In a statement extremely light on details, Pentagon officials reported that US forces attacked and destroyed short-range rocket launch sites in Syria’s Deir Ezzor Province.
Details of the US strike are not at all clear, as officials would only say that the rocket sites were an “imminent threat” to US forces in nearby Green Village, along the Euphrates River.
The elaboration on that claim is even more vague, as the statement made no specific claim whose launch sites these were, or who had used them in the past. There seemed to be an implied link to Iraqi militias, saying they hadn’t actually determined who was behind recent strikes but was under the working assumption it was ‘Iranian-backed’ militias.
All of this rests on dubious narratives of what the US feels was likely to be the case, and that their own feelings serve as legal pretext for preemptive attacks, themselves to be spun as self-defense.
“Details of the US strike are not at all clear, as officials would only
say that the rocket sites were an “imminent threat” to US forces in
nearby Green Village, along the Euphrates River.”
Why, can anyone explain, are there any US forces in Syria at all???
I suspect your question is rhetorical. Answer: To keep US knee on Syrian people’s necks. They’re keeping Syria from taking back its resources such as food and oil needed for stability and reconstruction. In other words, 100% pure evil, while we pat ourselves on the back for our “humanitarian interventions spreading freedom and democracy all over the world.” This is a paragraph that I found online that shows how American Presidents/war criminals keep war narratives hazy enough for the American people: “Vietnam War
The Vietnam War presents a much less clear cut example than previous military engagements. The fact that Congress never declared official war against North Vietnam makes the conflict
almost quasi-defined, rather than obvious wars of the past. This quasi-defined nature is evidenced in the rhetoric of the Presidents during the period of the conflict. While the addresses delivered during the Vietnam War acknowledge the existence of the conflict, their remarks are more in passing, rather than totally consumed as were previous wartime addresses. Kennedy acknowledges America’s “role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger,” (Kennedy, 1961) as does Nixon in explaining the honor of America’s
“title of peacemaker” (Nixon, 1969). Yet, these Presidents never let the conflict take hold of their address. The war was certainly an issue, but by no means was it the issue.” From: Rhetorical Democracy: An Examination of the Presidential Inaugural Addresses
Senior Capstone Project for Thomas Pagliarini–page 29.
Ah, I see… It would seem to me there could be some dire consequences with this kind of “logic”…
Self-defense my friend. Explaining why you are defending yourselves in a country on the other side of the world which isn’t one iota of a threat to you might be difficult, but since when does that matter? Behave or we’ll make you Pink Mist.
Because we are Israel’s bestest friend.
Once a war criminal, always a war criminal
“There seemed to be an implied link to Iraqi militias, saying they hadn’t actually determined who was behind recent strikes but was under the working assumption it was ‘Iranian-backed’ militias.”_____ They have Not actually determined who was behind the recent strikes, but you reporters can publish for now that it was Iranian-backed militias until further investigation… that would Never happen…!
Go home yanks. You have NO right to be in Syria.
In an act of self-defense, the U.S. bombs Syria, in order to prevent attack on U.S. troops in Syria – The Onion
Pre-emptive self-defense.