Rebels have Sarin. Accept that. Assad forces launched this attack. Accept that.

[cthulu2016]

Everyone who has been paying attention knows that some rebel factions have access to sarin.

Everyone who has been paying attention knows that the attack we are talking about was carried out of Syrian government forces.

Is it possible that an attack of this breadth (many, many damage sites in a compressed time-frame) was a rebel false-flag operation?

Sure... maybe... whatever... If the NSA and CIA and everybody else were cooperating with the rebels on selling it, that could happen. We probably could be manufacturing the whole thing.


But there's no reason to think things that bizarre without a rather compelling reason to think things that bizarre.

And opposition to striking Syria does not, or should not, in any way depend upon believing that Assad was framed.

Since Obama has a history of not wanting any part of Syria (the opposite of the neocon view on Iraq in 2001) there's no obvious reason why he would be atop this vast conspiracy to frame Assad.

As someone who saw every nuance of the Iraq War boondoggle for exactly what it was, in real time, and who has rather limited reverence for Barack Obama, I say this latest conspiracy-fest is nuts.

I am not seeing any facts here that demand extraordinary explanations.


And as to the observation that Assad had nothing to gain, the theory that all parties act in their best self-interest at all times is an absurdity. Wars (and jails) are full of people who acted against seeming self-interest. People do fucked up shit sometimes.

And the obvious benefits to Obama that flow from Obama sticking his nose into Syria are no more obvious than the benefits that flow to Assad from being provocative.


There is a very interesting and weird story playing out here, for real, and dragging in the loch ness monster won't really make it any weirder or more interesting.

[shenmue]

1. Thank you.

I'm torn on whether we should go to war, but I am not torn on the facts. Thanks.

[KittyWampus]

2. It's possible to be against intervention and not subscribe to unnecessary and stupid theories.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. Thanks for posting this.

Exactly what I think. The somersaults being done around here, which, by the way, I don't see on my Twitter timeline, where I can pick and choose who to follow based on my assessment of their credibility, are truly mystifying. It does clue me in to what's trending on the Internet in general though. As usual, misinformation is the order of the day.

[pjt7]

4. Agent Orange was no chemical fabrication

The US GOV used it for years & it killed 100,000's on every side.

That abuse of chemical weapons is why we are hypocritcs

[KT2000]

7. not used as a weapon

It was used to kill the plants where the Viet Cong were hiding. The full effects of Agent Orange were not known to the people who ordered its use. Effects could have been known to the manufacturer though.
Admiral Zumwalt, who ordered its use lost his own son to the effects of Agent orange (cancer). After the war, he worked to recognize the damage it does to human health, and stop its use ever again.

[GeorgeGist]

5. Everyone knows bombast ...

when they hear it.

[KT2000]

6. Thanks for this

there has been some wild speculation here.

[Crimson76]

8. I dont want to sound like a chickenhawk

the rebels with the sarin. need to be eliminated just as much as the chemicals on the hands of the Assad regime. We can't live in a world where I am on the T in Boston and some terrorist decides to use it. Can't have it, we must eliminate that threat.

I, of course mean that, only if the President with the confidence of the Congress determines that this is a necessary threat.

[backscatter712]

9. Good points. I'm simply opposed to attacking Syria because it won't solve the chemweapons problem.

The strikes aren't going to eliminate the weapons - that requires a much larger military operation than anyone's willing to undertake - a full scale invasion.

Nor are strikes going to help with the humanitarian issues.

Nor are they going to get Syria governed by a stable, democratic government.

They're not going to solve any of these problems at all.

They're a kabuki fireworks show, designed to Send A Message.

As far as I'm concerned, if we want to send a message, we might as well use Facebook, as Tom Tomorrow suggests - it's cheaper, inflicts fewer casualties, and is about equally likely to get a positive response from Assad, or the rebels.

[etherealtruth]

10. " .... opposition to striking Syria does not, or should not, ...

... in any way depend upon believing that Assad was framed."

Exactly.

I am horrified by Assad's actions (and do not doubt that it was Assad's forces that gassed opposition civilians). I certainly think "something" must be done by the international community ... but, am opposed to the US acting militarily.

[bvar22]

11. Can't give you a Rec.

The use of chemical weapons against Syrian citizens is abominable, and if Assad’s regime is responsible he should be treated as an international criminal and pariah.

But have we learned nothing from our mistakes in the past? Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called “surgical strikes” because the nation’s “credibility” is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our “strength and resolve” — only to learn years later that our credibility suffered more from our brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control, and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians — and in the absence of clearly-defined goals or even clear exit strategies. We and others have paid an incalculable price.

We should instead be testing the nation’s resolve to provide good jobs at good wages to all Americans who need them, and measuring our credibility by the yardstick of equal opportunity. And we should strike (and join striking workers) against big employers who won’t provide their employees with minimally-decent wages. We need to commit ourselves to a living wage, and to providing more economic security to the millions of Americans now working harder but getting nowhere.

http://www.alternet.org/world/syria-distraction-our-moral-choices-home

[truebluegreen]

14. +1

[daleo]

12. And we knew Hussein had vast stores of weapons of mass destruction

Well, maybe not.

But we knew his soldiers thew babies out of incubators.

Well, maybe not.

But we knew the North Vietnamese were attacking U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Well, maybe not.

Etc.

[SamReynolds]

13. I just ask the question: "Who most wanted and would most benefit from such an attack?"

The answer at the very top of the spire is solely 'Al-Qaida'.

[Junkdrawer]

15. Several points: 1.) Saudis and Qataris are currently flooding Assad with mercenaries....

and they are just 2 of about a dozen non-US actors who could have pulled off this attack.

2.) Assad was winning and the opposition forces were at each other's throats.

3.) The DAY the UN CW inspection team arrived is the DAY Assad decides that, "what the hell, I'll gas a few rebel neighborhoods right down the street from the inspectors?"

Seems believing it WAS Assad is the crazy theory to me.

[iandhr]

16. THANK YOU for talking sense

You can be opposed to intervention and not subscribe to conspiracy theories.