First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply What If The Chemical Attack Was Not Asad's Doing? What If It Was The Rebels?
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
I'm gonna start by pointing out that it's pure speculation, but it's speculation based on known facts. There's a couple of reasons I feel that it's possible. I'm not saying this is what happened, but there are a few things that really stink about this whole situation.

Russia claims that the air strike was done using conventional weapons that struck a secret manufacturing facility that was producing sarin nerve gas.

What makes this explanation plausible is this.

1) Casualties was less than a hundred. When I heard of the nerve agent attack, I was expecting to hear numbers up in the hundreds, or thousands.

2) It was localized, meaning it happened in only one part of town.

3) Asad is not afraid to drop bombs on neighborhoods. He drops bombs on apartment buildings, hospitals, shopping malls, etc., attacking wide areas.

4) Given this info, you'd think that the casualty rate should have been much, much higher. The casualty rate should have been from five hundred to a thousand, and the casualties should have been spread over a wide area.

5) The casualties happened in a small area and was contained to less than a hundred victims.

6) Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that got us into a second Iraq War? We never found any, huh?

Now, it is already suspected that the CIA and the NSA, and possibly the FBI have been leaking stuff illegally to the public, to try to damage the president and his cabinet. (Why are they suspected? It's because they are the only ones with the tools, training, expertise, and the assets to dig up stuff, make up stuff, twist up stuff, and leak it out without getting caught. Who watches the watcher? Right?)

This is something I can totally see the CIA doing:

A) Helping the rebels set up a sarin nerve agent factory... Maybe nearby a school (number of children being the victims compared to adult victims. Or maybe the cameras concentrated on filming child victims?)...

B) Then leak that info to the Russians, who then tell Asad about it.

C) Asad then takes out the sarin nerve gas factory.

D) President Trump is told that Asad used chemical weapons, is shown video of dead or dying children, and is set off.

E) Trump orders a punitive missile strike, cause he's righteously pissed.

Why would the CIA do this?

1) To drive a wedge between Putin and Trump. Remember? Trump wanted to try peaceful relations with Russia.

2) To steer Trump on the war path. Remember, Hilary was on the war path, while Trump was talking peace. Trump won, so no war with Russia.

3) Sabotage Trump's agenda, to end the New World Order, by getting him tangled up in it.
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
I would think about this point if this had been the first time Asad had done this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
25572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imouto Sanctuary
Online
Posted 4/8/17 , edited 4/8/17
Speculation is always based on some facts. That does not make it reasonable speculation.

39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17

The Ghouta chemical attack occurred in Ghouta, Syria, during the Syrian Civil War in the early hours of 21 August 2013. Two opposition-controlled areas in the suburbs around Damascus, Syria were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people[3] to 1,729.[14]



The UN investigation team confirmed "clear and convincing evidence" of the use of sarin delivered by surface-to-surface rockets,[18][30] and a 2014 report by the UN Human Rights Council found that "significant quantities of sarin were used in a well-planned indiscriminate attack targeting civilian-inhabited areas, causing mass casualties.


It's a good point, but look at the difference. This "chemical attack" hit only a small area, causing a relatively small number of casualties.

Chemical weapons are meant to be used over a wide area. That attack on Ghouta did just that. This latest one was almost pinpoint, by comparison.
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
this could have been a small test attack set up by Putin to gage how far he can push the west in the middle east
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17 , edited 4/8/17

uncletim wrote:

this could have been a small test attack set up by Putin to gage how far he can push the west in the middle east


I thought that, too. That can't be dismissed as a possibility.

However, that would work against Putin's desire to reduce tension between Russia and the U.S.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/haley-us-airstrikes-on-syria-were-a-very-measured-step/2017/04/07/243e56b8-1bc1-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_video.html

Notice the soft tone the Russian Federation ambassador to the U.N. used. "Hey! Let's work together to fight the terrorists! Let's work together."
Banned
22807 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
That is if you can take Putin at his word
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
Hypothetical Trump seems really easy to manipulate.
52512 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 4/8/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

Chemical weapons are meant to be used over a wide area. That attack on Ghouta did just that. This latest one was almost pinpoint, by comparison.


Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually correct.

What is more likely that this is some black covert op of the Deep State or this was an accident?

A single chemical bomb, misplaced or mislabeled is loaded onto a Syrian plane which drops it where it was supposed to drop a regular bomb and because it was just 1 bomb the results are isolated. Simplest explanation is generally true.

Oddly, a Russian connection is almost as simple.

Russia needs a way to divert attention away from itself and Trump. Whether they allowed the bomb to happen (or had Assad do it) or it was an accident they took advantage of does not really matter. It could be either. Same results. Russia gets to look indignant, then mad, then gets to play the peacemaker as tensions rise. They also get to reinforce Assad and send in more equipment. Assad gets 20 new aircraft to replace 20 old ageing and obsolete planes. Trump responds with the weakest military attack possible and hopefully makes him look better. But the beauty from Russia's point of view is that it does not matter if that works or not because they get what they want.

And Russia has always talked about working with terrorists, just that it has to be on their terms. But they've been talking like that for years.

And Russia does not need to lower tensions. As long as Congress does not find it's collective balls to declare war for only the 6th time in US history, Trump is the only one who can authorize any military response. Ergo tensions can be as high as anyone wants, as long as Trump is under Russian control it will not matter. Indeed if Trump ratchets up tension, it makes Russia look even better. It helps to conceal any links between them and Russia, and they get to play the innocent and talk about peace and working together and look all sad and teary eyed. Russia does this sort of thing very well, that is what the KGB did. And what is Putin? Oh yeah.

After all, if Trump wanted to look strong, just shooting some cruise missiles is not the way to do it. That is the standard US response to something it feels it should do something about but does not really want to do anything. When the US is serious, troops go down, otherwise, it is just window dressing. You do not send a message by attacking an airbase so effectively that it is back in operations within 24 hours. Maybe if you were Ghana, but not if you are the US.

5309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17
What if the rebels did it intentionally to paint it like Assad is the bad guy?

Maybe it was an accident and they took advantage.

Remember how in Star Wars Legends they (the Empire) made the destruction of Alderaan a biochemical weapons attack?
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/8/17 , edited 4/8/17

sundin13 wrote:

Hypothetical Trump seems really easy to manipulate.


Are you saying that President Trump should distrust his own intelligence services? The same intelligence services that are suppose to keep the president informed about events around the world, provide insightful analysis, and be honest with the president? The same intelligence services that have been caught leaking secret White House information ever since he became President?

When he said he couldn't trust them, he was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Now he's trying to show faith in them, and he's pegged as easily manipulable.
15750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 4/9/17 , edited 4/9/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


sundin13 wrote:

Hypothetical Trump seems really easy to manipulate.


Are you saying that President Trump should distrust his own intelligence services? The same intelligence services that are suppose to keep the president informed about events around the world, provide insightful analysis, and be honest with the president? The same intelligence services that have been caught leaking secret White House information ever since he became President?

When he said he couldn't trust them, he was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats. Now he's trying to show faith in them, and he's pegged as easily manipulable.


No, I just find this image hilarious:

Trump is sitting at a table, reflecting on how bad of an idea it would be to go to war with Syria. He knows that its a really bad idea and he has made it clear many times. One of his intelligence officers walks in.

"Sir, we have news," he says.

Trump frowns at him.

"Theres been an attack in Syria. A chemical attack."

Trump says "Attacking Syria would be a mistake and it isn't our job to be the world police."

"Take a look at this, sir." The man slides a picture across the table. Its a kid, covered in ketchup with badly photoshopped wounds.

"My God," Trump whispers. "Who did this?"

"It was Syria, sir."

"Then," he pauses. "Fire the missiles!"

"Sir, we can't just fire missiles. What would we even target?"

"I don't care! JUST FIRE ZE MISSILES!"

And suddenly we are firing missiles at Syria, hitting fuck all. The way your OP paints the picture of Trump makes him seem rash and impulsive. Like, all you have to do to make him start a war is say "Look at the children," and all of the sudden he is having fits. He gets angry easily, and instead of thinking logically about a situation, he jumps to the angry revenge response. That is the picture of someone who is easy to manipulate. Someone emotional and impulsive. It is much harder to manipulate someone who takes their time with the data and thinks about the most logical recourse in a calm state of mind.
47460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 4/9/17

sundin13 wrote:

Hypothetical Trump seems really easy to manipulate.


Well China have said that they think he'll be easy to manipulate, so there's that. But regardless I'd say Trump is the kind of person who acts out on impulse rather then calculated action, something we can easy see by the way he got chosen
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/9/17
Lots of people are saying that President Trump put the United States at War with Syria.... That was not a War, that was a targeted attack. A long line of presidents have done targeted strikes on countries for years, in the past. The president has the authority to order attacks in order to forward U.S. interests around the world, interests such as telling rogue governments that using WMD's is not tolerated, without Congress declaring war.

War is a long drawn out series of many battles that involves troops on the ground killing enemy troops, conquering territory, and defeating an enemy government. We aren't doing that. War can only be "declared" by Congress. In fact, the president can send in troops to conduct a long "Peace Keeping operations," even if Congress hasn't declared war, however, Congress could choose not to pay for it, by not budgeting funds for it when the president asks for funds.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/when-congress-once-used-its-powers-to-declare-war

Examples of wars that were fought without a declaration from Congress, Korean War, Vietnam War.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 4/15/17 , edited 4/15/17
O.K., so now my hypothetical is starting to happen in a sense. Syria is denying responsibility, and blaming the rebels. Vladimir Putin at first had demanded that the U.N. inspect the site of the incident to determine if the rebels really were building WMDs there, but he backed off of that (maybe he thinks that Assad really did do it).

Assad, meanwhile is saying that the whole thing was made up. The U.N. is demanding access to the air field to look at the damage and look for signs of WMDs.

They could do that at the attack site. At the attack site is the bomb case that released the chemical agents. IF THE SYRIANS REALLY DID ATTACK WITH SARIN GAS, then the bomb case is still there, with trace amounts of the nerve agent still in it. Case closed.

Instead, they want to inspect the airfield from which the mission was launched. If the U.N. goes to the attack site, will they not find the bomb case? The bomb case should be crumpled, and ripped, but still there. Chemical gas bombs dropped by plane or launched by rocket do not disintegrate the way a high explosive bomb does. They should find it at the target scene.

That area is deep in rebel held territory. It should be easy for the U.N. to get in there and be led to the chemical bomb case. CASE CLOSED.

Putin is denying the U.N. the chance to inspect the airfield, and NOT insisting they inspect the target site. At the same time, the U.N. is only demanding access to the airfield but making no moves to inspect the target site.

Why?

Putin does not trust Assad, and is afraid the U.N. will find the bomb case. On the other hand, the U.N. is afraid of NOT finding the bomb case. And instead find evidence of a WMD manufacturing facility....

There is one small hole in my theory. The Russians share the airfield with the Syrians. You'd think they would know what the Syrians were doing... Yeah? Maybe that's why Putin is denying the U.N. access to the airfield, and not insisting the U.N. inspect the target site....

But the U.N. could so easily inspect the target site and find the bomb case! CASE CLOSED!!! Yet they won't go there.... Why not?
21781 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 4/16/17
It's quite possible. Syria is such as mess with multiple news sources and governments saying contrary things, not to mention many factions with many of those made up of smaller groups with very different ideologies. I feel like its hard to even know what to believe is true and what is false in regards to the conflict. I mean you have the Assad Regime killing innocents, Al Nursa, ISIS, Sunni Militias, and Syrian rebels (made up of many different groups) killing each other with civilians getting taken out in the process. For arguments sake, if it turned out one of the many other factions carried out the chemical attack I wouldn't be all that surprised.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.