Another Gas Attack in Syria: Truth or Consequences?

Well, it looks like it may be on. What may be "on" you ask? The ruling elites have been looking for a way to get us directly involved in Syria's civil war for years. President Obama tried several times to push America into a direct intervention with the objective of putting "boots on the ground" repeatedly. Instead, all that he could do was implement a plan which came out of the Pentagon and State Department to support ISIS ...err...I mean the "freedom fighters" in Syria. These same...uh..."freedom fighters" are the same folks we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades now.

Their objective has been to create a reactionary caliphate centered in Syria. These are the fine folks who've been launching terror attacks in not just the Middle East, but Europe and even the US. There are also the ones who love filming and posting beheadings, indiscriminate mass executions, hangings, and crucifixions. They also seem to enjoy selling women and children into sex slavery, gang raping them, and so forth. What a mighty fine good of group allies we have here. These individuals are a part of a larger group, comprising several all Muslim paramilitary groups collectively known as the "Free Syrian Army". To be sure, there is a small element of pro-Western individuals, but they are outnumbered and lack any real influence.

Since Syria has long been a key Russian ally in the region going back to the late 1940's, the US has long been interested in destabilizing Syria, which would affect Russia's influence in the Middle East (especially after Egypt left its orbit). However, that would still leave with one other key regional ally, Iran, and the US has had plans to topple its theocratic government since 1979. It also just so happens that Syria, and especially Iran, controls vast quantities of oil and gas. It also doesn't hurt that Syria has never accept Israel's right to exist, plus Iran has repeated threats to "blow Israel off the map" or "push Israel into the sea".

Iran has also trained, supplied, and underwritten terrorist organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, and Hezbollah. Oh, did I mention that our main oil supplier and military ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and Iran happen to despise each other? Of course, there's no love lost regarding their opinion of Israel, which is not only a essential regional US and Western ally, but the only democracy in the Middle East who happens to also have a very powerful lobbying effort in Washington.

Yelp, Saudi Arabia and Iran have had a long simmering feud going on for nearly forever over religious differences. In recent years, these differences have become increasingly "hot" and boiled over into a few skirmishes. Given this, and the threat Iran poses to Israel, as well as to the stability of Lebanon and Egypt, it's no wonder that the US has wanted a more directed say in the region, especially after the first Gulf War and our liberation of Exxon and BP...oops, sorry...I mean Kuwait following Saddam Hussein's invasion and occupation of the oil rich country.

So, the British, French, and US naval forces stationed off the Lebanese coast have launched an overnight missile strike to take out a "military chemical" manufacturing facility and other supporting infrastructures. This follows an alleged chemical gas (chlorine) attack on a small community in Syria. However, early evidence showed that the attack, which was supposedly rocket launched, may have been staged. Also, preliminary chemical analysis also shows that the gas residue wasn't of Russian manufacture (Syria buys its chemical components from the Russians). Early evaluation showed that the chemical residue originated in the West...just like in the last two previous gas attacks. Huh.

Yelp, this wasn't the first time this has happened. There were two other occasions, and in each, there was the hue and cry from war hawks in Washington and even the weak-kneed Obama, to invade Syria. However, Russia immediately denied that the Assad government launched any chemical attacks, followed ( as one would expect) by Assad's vehement denial that he authorized any chemical attacks against the Syrian People. Interestingly though, was that in both occasions, "Free Syrian" groups, comprising mostly former/current ISIS fighters, were operating in the immediate vicinity, had withdrawn just prior to the attacks (they had been in a losing fight with government troops).

Nevertheless, the US and allies hit government military installations hard, including airbases. Unfortunately, in our overzealous need to respond, we inadvertently killed Russian military and civilian advisors and destroyed Russian equipment. Later, UN inspectors were able to confirm that, on both occasions, the chemical signature were not of Russian origin. In both incidents, its appeared that the chemical were of a Western manufacture. Now, there has been a third gas attack, and instead of waiting to confirm, the US and its French and British allies struck Syrian targets.

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has warned the US that any strike may result in serious consequences. Now, what he meant by that is open to interpretation. He could have meant that if any Russian personnel or equipment was destroyed, there would be a direct Russian reprisal. He could have meant a economic response, or perhaps a response with full Russian backing from the Syrian government's military. It is known that Russia support personnel, equipment, and ships were moved, so there may have been some back channel talks ahead of time. However, with the US backing groups to overthrow Russia's key regional ally, and the occasional direct air attacks, it's only a matter of time before Russia is forced to respond in-kind if, for no other reason, than to save face internationally and domestically.

What kind of response could this be? Well, it could be an indirect response such a putting pressure on allies in Europe, like cutting back or off the flow of gas and oil which is critical to certain nations like Germany, France, and the Balkans. This could, in turn, force them to put pressure on the US, UK, and France to knock it off. Obviously, it could try to affect the US in other economic ways such as attacks on our data grid---which could affects data networks everywhere, but especially in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

The Russians could step up its air defense system using strictly Russian personnel. Thus any attacks by the US or its allies would receive a direct response and any attempts to take out these installations could and would be viewed as a direct attack on Russia. That just has nasty repercussions written all over it. There's even the possibility of Russia flying regular interference to prevent future air attacks over Syria including instructions to engage any non-Syrian aircraft and/or missiles.

Now, I'm not going to get into any discussion about who's military can beat up the other guy's military. Frankly, I don't care, and the reason I don't care is because this is the kind of situation which can easily spiral out of control fast. Any escalation could and would likely end badly for everyone on the planet, not just in America or Russia, or even in Europe or Asia. I don't profess to be an expert, but I've studied history (especially military history) and political science my entire life. My education is in economics, and I've been fortunate enough to received several national awards in economics. I also served in the military in the area of intelligence gathering (albeit just as a peon). But, all the same, I smell a wet rat here folks.

We are backing the "Free Syrian Army", which consists of foreign fighters, almost exclusively Muslim, with a large component made up of active ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Taliban fighters. These are literally the same people we've been and are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. These people are dedicated to establishing an extremist Muslim caliphate in lieu of the current Syrian government. They have left their calling card all over the region in the form of thousands and thousands of graves and destroyed lives.

This war is about denying Russia one of its strategic regional allies. It's about securing another source of oil, but most importantly it's about setting the stage to destabilize and eventually overthrow the Iranian government (of course, access to its vast oil and gas reserves would certainly be a bonus). Iran is also an ally not just of Russia's, but also of China's. This would deny Russia and China of a key ally in the region. Can you see where this is going?
Yes, the Iranians overthrew the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whom we installed fair and square after overthrowing their previous government in 1967. They then took over the American Embassy and held US personnel hostage for 444 days. They were released once Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, perhaps in retaliation of President Carter allowing the Shah to come to America for medical treatment (he had incurable cancer) and for attempting to launch an ill fated rescue operation. However, despite freezing banks accounts and the usually worthless economic sanctions, Iran went "unpunished".

Of course, we can't and must not forget that removing both Syria and Iran would bolster the prestige and influence of Saudi Arabia, who has never been on particularly good terms with Assad, and is mortal enemies with Iranians. Of course, Saudi Arabia was the home country of Osama bin Laden, and his family still remains there; very wealthy and influential. 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia (of the remaining four, two of them were from the United Arab Emirates and the third was from Lebanon and the fourth was Egyptian). Many of Al Qaeda's and ISIS's leadership has hailed from Saudi Arabia as well. Just saying.

So, who benefits by replacing the Assad government? Well, Israel first. Syria and Israel has had a pretty contentious relationship Israel's creation in 1948. Syria has been involved in every war against Israel, and for years, operated as a safe haven for terrorist groups such as the PLO and Black September. Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war, which Israel has kept as a buffer. With the Assad government gone, Israel loses an strong enemy and would likely keep the heights.

Second, the US wins. First, it removes a strategic ally from Russia's arsenal. It gains access to Syrian gas and oil reserves, plus it gains territory which borders on Iran. That gives the US a near circular containment of Iran, with direct or indirect control of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a useful ally in Saudi Arabia. It allows to the US and Saudi Arabia to put more pressure on Iran to moderate its support of terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Of course, the US influence in the region grows tremendously. Now, we can't forget the Oligarchy back home which just loves the perpetual and highly profitable "War on Terror", which keeps our pseudo-wartime economy chugging along and provides an outlet for our "excess" population of high school and college graduates in need of a job (combined with an influx of illegal immigrates, drives down the availability of jobs and wages). Countries like the UK and France also benefit for pretty much the same reasons except they are dealing with more or less "legal" migrates.

