As former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has put it:
…chemical attacks had been occurring inside Syria on a regular basis… International investigations of these attacks produced mixed results, with…the majority being attributed to anti-regime fighters, in particular those affiliated with Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate.
Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible…
A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement…
The Russian Ministry of Defense has claimed that Liwa al-Aqsa [anti-Assad jihadists] was using facilities in and around Khan Sheikhoun to manufacture crude chemical shells and landmines…
Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend.
If…the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.
Emphasis added. Although the article is at PuffHo and written by a sex offender (teenage girls), it’s a detailed article and worth reading in full.
So, there’s that. The whole thing could have been an accident, when a Syrian government jet did a conventional attack on a facility where the rebels were storing their own, illegal, home-grown(?) chemical weapons.
On the other hand, we have Defense Secretary Mattis stating, “The Syrian regime attacked its own people with chemical weapons. I have personally reviewed the intelligence and there is no doubt the Syrian regime is responsible for the decision to attack and for the attack itself.”
Fifteen years ago, deciding whether to believe the U.S. defense secretary would have been easy: Just believe him! But, disturbingly, Mattis’ briefing gave almost no supporting details – for a story which makes little sense on its surface.
And a lot has changed, in the last 15 years. We now know to a certainty that the U.S. intelligence agencies get things wrong or even mislead on purpose.
- Most recently, the proverbial “17 intelligence agencies” supported highly doubtful claims of Russian election hacking.
- Also, they leaked surveillance information in an effort to stoke fires of McCarthyism (hysteria) against a newly-elected President – who, it seemed at the time, wouldn’t go along with the agencies’ desire to attack Syria.
As such, I’m not comforted to know that Mattis “personally reviewed the intelligence” (a fancy way of saying just that he read the agency reports). I remain a skeptic of the official story. As always, feel free to disagree or to tell me what I missed, in the comments.
As to the larger picture: Trump says, “We’re not going into Syria.” But… Spicer is comparing Assad to Hitler and Nikki Haley is still talking Syria regime change. As is McCain. Yuck.
UPDATE: Zero Hedge lists more reasons to question the official story, including:
- Evidence that it was anhydrous ammonia or chlorine, not sarin. Supposedly, the “first responders” handled the victims without gloves, which should have killed them (if it was sarin).
- A statement from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), claiming that local U.S. Army officers in Syria agree with the accidental-release theory (mainly faulting the rebels).
There have been 4 chemical attacks prior to the most recent. Three of those four are attributed to Assad’s regime. One to ISIS. Also, take note that I deal with Alex Jones and Ron Paul’s (ZeroHedge) conspiracy theories here, and include damning pictoral images as well: “False Flag” Conspiracies All the Rage – Syria Edition
Here is the raw picture from my post for ease of viewing: PICTURE
The false flag theories arise from a “Cui bono?” type of anaysis; the observation that the jihadist rebels gained much more from the attack than Assad did.
What I’m pointing at today is different: indications that the Syrian government did indeed attack – but with conventional weapons, on a facility where rebel chemical weapons were stored, and then released as damage in the attack. Call it the “accidental release” theory.
It would be fair to go back to the “cui bono” analysis and point out that, if the Syrian government attacked a rebel facility, then they had something to gain from the attack, after all. But it’s odd, how our media & leaders somehow never mentioned that Assad was attacking a jihadist military facility. They always made it sound like he bombed a civilian suburb or village. You know, like Bana when she was getting a measles shot & lollipop from Doctors Without Borders.
And it still doesn’t mean the Syrian government intentionally used chemical weapons. The whole thing could be a semi-accidental mess. In which the jihadist rebels are partly (if not mostly) to blame.
In any event, President Trump should think much longer and harder before invading Syria to effect “regime change”, than McCain or Nikki Haley or Hillary or Lindsey Graham or CNN would have us all think.
Scott Ritter is a pile of rancid goat dung and only the Huffington Post, MSNBC and CNN could stand his stench.
I don’t buy the Powell Doctrine, “You break it, you fix it.”
At this point, Syrian “regime-change” can be affected by “degrading their command structure” in repeatedly blowing-up Assad’s bedroom with Tomahawks until we get “lucky”. Let the Syrians and their patrons sort-out the mess.
See, I would have added one of my neat little videos to illustrate this post.
https://youtu.be/DOo6ZAh–A4
But that’s because I’m a less serious person than Jeff.
