Mattis Press Conference 4-11-17

Something James Mattis said today at the press conference is bugging me.


First, a short timeline---
April 4-- Chemical Weapons used in Syria
April 7-- USA bombs Syrian Air Base
April 11-- Mattis Press Conference

Between the time of the chemical weapons attack, and the USA strike, USA was planning on what to do, seems April 6, about 2 days later.
Pentagon Drawing up Options for Military response to Syria chemical Attack
Trump to be briefed on full range of military options in Syria

I can't find a transcript so ill type out what Im referring to. Specifically, about 00:25 in, and 23:00 in. Here's the video--



At 00:25 in, Mattis says "Last Tuesday, on the 4th of April the Syrian Regime attacked its own people using chemical weapons. I have personally viewed the intelligence and there is no doubt the Syrian Regime is responsible for the decision to attack and for the attack itself"

Now, 23:00 in, this question is asked-- "I was hoping you could clarify something. In your statement yesterday you said the cruise missile strikes took out 20% of Syria's operational aircraft. There was some confusion over that statement. Could you clarify and explain how much of a blow it was to Syria's overall capability" There's a second part to the question for General Votel which ill leave out.

Mattis' response-- "Yes, the Syrian air force is not in good shape. Its been worn down by years of combat plus significant maintenance problems. We thought it was... I thought it was about 20%. I think its around 20 aircraft were taken out which probably equates to about that although I probably shouldn't use the 20%...uhh...we're trying to provide information as it comes in and this is one of the challenges of trying to get it accurate...to get it out as quickly as we can accurately give you some fidelity...but its around 20 aircraft and that damage to the Syrian air force is pretty severe as you can tell."

How can he know, without any doubt, with NO investigation, that this was the Syrian government? If they were drawing up plans on how to respond, 2 days after the chemical attack, they must have had no doubt it was the Syrian Government then, and all information was 100% accurate. However 4 days after the USA bombing, he is trying to get information out as it comes in, and it's challenging to try to get that information accurate---

"we're trying to provide information as it comes in and this is one of the challenges of trying to get it accurate...to get it out as quickly as we can accurately give you some fidelity"

So for Syrian Government, they know almost immediately, with no investigation, but for USA bombing, its hard to get information accurate, and its challenging. I'd think that they would both take time for information to come in, not just one side.

Why wasn't there an investigation as to how the chemical attack happened/who did it, etc.

a reply to: C84K2

Pretty perceptive. Nice thread

a reply to: C84K2

Don't you get the feeling that the MSM's take on Syria and the use of chemical weapons is about as logical and coherent as team-Hillary explaining why a B-grade movie was to blame for Ambassador Stevens murder?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yup, and I really don't understand it.

I'm a Finn. I know when something is fishy.

a reply to: C84K2


It still leaves me vacant to a point of disbelief, that if they knew the airbase was a stash of chemical weapons, and they were going to bomb them with a village 300 yards away , Then they would have killed more people than the alleged strike by the Syrian air force. Mattis should have written the report himself, to many holes.

a reply to: anonentity

The official stories the goobermint tells are allllllways so stupid. Always.

They report to us like we are kindergardeners, not realizing that we can actually hear and see the lies they spew.

They dont think we can add two and two together.

They even make their lies sloppy and unbelievable.

2+2=5

anonentity and idreamofme, I agree, they must think were complete airheads and cant help ourselves but to nod our heads and agree with msm and all the crap they spew out at us.

Because they watched them do it from satellite, which leaves nothing to investigate.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Because they watched them do it from satellite, which leaves nothing to investigate.

How do you figure that's evidence the Syrian Government did it as opposed to the chemicals being on the ground and they were dispersed when the compound was bombed, or something else?

a reply to: C84K2

Very interesting. Mattis seems a little disjointed in his respoonse.

S&G OP

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: C84K2

Don't you get the feeling that the MSM's take on Syria and the use of chemical weapons is about as logical and coherent as team-Hillary explaining why a B-grade movie was to blame for Ambassador Stevens murder?

somehow the deflection is Hillary and MSM for this admin's posthaste actions...

right.
what about this admin's take on the chem weapons...

a reply to: C84K2

originally posted by: C84K2

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Because they watched them do it from satellite, which leaves nothing to investigate.

How do you figure that's evidence the Syrian Government did it as opposed to the chemicals being on the ground and they were dispersed when the compound was bombed, or something else?

Excuse me for jumping in, I'd just like to say...

Because the Syrian government hasn't provided evidence to prove otherwise nor the Russians, the US on the other hand has claimed they have sufficient evidence it was the Syrian Government, so until either the Syrian Gov/Russians provide evidence to claim their innocence or it is found after investigation US evidence is not credible etc, then the US is currently right in what they did.

Now I'm not saying the US isn't lying but
1.They don't have to provide any evidence to the general public what so ever, so why people ask for it i do not know, they're going to give you jack squat at least until an investigation has happened and
2.Why people are not putting their own country first is beyond me, would you back an enemy if they claimed your family or friends did something seriously wrong? No you wouldn't, you would fully back your own until they were proven guilty of doing something wrong, even then it would be hard to let it go, yet many people all over America are quick to abandon their own country in favour of their enemy whether they like the leader or not, loyalty goes beyond who's in charge.

So until a full investigation has happened the ball is in the Syrian Gov and Russians court, everyone should be supporting the US up until those points(unless you're Russian etc), only then will we know who is telling porkies.

- Carl

originally posted by: CarbonCarl
a reply to: C84K2

originally posted by: C84K2

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Because they watched them do it from satellite, which leaves nothing to investigate.

