to avoid radar detection en route. Their guidance systems also include anti jamming technology.
Click to expand...

GTP_Daverytimes said:
Depending on the missile they use it could get really expensive, the longer range 40N6 and 48N6E2 cost anywhere from 2-5 million dollars, they ain't cheap. If they wanted to intercept those 59 missiles with those longer range missiles the cost will be in the hundreds of millions, a mixture of both the short range 9M96 or the 9M96E and the longer range missiles will still cost em close to a hundred million dollars, advanced war is expensive.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't use the s-300/s-400 for this, everything with a radar fire control can engage a tomahawk, even autocannon, they can be targeted in their terminal phase, and are not armored so an automated system can gun them down pretty easily.
Still, we don't know how the base air defence was set-up, so this is all speculation.
 
sofa said:
They wouldn't use the s-300/s-400 for this, everything with a radar fire control can engage a tomahawk, even autocannon, they can be targeted in their terminal phase, and are not armored so an automated system can gun them down pretty easily.
Still, we don't know how the base air defence was set-up, so this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

Yea, using the s300/400 would have been wasteful. I think if they had some pantsirs around the area they would have had great success in shooting many down. Of course the base didn't seem like a priority to the Russians, though I imagine it might be now.
 
Syrian President Assad's allies say U.S. attack crosses 'red lines'

A joint command center made up of the forces of Russian, Iran and allied militia alliance supporting Syrian President Bashar al Assad said the U.S. strike on a Syrian air base crossed "red lines" and it would now respond to any new aggression and increase their level of support to their ally.

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1...=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
Click to expand...
Noteworthy IMO. We'll see if they mean it and what level of response it is, if there is another incident.
 
sofa said:
They wouldn't use the s-300/s-400 for this, everything with a radar fire control can engage a tomahawk, even autocannon, they can be targeted in their terminal phase, and are not armored so an automated system can gun them down pretty easily.
Still, we don't know how the base air defence was set-up, so this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

The low flight altitude and IR signature makes it impossible for most ground based systems to engage Tomahawks. An autocannon wouldn't be very effective in engaging a Tomahawk.

The situation is skewed in favour of the attacker, which can deploy relative simple and cheap missiles, while the defender must use more complex missiles with complex own radar guided systems etc. and often even firing more than just one missile.
 
El_Tiguere said:
We are all being DUPED and are being sold some pretty grotesque propaganda by the West (US, UK, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and crew).:

UN Peace Council Drops The Truth On Syria And Propaganda Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGq6aLTOF_I
Click to expand...

That's the "US Peace Council talking at the United Nations", not the UN, lol. They visited and listened to what Assad's government had to say. It's like relying on what Tulsi Gabbard would say.
 
El_Tiguere said:
We are all being DUPED and are being sold some pretty grotesque propaganda by the West (US, UK, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and crew).:

UN Peace Council Drops The Truth On Syria And Propaganda Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGq6aLTOF_I
Click to expand...
You're being duped. The 'UN Peace Council' doesn't exist. A quick Google shows 'Press briefing sponsored by the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.'
 
Ether_Snake said:
That's the "US Peace Council talking at the United Nations", not the UN, lol. They visited and listened to what Assad's government had to say. It's like relying on what Tulsi Gabbard would say.
Click to expand...

And what people on the ground had to say, versus what the Saudi Arabia/Qatar funded rebels have to say.

Tulsi Gabbard, as usual, is being the voice of reason in the face of blatant neocon propaganda:

Rep. Gabbard on Syria: Evidence, facts matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNKK_91RVU

Perhaps you want to say that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel are supporting the rebels "because of the children".

Americans are being gullible yet again.

Surfinn said:
Yeah I think there's a reason why no one covered it
Click to expand...

It goes against the war plan to topple Assad (planned since before 9/11). Of course they would not cover it.
 
El_Tiguere said:
We are all being DUPED and are being sold some pretty grotesque propaganda by the West (US, UK, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and crew).:

UN Peace Council Drops The Truth On Syria And Propaganda Media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGq6aLTOF_I
Click to expand...

By the way I enjoyed how the woman at the end slipped up and said "the Assad regime" by accident. What about how much the people love Assad and how great of a democracy Syria is?
 
mid83 said:
By the way I enjoyed how the woman at the end slipped up and said "the Assad regime" by accident. What about how much the people love Assad and how great of a democracy Syria is?
Click to expand...

That's for the Syria people to decide, as much as the Saddam Hussein question was up to the Iraqis to decide. What do we gain by being the attack dog in a proxy war about gas pipelines and the spread of Saudi Wahhabism?
 
El_Tiguere said:
And what people on the ground had to say, versus what the Saudi Arabia/Qatar funded rebels have to say.