🙂 But what is the box saying?
There are eyewitnesses on the ground, satellite evidence and tracking of flight plans, covert witnesses confirming Russia on the airfield, pictorial evidence, covert testimony, a history in using them, etc.
Ted B – OK fine, but the question still remains: What comes after Assad?
The problem in all this is that the Syrian “rebels” are jihadists. They ARE flavors of al Qaeda, ISIS, Iran/Hezbollah. So, our only real choices are:
1. Help various jihadists to beat Assad.
2. Help Assad to beat various jihadists.
3. Put 150,000+ boots on the ground to nation-build a “moderate” Syria after we wipe out Assad (first) and the various jihadists (second/maybe).
Take your pick. Don’t pretend we have any other options.
– Obama chose 1.
– McCain / Hillary / Graham / Controlled Media / Deep State want 3.
– You propose a variation of 1.
– Rejecting both 1 and 3, I must face up to implicitly choosing 2.
…all confirming that the Syrian government launched a strike on a jihadist military facility, whereupon chemical weapons were released; more likely *rebel* weapons on the ground that were damaged by the strike; less likely weapons dropped by the Syrian government.
does it make a difference who did it, they are both bad guys.
People are always forgetting that Trump is a businessman & wrote that thing, Art of the Haggle, as a form of self-expression. He asks for the top price [negotiation], hopes to get the best deal/settlement & the result is acceptable or not. He exhibited his resolve to punish a dictator in Syria, showed he means business [due diligence, corporate report]. We can only deal with an established state actor, Assad. It doesn’t matter who’s gassed who on a continual basis. Assad is terrible, his father was worse. The Israelis have gone ahead & bombed Assad previously. This is all a movement of pieces to achieve a result. You can’t negotiate with ISIS terrorists, you can punish a desperate monster that’s fighting them. It keeps them all at odds with each other & you wait for settlement. There’s not other way to deal with the Arabs.
Same kind of situation with North Korea & China. They’re all scrambling as Trump’s Armada steams towards them & the Japanese are all worked up & tied to us in the whole matter.
I know there’s this thing right now with conspiracy nuts that the deep state has taken over & Trump is now under their spell. Has it even been a quarter of a year yet since the inauguration? Trump’s figured out he’s the president & all sorts of buttons to push. Things that Obongo Hussein didn’t even bother to look at. Trump is pushing buttons, we’re the only superpower on the planet [despite all sorts of idiots who phlegm-ishly goof out that China & Russia are powerful with their ridiculous single aircraft carriers each. What we say is the law & Trump is saying it.
Syria. They’re a sideshow. The Israelis don’t even care at this point, they’re just watching the idiotic arabs do their usual thing of self-slaughter. We were obligated to respond to chemical weapon use, despite Obama’s inactions. It didn’t matter who we hit. We sent 59 missiles in as a demonstration.
Now we have esteemed pundits saying that when Trump’s Armada arrives & Kim sets off a nuke test or fires a missile into the sea & we do nothing, then there’s going to be a problem. Who are these people making these 3rd rate predictions & exclamations?
I am mixed about Syria. I think the best person for the job is Obama. /s According to the Leftists Obama is perfect and he won a Nobel Peace Prize. Lets just toss him out over Syria without a parachute – he lands heads up Putin makes Assad step down – he lands tails up Trump apologizes for being hasty and agrees to go through the evidence again. I think both Putin and Trump would agree to it.
Plus this will save all of us from more Obama BS with his plans to go to Germany to have a love in with Merkel about globalism on the pretense of celebrating 500 years of Protestsnt Reformation (and we all know what Christisnity means to Obama /s).
Sandra, LOL 🙂
Hanover:
– Who was behind the campaign to convince us, on very shoddy “intelligence”, that it had to be Russia who hacked the DNC?
– Who was behind the campaign of “intelligence” leaks, having no substance, to convince us that Trump had to have colluded with Russia?
– Who wanted Hillary and a war in Syria, failed to prosecute Hillary despite her massive obstructions of justice, was furious when Hillary lost, then tried to undermine Trump, and recently did a 180 and praised Trump – just because he bombed Syria?
The answer is: The upper bureaucrats of the permanent U.S. intelligence and foreign policy establishments, and their associated politicians and media.