Who loses? Well, interestingly enough, Israel does. While it wins on one hand, an extremist Muslim caliphate in the region, especially so close to Israel, would likely result in either a protracted war aimed at bleeding Israel dry and disrupting its economy, or (if Iran is to believed), a short nuclear and/or biological war. Certainly elements of the "Free Syrian" coalition have shown a proficiency and willingness to use biological weapons, at least on unarmed civilians. I can't see Israel ever accepting this. Plus, any attack from the caliphate, would include aggressive support from Iran and its surrogates, Hamas and Hezbollah (I wouldn't be surprised to see Muslim mercenaries from the entire Arab world join in too).

Another loser would be the US for pretty similar reasons. I think the planners of such things believe they could convince the caliphate to "work with them" with the usual economic bribery, and in case that doesn't happen, overthrow them. Personally, I think that would be like chasing cockroaches like we've been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years. I think we would also find ourselves serving as a magnet for every religious fanatic out there, and those choosing not to come to Syria, would get busy in Europe and elsewhere. However, our ruling Oligarchy would still benefit since war is a very profitable business.

Russia, and perhaps China, would naturally lose. Syria has been a strategic ally since around 1948/49. It's also been a important economic partner with Russia, as well as China. Russia would lose military bases as well, and (in the grand scheme of things), there would be a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region, which also just happens to be close to Russian territory. From the Russian perspective, the US and/or its allies, could take over or build bases in Syrian territory which would like Russia having bases in southern Mexico.

Lastly, are the "incidentals" (and I really hate having to use that term). By that I mean the ordinary civilians; people who are just trying to stay the hell out of the way of geopolitics. The lives of these people has been nearly destroyed by years of brutal war. Cities, towns, villages, and entire communities simply eradicated. Hospitals and schools leveled, not to mention the loss of fresh water, food sources, electricity, sanitation, and even basic shelter in many cases. of course, there is always the indiscriminate snipers and unexploded ordinances to consider. It's no place for any living creature, let alone children.

We mustn't forget the Assyrian/Chaldean Christians, who've been in the region since the 1st century, who are now gone; in many cases forever. They have been among the thousands butchered. There's the Yazidis and Kurds who've been forced from their communities and murdered by the thousands. Then there's been hundreds, if not thousands, of young girls, and even boys, who've been sold in to a world of brutal sex slavery. Again, it's the children who pay perhaps the worse price of war. These are who I see as the biggest losers of this or any war; the ones with no vested interest in the war. They don't benefit. They don't profit. They gain nothing but loss, grief, and for many, hatred.

I have no doubt this most recent chemical gas attack was staged like the previous two. We are being lured or maneuvered into a conflict we have no business being in. When you get down to it, this isn't about ideology, religion, or even "humanitarian" reasons. This is about geopolitics. It's about power, influence, money, and ultimately, control. It's about igniting a new cold war, even if it has to get briefly hot. However, that could spark a nuclear powder keg just as easily. The enemy isn't the Syrians or even the Russians. It's the Oligarchs who are behind it all. As long as we remain divided and fighting each other, we are powerless. But if united, we can focus our strength on those seeking to do us so much harm and put a stop to it.

MOAB: Whose Your Momma Now?

Just a few days ago, on April 13, 2017, the US dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb it has in its arsenal, the M.O.A.B. The M.O.A.B, which stands for Massive Ordinance Air Blast bomb or GBU 43/B, is better known as the Mother Of All Bombs, is a 21,600 pound behemoth with an explosive payload equivalent to 11 tons of TNT. It is so large that the only airplane able to carry it is a C-130 Hercules. It has to be dropped out the back on a wheeled carriage or cradle which is equipped with a parachute to slow the descent for accuracy. The blast radius is approximately one mile in diameter. The shock wave can be felt 30 miles away; shattering windows, ripping off roofs, flipping vehicles and toppling some structures in ranges from just under 2 miles up to 5 miles away. The bomb was dropped in the Nangarhar mountain range near Tora Bora, made infamous as the area where Osama Bin Laden escaped with the help of our so-called Afghani and Pakistani "allies", thus allowing the war to drag on years longer with thousands more killed (Ben Laden would be later tracked down to an enclosed compound just a yards away from Pakistani intelligence headquarters and the home of the Pakistan's "West Point").

There was a vast network of reinforced concrete tunnels which ran for miles with multiple levels. The tunnels, which were built originally by the CIA during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan to aid the Afghani rebels or "Muhadeen", was designed to provide protection from Russian bombers, artillery, and make it nearly impossible to track through the concrete maze with multiple entrances, exits, and filtered air vents not only to provide like clean air but to vent off any poisonous or noxious gases or compressed aid as a result of a bomb attack. In addition to providing protection, the tunnels also served as staging areas, storage bunkers, military hospital, sleeping/rest areas, and provided meals (apparently the lessons of Vietnam and the Viet Kong tunnel systems were well learned). Approximately 96 Islamic terrorists are believed to have died in the blast, although the actual number may never be fully known since any in the immediate blast zone would have been vaporized or forever buried under tons of mountainous rubble.

The order for the drop was originally given by outgoing President Obama, but the final go ahead was given by President Trump following a review of the situation and likely outcome, with emphasis on the possibility of any civilian deaths (civilians had been ordered away from the area starting several days earlier, so the blast itself wasn't a complete surprise, though the scale likely was unexpected). Plans for MOAB had been originally designed years earlier, with the intent of using it during the initial invasion of Iraq. However, US and Allied success made its use unnecessary (plus, I'm sure, the large movement of surrendering Iraqi soldiers and the shifting civilian population also made its use unfeasible).

So, what did we gain by dropping this "Mother Of All Bombs"? Tactically, we destroyed a vast network of tunnels that Al Qaeda, Daesh, and ISIS were still using as a staging and warehouse area. Of course, the US had the plans to the tunnel system since we built it, though there's little doubt that some modification had been made in the subsequent years. The fact that we warned people too likely ensured that there would be minimum causalities, even among the bad guys, but a high body count doesn't seem like the intent of MOAB. The bombing did, however, send notice that we still have firepower and willingness to inflict considerable damage. However, is ISIS and/or the other terrorists groups are anything like the Japanese military mentality of WWII, it will take several more strikes to get their attention, especially since we are fighting them on two fronts---Iraq and Afghanistan---plus on the international stage in Europe, Asia, and the US, while supporting them in Syria. Nothing like sending mixed signals.

However, I wonder if there was something else that MOAB was meant to destroy or, at least, cover up. Recently in Syria there was a sarin gas attack. The US and some of its allies claim the attack came from an Syrian attack on a pro-rebel area of Al Shayrat, which contained a weapons storage house. Syria's President Assad and its ally, Russia, deny that Syria dropped any nerve gas. Instead, they claim that the rebel warehouse may have stored the toxic nerve agent, which the rebels were intending on using again pro-Assad forces. This isn't so farfetched. Several years ago, there was a similar incident where civilian and pro-government forces were attacked with sarin gas. Immediately the US accused the Assad Government of using sarin gas tipped artillery shells against the rebel stronghold, resulting in the deaths innocent civilians and some of their own troops. Syria immediately denied the claim. President Obama called for an immediate attack on Syria, however Russia was able to provide proof that the attack didn't come from Assad forces. This was later verified by UN inspectors (US corporate media, however, buried the story and we quickly moved on to the next "crisis").

