The US, Britain and France are attacking Syria. No proof of Assad’s involvement with the chemical weapons attack has been presented thus far (4-14-2018). Germany will not take part in military actions, but Merkel supports the attacks and wants to pursue a common line with the West. Few people in the West even dare to question the (uncorroborated) official story. Why would Assad again draw the NATO war machine against Syria with a nonsensical chemical attack against his own people while he was winning in the region?
Germany had invited up to 1 million young male migrants from Syria in the last 3 years, Franc and Britain hundreds of thousands. One wonders whether some of these migrants will hold any resentment against these European leaders.
Business Standard: Republicans praise Trump for Syria strikes, Democrats wants action against Russia
“The President must come to Congress and secure an Authorisation for Use of Military Force by proposing a comprehensive strategy with clear objectives that keep our military safe and avoid collateral damage to innocent civilians,” she said.
“President Trump must also hold Putin accountable for his enabling of the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people,” Pelosi said.
“We are united in our resolve that Assad’s barbaric use of chemical weapons cannot go unanswered. His regime’s unconscionable brutality against innocent civilians cannot be tolerated,” he said.
(Schuster chief commentator of) Die Welt, the flagship publication of the right-wing Springer publishing house, is demanding the “eradication of the Assad regime with a military engagement” and the deployment of “hundreds of thousands of soldiers” to Syria to “in the worst case scenario, fight Russians and Iranians.”
“The lies and demagogy are breathtaking. Die Welt is justifying a war that would claim the lives of tens of thousands, if not millions, with an alleged gas attack in Syria, which has not been substantiated and bears all the hallmarks of a provocation. The orchestrated Racak massacre was used in a similar way to launch the war in Yugoslavia, and an alleged immanent massacre in Benghazi served to legitimise the destruction of Libya.”
Schuster even manages to attack Trump from the right. He describes the US president “intellectually speaking” as “half-hearted,” and doubts whether he has “the will and ability” to conduct such a war. “The cool sobriety, the geostrategic understanding, the ability to think things through at least halfway to the end—he doesn’t have any of that.” A war can “not begin with such an obviously helpless symbolic strike, which will impress neither the Russians nor Assad. It should also not arise from the need to return to the world stage, as with France, the puffed-up military dwarf.”