I dislike the term “neo-cons” and John F. Kennedy famously referred to them (or at least the CIA) as “a state within the state”, so yes, I plan to continue calling them the Deep State.
If you want to stick your head in the ground about their existence and nonstop interference in U.S. politics, you have the right.
I couldn’t say if they have completely. I’m open to your argument (and others’) that Trump is his own man. We shall see.
Exactly:
4. Back the Mid-East as it is to wake up and clean out their own sewage.
Egypt’s latest iteration of Sadat and Murbarak has got it right. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc. have grudgingly come to respect Israel. The Syrians without Assad have little concern about Israel. Iraq has come a very long way toward the reality of Israel. It is Iraq and the fundamentalist crazies who are the biggest thorn in keeping the Mid-East from moving on and becoming more in sync with the Western world.
Trump had blamed Assad for the use of gas, but it really doesn’t matter. He took the easiest available open window and threw missiles into the fray. Now Tillerson is talking it out with Russia and messages are being delivered.
Trump is rounding up the resident dictators and giving them the roadmap for getting themselves out of their mess. When they turn on the Islamic crazies themselves, they will help all of the EU and the US to deal with sorting out the “religion of peace” from the theocrats.
It is right to be skeptical about who did what and why. However, Assad is the one terrorist in Syria who is not a jihadist and nearly every group fighting him is equal to the terrorism of Assad. Assad is “supportable” to the extent that he is battling the jihadists. None of them can bring anything but chaos as the jihadist groups begin to battle one another. Assad is not going to win and bring peace to Syria. No country in the Mid-East respects Assad or wants anything to do with him. Iran is using him as a study model in the way Hitler studied the civil war in Spain.
Trump is not going to send troops into Syria. He learned from Reagan’s critical error in Lebanon. Since then, Israel has added a third of century to its presence in the Mid-East. And the Mid-East has largely become tired of the “kill the Jews” rhetoric. No one wants the Palestinians and their whole Hezbollah victimhood. Yemen is yet to be cleared out, but that is a small job compared to staving off Iran. Trump is not going to send troops into Syria, because there is no objective reason to do so.
I learned a lesson from going after Saddam and trying to pacify Iraq. The DemonizinRats screamed about the intelligence Bush 43 used as a pretext and they used their narrative to, as Teddy Kennedy promised, to “make Iraq Bush’s Viet Nam.” What I learned was that we rid Iraq of its meddling in the Mid-East and fanning the flames of attack on Israel and showed every single Mid-East dictator aware of how fragile his hold on his own realm really is.
I learned another lesson from the Arab Spring. If you empower the Muslim Brotherhood, genocide and lunacy is not far behind.
Another lesson I learned from assassinating Qaddafi was that toppling the dictator must be followed by occupation or you leave chaos in your wake.
Libya is a contained basket case because its neighboring dictatorships are not letting its problems spill into their slums.
This is what Trump and his team and the allies that Trump is bundling together among the dictators of the Mid-East understand in common. There is no room in the Mid-East for other options under this scenario. When the time comes for Assad to get a villa in France, the Lebanonization of Syria will begin.
Will it work?
There’s little reason for Syria to survive as a unitary state in the first place…similarly Iraq, Kuwait or Yemen. Why are we straight-jacked by the corrupt Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916? Even the Lebanese spend half their spare-time still dreaming of killing each-other. The Turks and the Kurds hate each-other. And the Persians still long for the return of their Empire.
“Nation building” is a cruel farce. “Snap elections” and a fast return to sovereignty doesn’t work. At a certain-point, just let them kill each-other until they get tired, or the gore rises to the point they stop.
@ILoveCapitalism — there is zero evidence that they were released from a cache. There is evidence that chemical weapons were on the base in containers that are used for storing for transfer to aviation weapons.
Even Hardcastle and McCormick would pick up on this.
PG, so to summarize…
– I’m taking an “accidental” view of the incident. Assad launched a typical airstrike on a jihadist facility. The jihadists – who are known to have chemical weapons, to make their own, etc. – had some lying around. They happened to be damaged and happened to release poison. No one meant it to happen (except, of course, that jihadist PR exploited it after-the-fact).
– While you are taking a “conspiratorial” view of the incident. It was a plot between Assad and the Russians to accomplish… what now? What, beyond suddenly uniting the world against them?