Personally, I think the most recent gas attack was simply a replay of the previous attack. Syrian jets just happened to hit a rebel warehouse where sarin gas was being stored. The US responded the only it could in both instances in order to protect its "ally" in Syria---Al Nusra Front---and cover its butt internationally (remember that Al Nusra in Syria is ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, and Al Qaeda everywhere else). Al Nusra/ISIS is trying to overthrow Assad's government as part of its plan to establish an Islamic Caliphate. The US has been trying to destroy or destabilize Assad given Syria's close ties with Russia. All this makes me wonder if the tunnel system destroyed by MOAB contained evidence of sarin gas storage and, perhaps, possible US involvement. Thus, since we either couldn't reach or weren't sure exactly where the sarin gas was hidden in the tunnel system, the entire thing was eliminated, and the only thing we had in our arsenal capable of such a massive destruction was MOAB which had been setting and waiting to go for years now. How handy! Besides, the military had a really cool toy it hadn't played with yet. By the way, shortly after the US dropped the "Mother Of All Bombs", Russia confirmed that it had the "Father Of All Bombs" (F.O.A.B.), a thermobaric bomb with an explosive payload of 44 tons of TNT, which they claimed was four times more powerful. Great. Just great.


Afghan Official: Massive US bomb death toll rises to 96 militants

A Prelude to War?

On April 6th, the US fired 59 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles at a cost of some $1.5 million dollars each at the Syrian Al Shayrat air force base located in Homs. The US and Western corporate media claimed there was extensive damage to the base, with between 23 and 26 top line fighters destroyed as well as damage to the runways, maintenance and storage outbuildings and hangers. The Syrian and Russian media outlets, however, reported that the damage was minimal, with only six planes destroyed and four suffering minor damage. A few of the reinforced dual hangers suffered some damage but remained functional. They confirmed that several of the outlining maintenance and storage buildings hit, resulting in significant damage, however none of fuel or weapons storage facilities were affected while the runways were undamaged. As proof, Russian and Syrian media showed footage of the base. In addition they reported that six individuals were killed and about a dozen were injured in the attack. As if to reemphasis the point, the following day, Syrian jets took off from the base's air strip. The Al Shayrat base is home to the Syrian 50th Air Brigade which is comprised of the 675th, 677th, and the 685th fighter squadrons (the 675th is made up of the MIG-23 "Flogger" while the other two are comprised of Sukhoi SU-22Fs). Russia's 120th Artillery Brigade is stationed there along with approximately ten "Hind" attack helicopters.

What prompted the US attack is a matter of some conjecture. Approximately two days earlier, fighter jets from the Al Shayrat base took off with instructions to knock out a rebel stronghold in the rebel controlled city of Khan Sheikhun, in the Idlib Provence, which allegedly contained a warehouse of various weapons, rockets, ammunition, and artillery shells. The Syrian jets successfully hit their objective and removed it as threat to Syrian government forces and the surrounding pro-Assad population. Shortly afterwards, came the first reports of a nerve gas cloud. Now, this is where things get a little murky, but first, let's explain who these rebels are. As everyone knows or should know by now, the US and a handful of Western nations have been battling Islamic extremist aka "the terrorists" in Iraq, Afghanistan . These terrorists are known variously as ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, and so forth. In Syria, they are known as the Al Nusra Front. These are the same groups which were involved with the attacks on 9/11, and numerous other attacks in France, England, Germany, Russia, and most recently in Sweden.

However, Al Nusra opposes President Assad of Syria. Their goal, as always, is to create a Islamic Caliphate of the extremist variety. Syria, which has been generally pro-Western and secular since the end of World War I, has been a long time regional ally of Russia, and recently, chummy with China (Russia and China are also on friendly terms with Iran, while Iran funds and arms their proxy terrorist organizations, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza). Since the US would like to isolate Russia in the Middle East, we have tried to destabilize the Assad Government whenever and wherever possible. The current civil war, has proven to be an excellent opportunity. However, in order to do so, we have had to ally ourselves with the rebel opposing Assad; and yes, they are the very same people we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and has been attacking the West is now our buddies in Syria. Amazingly stupid if you ask me.

Shortly after the recent attack, there was reports of what appeared to be a sarin gas cloud. News footage seemed to confirm that there had indeed been a release of the highly toxic never agent. Horrific scenes of dead and dying women, men, and children, along with brave attempts to save those still alive was broadcasted around the world. Condemnation from throughout the world was loud and swift. The only problem, however, was who did it? The US was the first nation to point the finger at Assad's government. It claimed that their intelligence reports "confirm" that the Syrian jets had dropped the sarin gas in a blatant disregard of international law or even basic respect for humanity. Based on the claims of the US Government, other nations joined in their condemnation of Assad.

