These politician psychopaths have no respect for human lives whatsoever.They play their political games with people lives just like a kind of favorite sport. Apart from the lost human lives, a single Tomahawk missile costs $1.59 million. 59 Missiles x 1.59= 93.8 m. And Guest what? the USA and Russia are all in it: The Russians were given a warning which they, of course, passed on to the Syrians. The Americans must have assumed that this would happen! Who is the “happiest” player and the most benefited in this atrocity? CUI BONO? The Jews of course.
Exposing InfoWars and Israel
Prof. Tony Hall and I break down the Syria crisis on False Flag Weekly News. Watch it above; click HERE for links to the stories we covered. “An essential source. A master class in geo-politics.” -Robert Hillier
Now that Trump is “standing up to Putin” and leading us into World War III, the lamestream media love him. “Trump has finally grown up and become a real president”: THAT is the MSM message being injected deep into America’s pre-frontal cortex.
But the MSM aren’t the ones who got Trump elected. It was the supposedly alternative media, led by Breitbart and Infowars, that pushed The Don over the top.
The New York Times is now demonizing everyone who’s calling out the “sarin gas attack” false flag. According to the Times, only “right wing extremists” (former Trump supporters) are saying such things.
The Times quotes InfoWhore and genocidal Islamophobe PJ Watson:
Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at the conspiracy theorist site Infowars, said on Twitter that Trump “was just another deep state/neocon puppet.” He added, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.”
But Watson and Jones aren’t loudly and forthrightly calling out the obvious “sarin attack” false flag. They aren’t exposing Trump’s obscene lies.
Watson and his buddy Alex Jones got Trump elected. They jettisoned their former principled 9/11 truth-telling, celebrated Trump’s Muslim-bashing, ignored the fact that the war on Islam is a Zionist fraud, and took piles of money to join the 9/11 perps’ team.
I have been exchanging emails on this with two REAL alternative media giants, Kurt Nimmo and Jack Blood. Both are completely disgusted with InfoWhores (Nimmo’s former employer) and all the other puppets and useful idiots who rode the Trump train this far.
If Trump’s official declaration of war on Syria (and implied declaration of war on Russia and Iran) is a turning point geopolitically, it is also a turning point in the history of alternative media. It is now thunderingly in-your-face obvious who is real alternative media and who isn’t.
The real alternative media has been consistently pro-9/11-truth, anti-Islamophobia (which was the whole point of 9/11) and anti-Trump. Anybody posing as “alternative” who won’t report the truth about 9/11 and its many follow-up false flags – like Amy Goodman, The Nation, Counterpunch, etc. – is phony and on the war party’s payroll one way or another. Likewise, anybody who hides the truth about the Zionist-instigated, 9/11-launched War on Islam, and instead supports the insane Islamophobia and general psychopathy of Donald Trump, is likewise on the bad guys’ payroll.
So who’s the real alternative media? Richie Allen. Kurt Nimmo. Jack Blood. Bonnie Faulkner. Vinnie Eastwood. The Veterans Today crew. And a whole lot of others.
You can hear them on Truth Jihad Radio.
And you can get the full scoop on what’s REALLY going in the world every week on False Flag Weekly News.
SITREP: Important update on the US attack on Syria
I have an important update: based on Russian sources, including video footage and the reports of one Russian journalist on the ground, Evgenii Poddubnyi, it has become clear that the US strike was largely symbolic. Here is the evidence:
- The Russians were given a warning which they, of course, passed on to the Syrians. The Americans must have assumed that this would happen.
- The Syrian airbase was lightly damaged: a few number of aircraft were damaged or destroyed, but many of these were in repairs and could not fly. Fuel storage tanks were destroyed. A number of aircraft bunkers were damage or destroyed. A few barracks were also destroyed.
- There were 6 or 7 casualties, which is very little.
- Crucially, the runways did not suffer.
Now here is the really intriguing thing: it appears that only 23 out of a total of 59 US cruise missiles hit the base. The rest are unaccounted for. This could be due to all sorts of reasons, including Syrian and Russian air defenses or Russian electronic warfare. I tend to believe that the latter is the cause. But then, this begs another question: why did the Russians let 23 of the cruise missiles through? Possibly to appease Trump and not force him to re-strike. Other possibility, to make sure that the political fallout from this stupid and reckless attack still come back to hurt the United States (had they destroyed all the cruise missiles this would not happen).
As for the Russian political reaction, I find it rather flaccid: Russia has condemned the attack and suspended the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.
Meh, I am rather unimpressed.
Here is the full Russian MoFA statement:
The United States conducted strikes against Syrian government troops in the early hours of April 7, using chemical weapons attacks in Idlib Province as a pretext.
The US opted for a show of force, for military action against a country fighting international terrorism without taking the trouble to get the facts straight.
