Trump-Regime´s attack on Syrian airbase was a failure

[danielpalos]

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

To believe this requires a special kind of naive.

The airbase is operational and in service.

Of course it is, the US just went after soft targets to send a message. Airplanes, fuel and radar facilities, etc. tomahawk missiles aren't capable of doing anything to a runway that couldn't be fixed in 24 hours with some dirt, metal plates, and top surfacing.

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

We know there were sixty launches, but only fifty-nine missiles actually launching successfully.

 

[longknife]

You won´t give in. Please take your teeth out of my calf. Only 23 missiles reached their targets, the likely reasons were cited.

Nope, the propaganda you read says only 23 missiles reached their targets.

So you're attempting to construct these ridiculous scenarios of Syrians shooting down cruise missiles to support an incorrect conclusion.

They would also have to know the missiles were coming, which they didn't!

If they did know, why didn't the Syrians move their aircraft away from that base?

Stop asking common sense questions to those who lack it!

 

[danielpalos]

Audit the Terror War instead of the Fed!

 

[Bleipriester]

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

To believe this requires a special kind of naive.

The airbase is operational and in service.

Of course it is, the US just went after soft targets to send a message. Airplanes, fuel and radar facilities, etc. tomahawk missiles aren't capable of doing anything to a runway that couldn't be fixed in 24 hours with some dirt, metal plates, and top surfacing.

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

 

[Never3ndr]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

 

[Bleipriester]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

 

[Never3ndr]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

 

[Bleipriester]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

So if Syria used cw before what is that special about the latest that Trump changed his mind? And why is it ok for Trump and co when the rebels blow up children with a car bomb?

 

[Never3ndr]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

So if Syria used cw before what is that special about the latest that Trump changed his mind? And why is it ok for Trump and co when the rebels blow up children with a car bomb?

Trump didn't change his mind. They used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency...have you just started following happenings in that region or something? This was one of the big things Trump hit Obama for during his campaign, was not following through on his "red line" when Syria used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

The issue is chemical weapons...it isn't simply a Trump issue...it is literally a worldwide issue. Chemical weapons are looked upon as inhumane which is why there are international treaties drawn up against their usage. You seem radically uninformed both about the history of occurrences in that region as well as about military matters in general. Perhaps this is not the correct place for you to be posting.

 

[Bleipriester]

In response to Terrorist Trump´s chemical weapon attack on Syria, Terrorist Trump launched a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. In support of al-Qaeda and ISIS, the terrorist regime fired 59 missiles on the al-Shoairat airbase, from which the Syrian airforce launches its airstrikes against ISIS in the Palmyra region.

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

23 missiles reached the airbase, killing children and soldiers.

Results of the missile strike:

- 9 civilians killed, among them 4 children
- 4 soldiers killed, 2 casualties unconfirmed
- 6 Mig 23 destroyed
- 1 radar destroyed or damaged
- 1 runway damaged

Edit: There is even a source available:
US strikes on Syria: Donald Trump's missile attack 'kills four children' as Russia condemns 'aggression'

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

So if Syria used cw before what is that special about the latest that Trump changed his mind? And why is it ok for Trump and co when the rebels blow up children with a car bomb?

Trump didn't change his mind. They used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency...have you just started following happenings in that region or something? This was one of the big things Trump hit Obama for during his campaign, was not following through on his "red line" when Syria used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

The issue is chemical weapons...it isn't simply a Trump issue...it is literally a worldwide issue. Chemical weapons are looked upon as inhumane which is why there are international treaties drawn up against their usage. You seem radically uninformed both about the history of occurrences in that region as well as about military matters in general. Perhaps this is not the correct place for you to be posting.

 

[Never3ndr]

I'm no fan of Trump, and I think he's (hopefully) the worst President I'll have to live through during my life.

However, Mattis is in charge of the military, and I'm a big supporter of that man (being a Marine vet myself helps). I'm 100% in support of the attack on Syria...effective or not, it did more damage than doing nothing...which was Obama's response to Syrian chemical weapon usage. Even if the attack wasn't as effective as hoped (and I don't care to discuss the details), the action itself spoke volumes. As proof positive, you haven't heard shit about another chemical attack over there have you? Also, as somebody who has been combat deployed let me tell you...half of the crap that happens in war is a shit show anyways. Don't expect "America's might military machine" to operate like some big, perfect destroyer of worlds...its normal people like you and me...with a handful of complete idiots that make up our military...so nothing will ever go perfect...or even according to plan.

