Posted on 04/07/2017 9:31:04 AM PDT by Wolfie
OK, I'll Weigh In (Syria)
Oh hell, why not.
First things first: Who used chemical weapons in Syria recently?
The US says it was Assad.
Does anyone remember that Assad allegedly gave up all his chemical weapons? You forgot that story, right? It was touted as one of Obama's "wins"; in fact Susan Rice (yes, that Susan Rice who stands accused of "unmasking" Trump and his pals in "accidental" intelligence intercepts and spreading same all over the government to, some say, "encourage" leaks) said in January that the Obama Administration had secured the removal of all chemical weapons under Syrian government control.
Now maybe she was wrong and maybe she was lying. But if she wasn't wrong then obviously Assad didn't use what he didn't have.
And let me remind you that there were myriad news reports at the time (2014) that in fact those weapons were gone.
The salient question is this: Who actually used these weapons and where did they come from?
Let me remind you of a few other facts:
1. Assad is winning against the "rebels"; why would he use chemical weapons in a war he is winning when he knows that will bring immediate and serious problems for him? Assad is a five-alarm bastard but he is not stupid.
2. The "rebels" contain a very large contingent of ISIS backed or affiliated terrorists.
3. The "rebels" would love to see the US come blast their opponent who is beating them in their civil war. There's nothing like getting someone else to come blow up the guys who are trying to kill you, especially when you're losing!
4. The "rebels" don't give a damn about international law either (terrorists, remember, generally could give a crap about what anyone else thinks.)
The manifest weight of the publicly-visible evidence is that the rebels had motive and perhaps opportunity. Assad had no motive; he was winning and, according to Susan Rice as recently as January he had no opportunity either.
How do you use something you don't have?
So on a first-blush look I got two negative factors on one side and one positive and one neutral on the other. Without some pretty firm evidence I'd say the odds are far higher than the "rebels" used the chems than Assad did, but I don't have access to classified intelligence.
There are other issues too. I saw plenty of pictures of medic-type workers tending to people allegedly gassed but not wearing any sort of PPE. Folks, Sarin, if that's what was used (and it is what was claimed) is a long-persistence nerve agent. While the residue might not kill a medic after the fact it sure isn't anything good to be around or get on you and it does penetrate through unprotected skin. Would you go tend to those injured in a gas attack using a long-persistence agent without wearing full PPE?
Just asking, you know.
Now maybe it wasn't Sarin. Maybe it was chlorine or some other quick-dispersing light-molecule agent that has little residual risk. But we have been told it was Sarin, so who's lying and what are they lying about because I'm quite certain that no medic in his or her right mind is going to tend to neurological agent victims without taking appropriate precautions against becoming a victim themselves.
Given that we fired 59 cruise missiles (at what -- $2 million each?) resulting in a few blown up airplanes and concrete shelters, plus apparently a fuel depot on a Syrian airbase (but apparently not a destroyed runaway, I note) did we just witness a very expensive fireworks display "for show" or is there something to this?
And if the latter did we actually hit the guy who used chemical weapons or did we just provide military assistance to terrorists?
I'm not at all sure -- and that's not so good.
It's especially not so good, if you think about it, if Assad did use the chems. See, if he really did do it then he had them, which means Rice was either wrong or lied. Before you dismiss this as "politics as usual" let me remind you that we were also repeatedly assured that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapon, and that Obama prevented that from occurring, just as he "disarmed" Assad's chemical stockpile.
You might want to contemplate laying in backstock of SPF 50,000,000 Sunblock -- just in case Rice and the Press lied twice.
Exaclty!!!!
I’m growing more certain by the hour that this was nothing more than a made-for-TV production whose primary purpose was to convince dopey Americans that Trump is “doing something” ... in response to a made-for-TV production involving an alleged chemical attack in Syria earlier this week.
None of the responders wore protective gear.
They were hap hardly spraying the “victims” with water.
I smell bullshit...
This is a cogent and correct analyses. Note the real conservatives are out raged by this curve ball from left field. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/nigel-farage-right-wing-populists-turn-donald-trump-missile/
Only an idiot would think Assad responsible for the poison gas.
We (US CIA) has provided military assistance to terrorist rebels for many years, the only reason for the CIA facility in Benghazi was to support the backchannel supply of arms to the Syrian opposition. So much for that theory.
It matters little whether it was the Syrian government (Assad) or the rebels that did the gas attack. The perception is that it was Assad, and that presented Trump with a low-risk opportunity.
This whole thing may have been a “proxy” attack on NK, while avoiding the Chinese risk.
Whatever it was, clearly it was not weapon-grade sarin, VX, or related nerve agents where a few drops are sufficient to kill. It was probably low-grade precursor or a mixture of who-knows-what.
I’m with you there. Power does what it wants. Nothing we can do about it, but at least we can watch it on TV.
So all in all it does three things. One, makes Trump look good for sticking up for innocent civilians. Two, completely shuts down and controls the news narrative on the issue. Three, knocks down the whole meme of Russia controls Trump.
I would bet that Vlad and Trump hashed this out quite a bit beforehand.
The CIA has been so politicized and still remains under the control of Obama commissars, that Trump must be very skeptical of any “analysis” he is given.
Wow, Trump knows how to play the game. He gave air cover to Republicans and the Nuclear option. He sent a message to North Korea.
This is brilliance at its best. If you don’t believe the above then you are playing catch up.
Was that the same studio that produced the “fake” moon landing(s)? /s
I’m not sure what to think. I wouldn’t say I’m off the Trump Train but I’m not so sure this was a good idea.
Trump is still way better than the alternative.
Who knows? Maybe this will all work out in the end, I’m skeptical, but still, I’m open to that possibility.
But after these last few administrations, I have a pretty jaundiced eye.
Can we believe Israel?
Special Middle East report on the chemical attacks in Syria
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsBchlbdJdc
why throw out insults when we want the truth. Geezuz.
It doesn’t matter who used chemical weapons (or if anyone did or didn’t).
Not our country.
Not our religion.
Not our war.
I agree that Assad had nothing to gain from an attack and everything to lose. This doesn’t make much sense. But why didn’t he immediately publicly deny any involvement? He should have been screaming to the heavens that he didn’t order it. Unless I missed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.