How do you figure that's evidence the Syrian Government did it as opposed to the chemicals being on the ground and they were dispersed when the compound was bombed, or something else?

So until a full investigation has happened the ball is in the Syrian Gov and Russians court, everyone should be supporting the US up until those points(unless you're Russian etc), only then will we know who is telling porkies.

- Carl

We'll only know who's telling porkies (lying?? or what do you mean by porkies?)--until a full investigation has happened?
There hasn't been a full investigation. Seems people these days want things done in real life in the same amount of time it takes their 1 hour murder mystery on TV to be solved. There wasn't time to fully investigate, so if the ball was in the Russians/Syrians hand, they weren't given time before USA jumped to conclusions and bombed without a full investigation.

These things take time.

a reply to: CarbonCarl


If your government no longer represents the people, but represents themselves. It starts to throw up some deep soul searching philosophical questions. Betrayal just being one of them. This is serious #, which involves life and death and the future of freedom.

Listen carefully did he really say that they got their intel from credible 'open source reporting'....Jesus were starting WW3 based on facebook and twitter posts.

a reply to: CarbonCarl

Because the Syrian government hasn't provided evidence to prove otherwise nor the Russians, the US on the other hand has claimed they have sufficient evidence it was the Syrian Government, so until either the Syrian Gov/Russians provide evidence to claim their innocence or it is found after investigation US evidence is not credible etc...

No. Just NO!!! The burden of proof is on the accuser -- in this case the USA -- NOT on the accused.

...then the US is currently right in what they did.

Again... No. Just NO!!! The USA committed an act of war against a sovereign nation based on circumstantial evidence at best, with much room for reasonable doubt. There is nothing "right" about that -- currently, in the past or in the future. Nothing!

Furthermore, there is nothing "right" about killing more "beautiful babies" in retaliation for killing "beautiful babies." We just lowered ourselves to that same level. While this might be very satisfying for your blood lust, I have no desire to be the biggest bully on the block. I demand better and higher standards.

Now I'm not saying the US isn't lying...

That's good at least... since you have no way of knowing whether they're lying or not.

...but
1.They don't have to provide any evidence to the general public what so ever...

Exactly the problem. They haven't provided any evidence to we the people and yet they presumed to kill in our names.

...so why people ask for it i do not know...

Of course you know. And we have every freaking right to demand evidence for their claims -- especially when the end goal is to kill people.

...they're going to give you jack squat at least until an investigation has happened...

If they have enough damn evidence to kill in our name, and at our expense, then they can damn well release that evidence to the people first.

... and
2.Why people are not putting their own country first is beyond me...

It's a matter of priorities and standards. Apparently, you have no standards. I do. And my priorities and standards do not include killing beautiful babies -- especially when the rationale is based on incomplete and circumstantial evidence.

...would you back an enemy if they claimed your family or friends did something seriously wrong?

I'm going to stand up for truth and facts and LIFE. And I'm sure as hell not going to back my country's leaders when they do something seriously wrong no matter what the other guy did.

No you wouldn't, you would fully back your own until they were proven guilty of doing something wrong...

Lady Justice is blind. Doesn't matter if they're my friends or enemies, I'm not going to condemn or exonerate anyone for anything unless and until I have proof. And I'm sure as hell not going to condone bombing anyone that has not been PROVEN GUILTY of doing something wrong -- including Assad.

...even then it would be hard to let it go...

No, actually, when I know without a doubt that someone is guilty of something, it's not "hard to let it go." If they're guilty, they're guilty.

...yet many people all over America are quick to abandon their own country in favour of their enemy whether they like the leader or not...

Dissatisfaction and criticism of our leaders is not abandoning our country. On the contrary, demanding our leaders live up to the highest standard is the absolute ultimate act of patriotism. However, failing to live up to our nation's founding and guiding principles in order to defend and protect our leaders is, in fact and in deed, abandoning our country. I don't determine what is right or wrong by whether or not I "like" someone. Principles apply to everyone. That's the difference between a principle and a whim.

...loyalty goes beyond who's in charge.

Indeed. Leaders come and go. My loyalty is to the founding principles which made this nation great... once... before we abandoned those principles for petty blood lust.

So until a full investigation has happened the ball is in the Syrian Gov and Russians court...

Nope. Until a full investigation has happened and the USA can provide definitive proof of wrongdoing by the Syrian and/or Russian governments, it's all just trash talk and that's just not enough to justify an act of war against a sovereign nation. Again, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

...everyone should be supporting the US up until those points (unless you're Russian etc), only then will we know who is telling porkies.

I will support truth and righteousness.

a reply to: Boadicea

The US and its allies are the ones operating outside of international law and due process, Russia has dotted every i and crossed every t in this area America is getting very close to being no better than Tojo's Japan or Hitlers Germany and that now includes a dangerous personality cult

Seems to me like the first action, would have been to airdrop in some medical supplies.
But of course Medical Supplies don't kill people, bombs kill people, so just rain down more Bombs.
Bombs, Bombs, Bombs these leaders we elect make me Sick, Sick, Sick.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Boadicea

The US and its allies are the ones operating outside of international law and due process, Russia has dotted every i and crossed every t in this area America is getting very close to being no better than Tojo's Japan or Hitlers Germany and that now includes a dangerous personality cult

That's exactly right. And it absolutely sickens me. There was a time when we lived a higher standard and we encouraged and empowered other nations to rise to our level... nowadays we have lowered ourselves to their level. And there's no excuse. We do know better.