- Over one hundred missiles were fired
- We are "confident" that all of the missiles reached their intended targets
- Three targets were struck
So that would mean, it took over thirty missiles just to destroy each of three targets? Does that seem plausible? Meanwhile, the Russians:
- We actually shot down almost all of their missiles
- There were several more intended targets, which we successfully defended-- that's why they fired so many missiles
- The targets weren't even related to Assad's supposed chemical weapons stockpiles-- they were air fields, and other military facilities
On that note, a survivor from one of the targets which did get struck said that it was a medical research facility, and that if it had been a chemical weapons production building, there would be no way in hell he could possibly be standing where he was, with his interviewer.
Now re-read my former, aforelinked post, and ask yourself: with regards to Syria, does the US or the Russian government appear more truthful?
Also mull this over: there are numerous photographs and videos circulating online, purportedly of the horrors of "Assad's chemical attack". But you have to be careful, because historically, lots of "war victim" pictures are total BS-- check this out, just to give you the flavor. In the age of mass-disinformation and Photoshop, photographs should not be believed until they are multiple-ways corroborated.
What's more, the UN's investigators hadn't even landed in Syria to begin their investigation when the air strikes were ordered.
Ponder this one too: the missile strikes were a one hundred million dollar operation. The average six figure earner in the US pays about a million in Federal taxes in their lifetime.
Six figure earners are in the very top percentiles of income in the US. That means one hundred full-time, top-percentile earners will spend their entire lives paying for one missile strike, with no evidence to corroborate the justification for the strikes, and where only a few missiles even hit their targets.