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

So if Syria used cw before what is that special about the latest that Trump changed his mind? And why is it ok for Trump and co when the rebels blow up children with a car bomb?

Trump didn't change his mind. They used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency...have you just started following happenings in that region or something? This was one of the big things Trump hit Obama for during his campaign, was not following through on his "red line" when Syria used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

The issue is chemical weapons...it isn't simply a Trump issue...it is literally a worldwide issue. Chemical weapons are looked upon as inhumane which is why there are international treaties drawn up against their usage. You seem radically uninformed both about the history of occurrences in that region as well as about military matters in general. Perhaps this is not the correct place for you to be posting.

Trump has flip-flopped on pretty much every issue. If you actually listened to his talking points during the election, he pretty clearly bashed Obama for not taking action.

 

[Bleipriester]

Why should the US attack Syria, then? When Trump attacked the "rebels" (al-Qaeda), nobody came and jubilated. But it shows that Trump is pretty aware of what kind of "rebels" Syria has. Now, there was a chemical attack and it was Assad?

...do you not follow the news? Where have you been? Assad has used chemical weapons way before Trump came into office. A major reason why the US is over there is to overthrow him...we used the excuse of ISIS to be militarily involved in earnest in the area. The issue is that Russia backs Assad since they have a friendly relationship with him and he allows them free access to a key port. So, we have been in a soft proxy war against Russia through attempting to overthrow Assad all while we are both under the guise of fighting ISIS.

It is a complex situation over there, undoubtedly, but if you are going to speak on the manner, as you have, it would serve you well to come as an informed person rather than seeming to be surprised by common knowledge of military dealings in that area.

So if Syria used cw before what is that special about the latest that Trump changed his mind? And why is it ok for Trump and co when the rebels blow up children with a car bomb?

Trump didn't change his mind. They used chemical weapons during Obama's presidency...have you just started following happenings in that region or something? This was one of the big things Trump hit Obama for during his campaign, was not following through on his "red line" when Syria used chemical weapons on their own citizens.

The issue is chemical weapons...it isn't simply a Trump issue...it is literally a worldwide issue. Chemical weapons are looked upon as inhumane which is why there are international treaties drawn up against their usage. You seem radically uninformed both about the history of occurrences in that region as well as about military matters in general. Perhaps this is not the correct place for you to be posting.

Trump has flip-flopped on pretty much every issue. If you actually listened to his talking points during the election, he pretty clearly bashed Obama for not taking action.

Only in the pretext of America looking weak and pathetic. Attacking Syria was Hillary´s thing. It was something nobody ever expected to happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

To believe this requires a special kind of naive.

The airbase is operational and in service.

Of course it is, the US just went after soft targets to send a message. Airplanes, fuel and radar facilities, etc. tomahawk missiles aren't capable of doing anything to a runway that couldn't be fixed in 24 hours with some dirt, metal plates, and top surfacing.

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

Corrupted information?

You have a pathetic uninformed excuse for everything, don't you?

Why don't you just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off, knowing you have been duped by fake news?

It is really pathetic to watch you try to weasel and squirm your way out with reasons that are simply absurd.

 

[Bleipriester]

36 out of the 59 Tomahawks did not reach their targets but were intercepted by the Syrian military.

To believe this requires a special kind of naive.

The airbase is operational and in service.

Of course it is, the US just went after soft targets to send a message. Airplanes, fuel and radar facilities, etc. tomahawk missiles aren't capable of doing anything to a runway that couldn't be fixed in 24 hours with some dirt, metal plates, and top surfacing.

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

Corrupted information?

You have a pathetic uninformed excuse for everything, don't you?

Why don't you just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off, knowing you have been duped by fake news?

It is really pathetic to watch you try to weasel and squirm your way out with reasons that are simply absurd.

The missiles failed, period. What´s your problem?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

To believe this requires a special kind of naive.

Of course it is, the US just went after soft targets to send a message. Airplanes, fuel and radar facilities, etc. tomahawk missiles aren't capable of doing anything to a runway that couldn't be fixed in 24 hours with some dirt, metal plates, and top surfacing.

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

Corrupted information?

You have a pathetic uninformed excuse for everything, don't you?

Why don't you just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off, knowing you have been duped by fake news?

It is really pathetic to watch you try to weasel and squirm your way out with reasons that are simply absurd.

