Talpiot. The F35 that Israel said had to be taken out of service because it hit a bird? Or the F35 that US pilots call the Flying Lemon?

Hasbara tripe-racist and arrogant.

Israel has F35s now and is far stronger technologically than it was in 2006.
Israel could deal with Hezbollah with a click of its fingers. That’s just the plain truth of it now.

The question is typically effing moronic. The war was won by ‘the Soviets’, ie Russians, Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Khazaks, Jews, Georgians etc. For the Right scumbags, the word ‘Soviet’ is VERBOTEN. It scares them!

But . . . but . . . what if the idea is . . . oh . . . I don’t know . . . say to strengthen “the position of both Assad and Putin, because [the US, UK, and France] have given them the basis for rallying their own people around them against an external threat?”[1]
Would then the missile attack not also have had the self-same appearance, namely, of seemingly showing that FUKUSA “. . . had no real appetite for regime change, still less for an unsimulated real life war,” while maintaining the illusion that FUKUSA is the mortal enemy of both Syria and Russia and, of course, Iran?
I just read this in an article published by Al Jazeera:
Quote begins:
Despite the pathos with which US President Donald Trump announced the military operation, its result turned out to be less than modest. Putting aside the contradictory reports on how many missiles struck their intended targets, they did not cause any military casualties and failed to inflict any serious damage on Syrian military infrastructure. Compared to the recent Israeli air raid on the T-4 base, the result of the April 14 strikes seems rather insignificant.
In this sense, the US, UK and French strikes were no different from the military action in April 2017, when after the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province, the US bombed regime-operated Shayrat airfield.
The difference this year was that Washington blamed not only the Syrian regime for the chemical attack but also its patron, Moscow. This gave the situation a higher degree of tension, increasing speculations about a direct clash between the US and Russia.
Direct confrontation was predictably avoided, and the whole operation seemed to be no more than a “performance”.
Assad was content
The party that stood to benefit the most from this situation was the Syrian regime and its allies. There was no change in the balance of power on the ground as a result of the strikes and forces loyal to the Syrian regime suffered no losses. [my emphasis — N.P.]
A few hours after the strikes, Bashar al-Assad entered social media politics by posting a video of himself purportedly arriving triumphantly at his workplace in Damascus. Local and foreign media then showed scenes of Syrians celebrating in the streets.
Assad seemed to weather the media speculation storm quite well, too. Last year, the US attacks on Shayrat military base took people by surprise and left the international media speculating on the possibility of more serious US military actions against the regime. This year, after the “perfectly executed” strikes – as Trump described them – it became clear that there is nothing much behind the White House rhetoric except populism.
To Assad, it is clear that the US doesn’t have any strategy to resolve the Syrian conflict and is not even able to employ an effective mechanism to preclude the use of chemical weapons.
Quote ends.
What in all of this seems to be obvious but that I am not seeing?
The Russians fire cruise missiles into Syria, and it helps the Syrian government; The U.S. and Co. fire cruise missiles into Syria, and — wouldn’t you know it — it also helps the Syrian government, and “did not cause any military casualties and failed to inflict any serious damage on Syrian military infrastructure.”
Are the Americans really that weak, incompetent and intimidated?
Or do all of the capitalist states having interests in the Middle East not have a common interest in keeping groups of seemingly restive someones under control?
And doesn’t the restiveness appear to be general throughout the entire region. How are things in Yemen? What Iran? What about in Iraq? And Libya? How’s that working out?
I wonder which is the scarier prospect: losing complete control over the masses of the Middle East or not getting a piece of the economic pie that everyone has already agreed upon behind the scenes, at the level of oligarchical negotiations?

Making news the way you would like it to be.

Corbyn is sliding because some idiots have been fooled by the jingo campaign, and because others are undoubtedly outraged by his cowardly refusal to act decisively against the swine attacking him and Labour.