@ILoveCapitalism,
Right, Russians (known to be at the airfield) probably helped put the chemical bombs on the plane from their (Russia’s) own chemical filled barrels known to be on the same airfield (pictures and satellite)…. then yes, it is two countries conspiring together to drop chemical weapons for a fourth time during this war.
I think you should rename your handle from ILoveCapitalism to IHateFacts.
And, the name-calling comes out. Yawn.
Thanks for your contribution up to #19. Sorry (sort of) that I couldn’t gratify you.
I tend to think the chemical attack wasn’t Assad’s doing… why would he?
And, while no expert on chemical weapons, the couple of pictures I saw showed people with blister and burn wounds. From what reading I did, sarin is nasty stuff but blistering and burns weren’t mentioned. Ammonia, OTOH, can deliver nasty burns.
Aside: I don’t see why anyone has a problem with the term “deep state”. My definition is simple: the permanent bureaucracy – the people conservatives have been bitching about for decades. The bureaucracy is the source of millions of rules and regulations with the force of law, written by unknown and unaccountable people. It also has influence over policy, foreign and domestic, with few (visible) checks as to accuracy and motive.
Chuck Schumer, Moron-NY, had a point when he warned that Trump could get into trouble with the intel community. If there’s an amendment transferring accountability and “control” of elected officials from the people to the CIA/NSA/FBI…, I must’ve been asleep when it was ratified.
@KCROB, why did he the three other times previously?
Here’s wiki on the previous attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack (it goes on to discuss the others)
Note the M.O. was different: Sarin, delivered on rockets. Also, the Syrian government denied responsibility and, to further its case, afterward agreed to turn over “every bit” of its chemical weapons. And turned over so much that, until a few days ago, people thought it was every bit.
I won’t call that a sign of remorse. I won’t even call them rational actors. But certainly, they showed strategic awareness. A distinct awareness that further chemical attacks would be very much against their strategic interest in terms of uniting the world against them, drawing a response from foreign powers, etc.
No one can say “They’re too crazy to think about that stuff” – when, clearly, they did/do think about it.
@24 – Thanks, Jeff. Will read to get more background.
@23: PG, we’re not talking about previous three (or more) occasions.
I just don’t think the US should embark on anymore wars in the ME unless we 1) identify an actual US interest, 2) identify the enemy (I don’t know who the good guys are in Syria), 3) have a fair idea of who/what will fill the power vacuum (is Libya, or Europe, better off now without Quadaffi?), and 4) fight to win (enemy surrenders unconditionally or is exterminated).
An argument could be made that outside help for Syrian rebels has simply extended the conflict and caused more misery.
So far, our successes in the ME (every president since Carter has launched military operations in the ME) are few (zero?) and we usually have no idea what realistic success even looks like.
The west (including the US) sat on its hands during the Sudanese civil war (300,000+ dead) and countless other conflicts. Ideally, we’d know how to go in and exterminate the bad guys and (magically) leave peace and prosperity behind… but we don’t
@15, ILC, I completely agree that there is a deep state & that there has been problems, to say the least. I’m (alluding) speaking about a couple of talk show hosts on conservative radio, outside GayPatriot, who now are of the opinion that the deep state has taken control of Trump & the government. Any government is going to have factions, which are always going to be fluid. I don’t see that Trump’s actions have anything to do with the deep state or any intel that they have provided.
I don’t purpose hide from what is & I don’t attack conservative bloggers. I would have hoped my previous comments in the past would have indicated the aforesaid. I comment on a post,then read or not, comments.
ILC,
I may be a bit lost in the back and forth here.
As I read your position, you believe there is no clear proof that the relationship between Assad and the gas attack is a fact. I agree that there is plenty of room for speculation and skepticism.
In my experience, “intentionality” based on possibility or probability, compelling as it may be, still does not equal fact based truth.
That said, I come from the school that meekly yields to “LaPlace’s Demon” in the realm of determinism:
More easily stated, causality, determinism and probability theory still crap out when applied to the precise mapping of free will. (It’s a Jesuit sort of mental incontinence, in my case.)
Eventually, maybe we can water board the facts out of someone in on the genesis of the deadly gas incident or we can find a video and forensic proof, but in the “grand scheme of things” it really doesn’t matter who created the opportunity for Trump to lower the boom. Chaos theory is a great parlor game, but it is unrelated to cause and effect in the realm of geopolitics.
Somehow children were gassed and Trump was moved to action.
So, Trump Tomahawked, Russia denied, Tillerson stood his ground and history turned the page.
Now what? Shall we call upon Hillary to declare: “What difference, at this point in time, does it make?” That ought “reset” things. Maybe O’Bambi could come forth and draw one of his lines.
Once we are all settled on just how this tragedy of dead babies was set in motion, will we be any wiser in terms of the escalation in the turgid chaos which overwhelms Syria?
In the final analysis, Trump is holding five aces and Assad and Putin are left bluffing. For Putin, the issue is whether this is the hill he wants to launch his nukes over. Assad’s only play is to hope that Tillerson shows up with an offer he can’t refuse.
If Assad exits, then unbridled chaos breaks out in Syria. When the Syria stalemate is broken, Putin has to put up or shut up. The whole Russia, Syria, Iran pyramid collapses.
Mr. Putin, please call your fortune cookie. And, oh, by the way, the Chinese are not the least bit interested in your silly-ass problems.
@KCRob — the point is you could not tell me his motives or what he thought he thought his gains would be… JUST like you can’t psychoanalyze Assad’s s motives or his thinking on this action. If you had a degree in psychology, and had many private sessions with this power hungry dictator, your point of what he would gain or what possibly his motivations would be may be a legitimate conversation. But untill then, to say his motives are probably the same as the other three, which seem to be in line with his dictatorial past of both he and his father…. THAT is all we can say. To say otherwise is to place some meta-narrative psychobabble onto the situation — in contradistinction to the plain evidence.
I just think we should never have made the Saudis wealthy. Big mistake. But all of this crap has to do with who gets to control fossil fuels into Europe, for the West, and the rest of the world’s buyers, in general. And I suppose it does matter.
Cos, otherwise, the controllers can be Arabs. It can be Persians. It can be Russians. Or, it can be the USA. Luckily so far, China isn’t involved, yet. (Maybe b/c we gave them Africa?)
Hanover – Cool, no problem. I was just indicating that I like the term (Deep State). I think it’s valid. I can agree with you, that some may over-use it or be too conspiracy-minded.
Heliotrope:
Correct. I don’t rule it out. But I question the official story and as well, the general stampede to war (coming from McCain, Graham, Rubio, Hillary, and some elements of the Trump administration).
It matters, IF we end up going to war under false pretenses.
Yes. If the anti-Assad jihadists are at fault for manufacturing, storing, or perhaps using chemical weapons, it would be helpful (in terms of dealing with reality / doing the right thing) to have that fact on people’s minds.
It would also be helpful in guessing at Putin’s true state of mind: if he is going “Darn, these clever and virtuous Americans saw through evil ol’ me again”, or if he is going “Darn, these sick Americans are aggressively insane, the way they’re trying to lie and put blame on me – I have to stop them.”
Depends what you mean by “exits”. If we merely killed Assad, he would then have a Russian-backed successor; nothing changes.
PG:
You mean, the other three where, in point of FACT, Assad ended up going “Right, I have to stop doing these attacks – I hereby turn over most (if not all) of my chemical weapons, because I can see that it just makes no sense at all to unite the world against me” – Those other three?
@ILoveCapitalism… we have pictorial evidence from Al-Shayrat Airfield he did not give up all his chemical weapons. Not only that, but Obama officials knew he had them still… former deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken told the New York Times, “We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration.”
To quote as well the, Compliance With the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction Condition 10(C) Report,
What world do you live in?
ILC,
IF we go to war in Syria under any pretense – false or not -my faith in Trump will be seriously shaken.
My comments concerning Assad are based on the presumption that Trump will not go to war in Syria. I believe that he will continue to press the powers in the Mid-East to resolve the mess in Syria.
As to the war mongers like McCain and his puppet, I have yet to hear anything sentient come from them concerning the goals and the exit strategy. Perhaps they might go straighten up Libya first as a dry run for Syria and then move on to Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as I am concerned they are just Yahoos who can’t hold their sarsaparilla.
A Bhopal India safety engineer managed to kill 16,000 people without a single weapon. If Syria was not fake gas than it was normal ordinance hitting insecticide or gas caches.
Luckily the best response to a fake gas attack is a fake missile attack after you have warned the Russians so they can invite people from base to the local Piggly Wiggly for a BBQ. Since the missile strike happened when TRUMP was entertaining China it was most likely a message for China to deal with North Korea before we do.