It is not the first time that the US chooses an irresponsible approach that aggravates problems the world is facing, and threatens international security. The very presence of military personnel from the US and other countries in Syria without consent from the Syrian government or a UN Security Council mandate is an egregious and obvious violation of international law that cannot be justified. While previous initiatives of this kind were presented as efforts to combat terrorism, now they are clearly an act of aggression against a sovereign Syria. Actions undertaken by the US today inflict further damage to the Russia-US relations.
Russia has expressed on numerous occasions that it was ready to cooperate on resolving the most urgent issues the world is facing today, and that fighting international terrorism was a top priority. However, we will never agree to unsanctioned action against the legitimate Syrian government that has been waging an uncompromising war on international terrorism for a long time.
Seeking to justify military action Washington has totally distorted what had happened in Idlib. The US could not have failed to grasp the fact that the Syrian government troops did not use chemical weapons there. Damascus simply does not have them, as confirmed a number of times by qualified experts. This was the conclusion reached by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Over the recent years this organisation inspected almost all the facilities linked or possibly linked to Syria’s chemical weapons programme. As for Idlib, the terrorists operating there used to produce toxic land mines intended for use in Syria and Iraq. These manufacturing facilities were put out of operation in a military operation carried out by the Syrian air force.
The US pretends that it does not understand obvious things, turning a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, officially confirmed by Baghdad. The US refuses to believe the evidence provided by certified documents confirming the use of chemical weapons by terrorists in Aleppo. In doing so, the US is abetting international terrorism and making it stronger. New WMD attacks can be expected.
There is no doubt that the military action by the US is an attempt to divert attention from the situation in Mosul, where the campaign carried out among others by US-led coalition has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties and an escalating humanitarian disaster.
It is obvious that the cruise missile attack was prepared in advance. Any expert understands that Washington’s decision on air strikes predates the Idlib events, which simply served as a pretext for a show of force.
Russia suspends the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the course of operations in Syria signed with the US.
We call on the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting to discuss the latest developments.
Again, I am very underwhelmed to put it mildly.
I hope that the outrage inside Russia will force Lavrov to cancel his planned meeting with Tillerson. The usually sleepy Duma seems to be uncharacteristically outraged.
On a personal note, I will be gone all day and most of the week-end I will be attending Church services for the feasts of the Annunciation and the Entry of our Lord into Jerusalem.
You can expect an analysis by Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
PS: needless to say, no chemical weapons or chemical weapon storage facilities were damaged: we know that since NOBODY, including the Russian reporters, were even carrying, nevermind wearing, any gas masks or, even less so, full chemical protection suits. This is hardly surprising since, of course, they never existed in the first place.
PPS: just for the record, this attack was a direct and clear violation of
- US national law (Trump never got Congress to authorize this attack)
- International law (Trump is now a criminal guilty of the crime of ‘aggression’)
- The UN Charter
In other words, Trump is now a war criminal and the USA a rogue state (again).
Here’s how much 59 Tomahawk missiles cost
The Trump government has launched 59 tomahawk missiles on a Syrian military airfield, which represents one of the most direct responses we’ve seen to the Bashar al-Assad regime.
While it is a direct diplomatic move, in military terms it’s a relatively small-scale order to make – but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t insanely expensive.
According to the US Department of Defence’s annual budget, a single Tomahawk missile costs $1.59 million.
Combine that by the 59 missiles the US ordered to be fired off two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, and you’re looking at a bill of around $94 million.
That sounds pretty costly, but in military terms the “Tactical Tomahawk Cruise Missile” is a relatively battle-proven weapon with origins that stretch back to the 1970s.
(A man inspects a Tomahawk missile. Image: Tim Cook / AAP)
Designed to be deployed from the sea – either shot out of the torpedo tubes of submarines or fired from the decks of battleships – the Tomahawk is a long-range weapon that can hit targets without endangering the firer’s life.
Because the Tomahawk is classed as a “cruise missile”, it flies at roughly the same speed all the way until it hits its target – a neck-breaking 890 km/h.
Depending on the type of fuel used in the missile, it has an operating range of up to 2,500 km, which means after firing it would take the Tomahawk just under three hours to reach a target at the end of its range.
One single missile weighs a staggering 1300 kg, is six metres long and usually carries a 450kg warhead designed to deliver precise but devastating damage.
While the Tomahawk isn’t as devastating as some of the missiles carried on-board manned aircraft, it is typically used when Western nations want a long-range weapon that can be fired from safe territory.
The missiles were first deployed in 1991 during the Gulf War, and have been in service – albeit with costly tech upgrades – ever since.
The last time the US used Tomahawks was only in October last year, when the USS Nitze fired five missiles at three targets in Yemen in response to missiles being fired at American targets