The missiles failed, period. What´s your problem?

You have yet to provide one iota of proof for that ridiculous assertion! Why are you acting like a total dip shit?

 

[Bleipriester]

1. I do not believe in "invincible US military", missiles can be intercepted.
2. They planned to oust Assad. Only the joint Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah threat prevented more.
3. Trump reacted like someone who just could not wait to strike.
4. Who knows what happens, when al-Qaeda strikes again.

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

Corrupted information?

You have a pathetic uninformed excuse for everything, don't you?

Why don't you just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off, knowing you have been duped by fake news?

It is really pathetic to watch you try to weasel and squirm your way out with reasons that are simply absurd.

The missiles failed, period. What´s your problem?

You have yet to provide one iota of proof for that ridiculous assertion! Why are you acting like a total dip shit?

I do not have to prove anything. You are the one who claims something. You are the one who is up to provide proof. Proof that the missiles accurately missed the airbase so that it was fully operational the other day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

OK. Please explain how they were intercepted.

The missiles probably received corrupted information about the geography and failed.

Corrupted information?

You have a pathetic uninformed excuse for everything, don't you?

Why don't you just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off, knowing you have been duped by fake news?

It is really pathetic to watch you try to weasel and squirm your way out with reasons that are simply absurd.

The missiles failed, period. What´s your problem?

You have yet to provide one iota of proof for that ridiculous assertion! Why are you acting like a total dip shit?

I do not have to prove anything. You are the one who claims something. You are the one who is up to provide proof. Proof that the missiles accurately missed the airbase so that it was fully operational the other day.

The airbase was operational because we allowed it to be operational. Tomahawks are not designed to take out runways that could easily be repaired in a relatively short period. You have seen the photos posted in this thread of the damage. Do you think that was caused by missing?

I served my first tour as an officer in charge of the ship's anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles. I later attended a month-long course qualifying me on employing the Tomahawk cruise missiles. What experience do you have?

 

[Bleipriester]

The airbase was operational because we allowed it to be operational. Tomahawks are not designed to take out runways that could easily be repaired in a relatively short period. You have seen the photos posted in this thread of the damage. Do you think that was caused by missing?

The runways were not even hit except for a single hit, anyway. So what does your argument say? And yes, 23 missiles reached the base. According the Syria´s news agency SANA, two missiles fell into nearby villages, causing civilian casualties. So what in your opinion causes a Tomahawks to fall down? Union strike?

I served my first tour as an officer in charge of the ship's anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles. I later attended a month-long course qualifying me on employing the Tomahawk cruise missiles. What experience do you have?

In fact, it should give you more understanding about the Tomahawks.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The airbase was operational because we allowed it to be operational. Tomahawks are not designed to take out runways that could easily be repaired in a relatively short period. You have seen the photos posted in this thread of the damage. Do you think that was caused by missing?

The runways were not even hit except for a single hit, anyway. So what does your argument say? And yes, 23 missiles reached the base. According the Syria´s news agency SANA, two missiles fell into nearby villages, causing civilian casualties. So what in your opinion causes a Tomahawks to fall down? Union strike?

I served my first tour as an officer in charge of the ship's anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles. I later attended a month-long course qualifying me on employing the Tomahawk cruise missiles. What experience do you have?

In fact, it should give you more understanding about the Tomahawks.

Do you know what the term BDA means? If not, go play in traffic until you can explain how a biased news report from the enemy is more valid than from our own military's reporting?

I know our ship's sytems like the back of my hand. You haven't gotten anything right yet!

 

[Bleipriester]

The airbase was operational because we allowed it to be operational. Tomahawks are not designed to take out runways that could easily be repaired in a relatively short period. You have seen the photos posted in this thread of the damage. Do you think that was caused by missing?

The runways were not even hit except for a single hit, anyway. So what does your argument say? And yes, 23 missiles reached the base. According the Syria´s news agency SANA, two missiles fell into nearby villages, causing civilian casualties. So what in your opinion causes a Tomahawks to fall down? Union strike?

I served my first tour as an officer in charge of the ship's anti-aircraft missiles and anti-ship cruise missiles. I later attended a month-long course qualifying me on employing the Tomahawk cruise missiles. What experience do you have?

In fact, it should give you more understanding about the Tomahawks.

I know them like the back of my hand. You haven't gotten anything right yet!

If you do you know the missiles use radar to scan the surface. This is where electronic warfare can jam the missiles.