Tulsi Gabbard, as usual, is being the voice of reason in the face of blatant neocon propaganda:

Rep. Gabbard on Syria: Evidence, facts matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNKK_91RVU

Perhaps you want to say that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel are supporting the rebels "because of the children".

Americans are being gullible yet again.



It goes against the war plan to topple Assad (planned since before 9/11). Of course they would not cover it.
Click to expand...

When you live under an authoritarian government of course you aren't going to speak out against it when asked.
 
El_Tiguere said:
And what people on the ground had to say, versus what the Saudi Arabia/Qatar funded rebels have to say.

Tulsi Gabbard, as usual, is being the voice of reason in the face of blatant neocon propaganda:

Rep. Gabbard on Syria: Evidence, facts matter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNKK_91RVU

Perhaps you want to say that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel are supporting the rebels "because of the children".

Americans are being gullible yet again.



It goes against the war plan to topple Assad (planned since before 9/11). Of course they would not cover it.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
mid83 said:
When you live under an authoritarian government of course you aren't going to speak out against it when asked.
Click to expand...

If the claim is true that the country is fighting a civil war (versus a government fighting the incursion of foreign powers and their proxy funded "rebels" trying to topple it), then we would all be hearing voices of Syrians urging for the revolution.

Assad and his father are murderous dictators like you find a dime a dozen throughout the world, except the US is OK supporting those types when they align with our business interests. The plan to target Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, etc. has been laid out since before 9/11, so now all we are seeing is a marketing push to get us to support their plans. So so many are falling for it.
 
El_Tiguere said:
That's for the Syria people to decide, as much as the Saddam Hussein question was up to the Iraqis to decide. What do we gain by being the attack dog in a proxy war about gas pipelines and the spread of Saudi Wahhabism?
Click to expand...

The Syrians likely don't have much of a choice. In any case, I think I'm capable of understanding that Assad is a murderous piece of human trash without wanting the US heavily involved there. I also won't shed a tear if Assad is taken out.
 
mid83 said:
The Syrians likely don't have much of a choice. In any case, I think I'm capable of understanding that Assad is a murderous piece of human trash without wanting the US heavily involved there. I also won't shed a tear if Assad is taken out.
Click to expand...

Me neither. I will shed a tear when we are engulfed in an existential global conflict of US/Israel/Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Turkey versus Syria/Iran/Russia/China over bullshit business, energy, religious, and territorial interests.
 
PdotMichael said:
The low flight altitude and IR signature makes it impossible for most ground based systems to engage Tomahawks. An autocannon wouldn't be very effective in engaging a Tomahawk.

The situation is skewed in favour of the attacker, which can deploy relative simple and cheap missiles, while the defender must use more complex missiles with complex own radar guided systems etc. and often even firing more than just one missile.
Click to expand...

From what i see the air base is well positioned with a pretty far horizon line of sight, that mean that a slow missile like the tomahawk has to travel a good time in plain sight even with his low flight profile, and IR signature don't mean much against radar fire control system.
 
El_Tiguere said:
If the claim is true that the country is fighting a civil war (versus a government fighting the incursion of foreign powers and their proxy funded "rebels" trying to topple it), then we would all be hearing voices of Syrians urging for the revolution.

Assad and his father are murderous dictators like you find a dime a dozen throughout the world, except the US is OK supporting those types when they align with our business interests. The plan to target Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, etc. has been laid out since before 9/11, so now all we are seeing is a marketing push to get us to support their plans. So so many are falling for it.
Click to expand...
The "claim" that the country is in a civil war? Where have you been for the last 6 years? Yes, there are now many powers involved, but it very much started as and still is a civil war.
 
ClosingADoor said:
The "claim" that the country is in a civil war? Where have you been for the last 6 years? Yes, there are now many powers involved, but it very much started as and still is a civil war.
Click to expand...

The foreign power were quite intentional in funding the rebels from the start. The foreign goals for Syria have been there for a loooong time, regardless of what the Syrian people wanted at the time.
 
El_Tiguere said:
The foreign power were quite intentional in funding the rebels from the start. The foreign goals for Syria have been there for a loooong time, regardless of what the Syrian people wanted at the time.
Click to expand...
After Assad started killing protesters demanding his removal. It's a civil war that got out of control and is now involving different world powers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[AP] India fires missiles at Pakistan
News  2 3 4
159
1K
Gp1 replied
  • Locked
Syria has fallen
2
70
5K
Joramun replied
More hype than you expected.
34
1K
MaestroMike replied
Joe Biden has prostate cancer
News  2
91
583
Chuck Berry replied
Apple is losing more than $1 billion a year on streamer Apple TV+ according to a new report
News  2
71
3K
Yerd replied
Top Bottom