Tag Archives: Syria

US strike on Syria: Is Trump a hypocrite?

If Donald Trump has made anything clear during his presidency it’s that he will do absolutely anything to stop refugees from receiving help and entering the US. This is why many people feel that his decision to airstrike against Assad is a bit hypocritical.

It is reported that one of the reasons why the airstrike took place was because, “Trump was affected by images of dead children among casualties and felt compelled to act.” However, being exposed to images of defenseless dead or injured Syrian children seems to have become reality nowadays. For example, the image of Aylan Kurdi lying on the beach. However, at the time this this image was published, Trump was talking about taking action to ban muslims from coming to the United States.

It seems ironic as if Trump really did care about Syrian children, surely he wouldn’t ban Syrian refugees. PBS Frontline reported that, Between 2011 and 2016, at least 470,000 — more than 11 percent of Syria’s entire population were either wounded or killed. Instead of opening the US, he signed an executive order declaring that the US would not issue new visas to travelers from particular countries for 90 days.

Claude Taylor, a one of Clinton’s staff wrote,  “Now that there’s been a chemical gas attack and Trump felt compelled to act, will his policy change?” “Ok Trump. Put your policy where your mouth is. Reverse your refugee ban. Open our borders to Syrian refugees. Do it now.”

There is also a large amount of hypocrisy surrounding the idea that the military decision to launch an airstrike on Syria was something which he once claimed was “very bad” and “dangerous”.

Three years ago when Barack Obama was debating whether or not to take action on Assad after using chemical weapons on his civilians in 2011 when he was trying to stop a rebel uprising.

However, in a large amount of tweets published from June through to September in 2013, Mr Trump made it clear that it was a bad idea for Obama to attack Syria and claimed that, “The president needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution”. Congressional authorization didn’t seem to concern Trump when he launched the attack yesterday, something which left the democrats very concerned; highlights the hypocritical actions of Trump.


Watch Donald Trump order the military strike below:


US airstrikes on Syria: Will there be more?

Donald Trump calls on the world to help the US end the devastation which Syria is being exposed to, highlighting that there may be more attacks.

Donald Trump ordered an airstrike after seeing the damage which was caused in Syria; the White House has claimed that, “This is a reaffirmation of America’s moral leadership in the world.”

The airstrike shows a clear difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama, as Obama had always talked about “red lines” when it came to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, however in contrast to Trump, he didn’t react to them when they occurred.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump’s supporters will feel that the decision shows strong leadership qualities, however his critics may feel that the reaction may have been to sudden and needed further debate.
Trump was quoted saying that his actions were a direct response towards a “vital national security interest” in an attempt to stop the use of chemical weapons on anyone around the world.

Opinions in the US remain divided:



The airstrike which involved 59 missiles hitting a Syrian airbase has also weakened US-Russia relations, recently a Russian defence ministry statement was read on Russian television and claimed that the US attack had been “ineffective” and claimed Syrian authorities were looking for 36 Tomahawk missiles which fell outside the base and missed the target.

The statement also pointed out that Russia would now stop further cooperation and communication with US forces in Syria.

The question which seems to have come to the forefront after the airstrikes is whether or not there are more strikes to come. A US official has called the strike a “one off” but Donald Trump’s request for other countries to join the US to stop the “bloodshed” seems to say something different.

This attack has put Trump in a direct confrontation for the first time with Putin, a supporter of the Assad regime, who was until now a man the US has stayed impartial about.

In response to the attack, Russia has called it, “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law”, with President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman saying he felt that the US had carried out the strikes as part of a “far-fetched pretext”.

In response to this, the US stated, “How many more children have to die before Russia cares?”

It is clear that the American people are not ready for another long military operation; definitely isn’t willing to put troops on the ground at the moment, but how long will they continue to airstrike?


The majority of nations seem to be supporting the US military strikes, perhaps suggesting that they will get involved:

BRITAIN:  Revealed that it ‘fully supported’ the strikes, calling them an ‘appropriate response to the barbaric chemical weapons attack’.

JAPAN: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stated that Japan ‘supports the US government’s resolve that it will never tolerate the spread and use of chemical weapons.’

FRANCE/GERMANY:  President Francois Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Assad needs to take ‘sole responsibility’ for the US strike following the chemical attack.


UK to disown child refugees

By Leanne Hall

Ministers quietly announce that they will stop lone child migrants entering the UK.

Last Wednesday it was revealed that the UK will no longer be taking in 3000 lone child migrants and instead will only be taking in 350. Former prime minister, David Cameron, accepted the Dubs amendment to settle more child refugees. The plan has cause outcry from MP’s, The Archbishop of Canterbury and celebrities.

The BBC reported that Home Secretary Amber Rudd said this was because ministers feared it was encouraging people traffickers. Ms Rudd has said: “I am clear that when working with my French counterparts they do not want us to indefinitely continue to accept children under the Dubs amendment because they specify, and I agree with them, that it acts as a draw. It acts as a pull. It encourages the people traffickers.”

Lord Dubs, whom the amendment is named after spoke at the House of Lords saying “It wasn’t long ago that I remember that the prime minister when she was home secretary told me the government was prepared to accept the amendment. “It was on the same day that the then immigration minister said to me that the government would accept the letter and the spirit of that amendment.

Celebrities and MP’s took to twitter to express their devastation over the closing down of the Dubs amendment


Lord Dub’s organised a political coup in September 2016, as a child refugee himself Lord Dub’s condemned the government for not promising to take in lone child refugees. As well as not taking in children, the UK government have also released news that they will not be taking in any disabled child refugees as they “cannot keep up with their needs.” The Independent had found out that the Home Office have been rejecting applications from disabled refugees since the beginning of January. Speaking to The Independent, Shantha Barriga, director of Human Rights Watch’s disability rights division, said “It’s an indefensible decision and blatant discrimination. The UK is not simply lacking ‘suitable accommodation’ in this case, but seems to be lacking political will.”