However, there was a problem with this claim by the Trump Administration. Both Russia and the Syrian governments maintained that the Syrian military does not have any chemical weapons. They claim that the rebel warehouse must have stored the toxic agent and was released by the bombing, which is why there was such a limited exposure. Several years ago there was a similar incident in Syria where there was a sarin gas attack on a small pro-government neighborhood. President Obama, again acting on US military intelligence reports, quickly blamed the Assad Government and began demanding that the US military intervene in Syria's Civil War for "humanitarian" purposes. Both Putin and Assad insisted that the attack, which was made from nearby artillery fire, was the work of the rebels who were assaulting pro-government forces (and losing). Both Assad and Putin also stated that Syrian doesn't have sarin gas. Finally, in a last ditch effort to prevent a US military invasion of its ally, Russia produced satellite imagery and other intelligence reports confirming the Syrian military didn't fire on their own troops and pro-government neighborhood.

So here we go again. Same scenario. Different president. Meanwhile, Russian ships of the Black Sea Fleet are moving into the region. The speed at which Russia is able to move ships into region is another reason for Russia's long standing presence in the Crimea, which is home for the Black Sea Fleet. Additionally, Russia, which has about 9000 military personnel in Syria, is reinforcing its air defense networks in and around its bases while the US is positioning a carrier task force to bolster their resolve. The British and French navies also maintain a strong presence in the Mediterranean , along with other NATO nation countries, including Italy, Greece, and Turkey (which, ironically, had just concluded war games in the Black Sea with the same Russian ships who are now steaming toward the Levant).

President Assad is winning the Civil War, despite US support for the rebels. He has publicly stated that Syria will need to the support of other nations to help rebuild their infrastructure and the economy. President Putin has maintained from the beginning that his goal is to protect his friend and ally, plus remove the terrorist threat not just from the region, but from Russia as well. Russia has the longest unbroken border of any country with majority Muslim countries; many of whom had been former Soviet Republics back in the days of the USSR. However, Russia has faced a growing threat from radical Muslim terrorists since the 1980's, including violent attacks in Moscow and more recently, St. Petersburg, not to mention their war with Chechnyan guerillas in the Republic of Georgia.

As for the rebels, they have repeatedly shown in the alter identity as "terrorists" to have a complete disregard for human life. They have massacred thousands of Christians, Kurds, Yazidis, non-Muslims, gays, not to mention ordinary civilians. They have raped countless women and children and sold untold numbers into sex slavery. Their atrocities have prompted one of the largest mass exoduses in world history; most of which has descended on Europe with trickles coming to the US. Unfortunately, with this mass migration has come terrorist cells intent on spreading their hate and bloodshed. So, why would the US align themselves with the likes of these monsters? The only explanation I can come up with is the same of ole one---control. Control over the oil and gas fields. Control over shipping routes. Strategic control over territory to further helm in Russia. Plus, it could provide a staging area for an invasion, either directly or indirectly, against Iran. It would also separate Iran from Hezbollah and Hamas, which could relieve pressure on Israel and even Egypt and Lebanon. It would also secure Israel's northern border with Syria and end the standoff over the Golan Heights, which was seized in the Six Day War of 1967. In addition, it would prove to be an excellent investment for US and Western business. After all, "someone" has to help with the rebuilding and provide the investment capital right? Why not our friendly neo-fascist Oligarchy?

I think there's a lot of potential for missteps in this game of geo-politics; missteps that the world cannot afford. We need to put aside our outdated Cold War mentality and forget about trying to fight the last war. The world has changed. Old ideas of political ideology belong to the history books. Nowadays, we face a common foe who couldn't care less about Communism or Capitalism. This enemy fights for its religion. Nothing and no one else matters. It sees no different between Moscow, Berlin, Beijing, Paris, Mexico City, Ottawa, London, or Washington DC. The US cannot win this war alone. It needs committed allies. Russia appears to be willing to be that ally, but will the Oligarchy who rules this country let it? Will it allow us?


The Latest: US Calls for Transparency in UN Syrian Summit


Sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack, Turkey's Health Ministry says


U.S. Missile Attack on Syria: What We Know and Don't Know


Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad