• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Syrian Chemical attack was a False Flag

My favorite truther conspiracy so far isn't the false flag (that's just so passè), but that Putin allowed Trump to bomb Assad to make it seem that Trump isn't a Russian agent. Supposedly Putin ordered Assad to use chemical weapons just so that Trump could bomb Syria to "prove" that Trump wasn't a Russian agent.

legal insurrection


But anti-Trump hatred is so intense that the conspiracy theory has gone much further. The claim now is that the entire scenario of a chemical attack followed by a retaliatory airstrike was a conspiracy by Trump and Putin to help cover up Trump’s alleged allegiance to the Russian leader. The claim is that Trump and Putin hatched the scheme to have Assad use chemical weapons so that Trump could carry out a militarily insignificant attack that would allow Trump to say that he is not in Putin’s pocket.

While I don’t know if she started it (WaPo says it started here), I first saw the conspiracy theory promoted on Twitter by Louise Mensch, who already has gained infamy for bizarre anti-Trump conspiracy theories. Mensch has a large Twitter following, and regularly claims Trump has committed treason, will be impeached and will go to jail.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think it is necessary a question of false flag. In my case it is a question of evidence.
Do i think it is far far more likely that it was the Russian/Assad than the rebel ? Sure I do. But it is not beyond the rebel to capabilities to produce Sarin or have stolen stocks from Assad's forces, and before throwing accusation around and bombing around a country, I would like to see more evidence than a flight path. For example an exploded bomb : Sarin munition do not look like normal bombs , even after impact.

That is what I was contesting in that thread : everybody was immediately jumping on the "it is Assad" gun (or the russian) without really much evidence, especially due to the fog of war, and especially there does not seem to be any gain from bombing a population randomly, especially with a chemical weapon (does not even seem to have been used as interdiction weapon for an offensive).

I am not sure I would call that "supporting false flag" though and some of the cited people in that article voiced similar concern.
 
My conspiracy theory stems from this seeming to be an effective strike. Previous gas incidents appear to have been relatively ineffective, and involved more munitions. From what I have read the seems to be a single strike by a single fast jet. Someone has developed a far more effective gas delivery system and wanted it tested, my guess is this was a deniable act by the Russians, this may be why it is being taken far more seriously.
 
Planigale said:
My conspiracy theory stems from this seeming to be an effective strike. Previous gas incidents appear to have been relatively ineffective, and involved more munitions. From what I have read the seems to be a single strike by a single fast jet. Someone has developed a far more effective gas delivery system and wanted it tested, my guess is this was a deniable act by the Russians, this may be why it is being taken far more seriously.
Click to expand...

Previous attacks used chlorine, this attack used Sarin, which is much more toxic. This is the first confirmed use of sarin in Syria since 2013.
 
Degeneve said:
The tests made in Turkey on victims of the gassing have been monitored by the WHO: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-sarin-gas-was-used-at-syria-chemical-attack
Click to expand...


That's what "monitored" means:

Hürriyet said:
World Health Organization (WHO) spokesman Tarik Jasarevic told AFP in Geneva following Bozdağ’s remarks that “a WHO person was there at the time of the autopsy but had no role in the autopsy or investigation,” adding that it was not part of the WHO’s mandate to participate in such autopsies.
Click to expand...
 
The term "False Flag" cannot be applied here in its strict sense as we haven't actually seen a "flag", let alone a "false" one, in this attack.
I am of course not literally talking of flags; just that the nature of a false flag is that the attacker in one way or another "dresses up" as some other acting party in an effort to consciously mislead the public or the victim.

So far, what we have is some evidence of a release of Sarin gas which killed and injured a number of people in a certain location, and we have evidence that Syrian air force fighters flew near or over that location at or about the same time.

I can think of several possible theories that would be consistent with that evidence (and perhaps some of you know of more evidence that would rule out one or the other theory - let's hear it then):
  1. Syrian air force intentionally threw Sarin ammunition
  2. Syrian air force threw conventional bombs, which accidentally hit Sarin ammunition on the ground
  3. Syrian air force threw conventional bombs, rebel (or other) forces on the ground then released Sarin gas to make it appear as if the Syrians did it (that would then be a "false flag" incident)
  4. Syrian air force threw nothing, forces on the ground released Sarin just so, and it may be coincidence that SAF flew above, or a false flag.
  5. Syrian air force did nothing or threw conventional bombs, while a third party (IS? Kurds? Russia? Turkey? Iran? USA? The Vatican?) fired Sarin ammunition on location. Again, this could either be a deliberate or a chance coincidence with the Syrian overflight.
Apparently, all member of the UN Security Council are now in favour of a UN-sponsored investigation, but they can't agree on each other's Resolution. Seems like somebody has something to hide.
 
Man it makes no sense that Assad would do this. To what? Kill 30 people? I'll believe he did, but it just makes no sense. And "because he's evil" is not a great answer. There are lots of ways to kill 30 people and still be evil.
 
Caper said:
Man it makes no sense that Assad would do this. To what? Kill 30 people? I'll believe he did, but it just makes no sense. And "because he's evil" is not a great answer. There are lots of ways to kill 30 people and still be evil.
Click to expand...

All warfare is terrorism: the aim is not to kill all enemies, bit to subdue them through fear and terror, to make them yield to your will.

Chemical weapons used like this may not be greatly effective at raising the fatality count, but they are frightning. A population made dull and indifferent to killing agents that go "bang" may experience a new, higher level of fear if you change the method.
Also, an element of irrationality, which, too, tends to frighten.

I am not saying Assad did it, or that sheer terror was his intention, but this is at least one possibility to consider.
 
Caper said:
Man it makes no sense that Assad would do this. To what? Kill 30 people? I'll believe he did, but it just makes no sense. And "because he's evil" is not a great answer. There are lots of ways to kill 30 people and still be evil.
Click to expand...


My opinion, and I obviously may be wrong, is that Assad was testing the waters. Would Trump be another Obama pointlessly talking up "red lines" and "consequences" while fruitlessly standing by, or would he actually do something?

The question is, though, now what? I see the need to try to prevent the spread and use of WMD, but the problem is that there is no right side in this conflict. Should we support the fascist thug who has no problems killing hundreds of thousands of his own people to keep his grasp on power, or the collection of terrorist groups who want to take over to establish another outpost of their Caliphate in order to have another base to launch attacks on the West from? Or stay out of it completely and watch as more people caught in the middle die and the chaos possibly spread to other countries in the Middle East?
 
Oystein said:
All warfare is terrorism: the aim is not to kill all enemies, bit to subdue them through fear and terror, to make them yield to your will.

Chemical weapons used like this may not be greatly effective at raising the fatality count, but they are frightning. A population made dull and indifferent to killing agents that go "bang" may experience a new, higher level of fear if you change the method.
Also, an element of irrationality, which, too, tends to frighten.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the effects of Sarin? From Wikipedia:

Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the person will have difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As they continues to lose control of bodily functions, they may vomit, defecate and urinate. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the person becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms.

It's an especially horrible way to die and it has effect on survivors above and beyond any effect a conventional munition can hope to achieve. The death toll from these attacks may be small, but the crucial effect is that on the survivors.
Not to mention it produces a large number of injured - some 600 in this case - some of whom will have lasting physical consequences, to say nothing about psychological ones.

As a terror weapon it is orders of magnitude more effective than conventional explosives. This alone makes Sarin a weapon of choice for Assad.

McHrozni
 
cmikes said:
The question is, though, now what? I see the need to try to prevent the spread and use of WMD, but the problem is that there is no right side in this conflict. Should we support the fascist thug who has no problems killing hundreds of thousands of his own people to keep his grasp on power, or the collection of terrorist groups who want to take over to establish another outpost of their Caliphate in order to have another base to launch attacks on the West from? Or stay out of it completely and watch as more people caught in the middle die and the chaos possibly spread to other countries in the Middle East?
Click to expand...

There are no good answers on Syria. None. Assad can't rule the country without a genocide any more than the rebels can break him as long as he has the backing of Russia and Iran.

Best choice? Support the weakest party and prevent it from losing to prolong the war, bleed Assad, Iran and Russia and wait for an opportunity? It's the most rational and least moral choice I suppose.

McHrozni
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom