Syrian Airfield Photos

AS someone who studies war and conflicts I wanted to see the preliminary pics of the result of the latest missile attack on a Syrian airbase.

I enjoy analyzing stuff while most Americans are busy hugging our “smart bombs” as things of beauty…..sorry but….59 missiles and this is the best damage they could do?  I believe someone is blowing smoke.

I found some and wanted to share them with my readers…


26 thoughts on “Syrian Airfield Photos

    1. I saw that report and I also saw one the said only 39 made it to target but no confirmation as of yet…..does that look like much damage to you? chuq

      1. Then we ask…what was the purpose? They just wasted about $1 million each for the missiles…..I guess the M-IC will be jerking off. chuq

    1. LIke I said I am sure that there are better pics but we will not see them for awhile…but these look like cherry bombs were used instead of Tomahawks….have a great day my friend…come back soon….chuq

  1. Yes. 59 cruise missiles at one target seems to be an awfully lot and then reports that Syria was basically using the airfield again just a couple of days after the attack?

  2. Somewhere I remember watching, likely the History Channel, about munitions testing and I recall a number of shots showing some damn missile entering into what looked like a 100 foot square solid reinforced concrete wall like it was butter and exploding when it passed through. Now I am seeing a number of these so-called “hardened hangars” at this Syrian base, which in no way look like 100 foot square concrete cubes, are simply damaged and not destroyed.
    Honestly, when I first heard there were 59 Tomahawks on their way my first thought was, why do they need so many? It’s just a couple runways with some buildings and concrete shelters. But, hey, what do I know.. I’m just an armchair strategist at best. This wasn’t any sort of a strategic strike.. just a political move. Oh well. Sometime you just have to default that someone else knows what they are doing (obviously NOT Trump… but maybe someone in the Pentagon).

  3. AWOL is what I’ve been thinking from the pictures I’ve seen on the news, either that or the 59 was an outright LIE! Maybe we have some, as of last week, unaccounted missiles stashed somewhere. ~~dru~~

      1. I think the answer to all of this can be traced back to Roswell, NM.
        I mean, could Trump be a shape-shifter that didn’t shape or shift properly in the transporter?

  4. My initial thought was that 59 was a strange number. Why not 50? Or better still, 60? The damage looks more like 5 missiles to my untrained eye. After remembering photos from cruise missile strikes on Baghdad, I would go so far as to say that they may not even have been used on this airfield. Surely 59 such missiles would have totally obliterated the place?
    My own guess is that the number stated was so that they could re-order that many again, at an estimated cost of $100 million for the coffers of arms industry. Then again, I’m very cynical.
    Best wishes, Pete.

  5. Strange how that’s the question I was asked by people, whether or not Dump doing the air strikes was a good thing. Great, I’m being asked policy now, and it’s something I don’t know much about. Hell, I’m still trying to sort out all the players of this catastro-phuck and whose side we’re supposedly on. I’ve reserved judgement because with anything related to this administration, the story could change 15 times in three days, so I tend to wait 3 days. I need to go dig up some old bomb footage and see how much damage can be done by those missiles…I love my war documentaries.

    1. One of my posts recently has a list of the major players….these photos do not show the damage 59 missiles would have done….I debate that the number actually used was less or these missile are not as smart as we were lead. chuq

      1. well, you know what they say–computers are only as smart as the people who program them…and if somebody (like Dump) decided to play around in the sandbox because his brain’s so yuge…hmm…

  6. Numbers notwithstanding, I saw NO strikes indicated on ANY of the runways, which, as one raised on military bases, I would think would be the primary targets. Secondary targets would be as many planes as possible, then any fuel/ammo storage areas…. I saw no indications of many planes, or anything much at all like that being hit…

    Not terribly efficient, if only 55-60% of the launched missiles got through, & only 5-10% of those caused any significant damage.. Not very ‘smart’, in any sense; certainly not a mission to be proud of, even for a war monger…

    gigoid, the dubious

    1. I think it was more to change the dialog in the media than to cause damage…get the news talking about anything but Russia and the cronies…..chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.