Syria - Iraq 2.0?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker
It may be the view of Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, but the post was written by an anonymous contributor under the pseudonym Publius Tacitus, whose credentials (other than training at Fort McClellan) were not detailed.
It's an odd situation. The destruction of a weapons depot where people are working on chemical weapons certain could release deadly gases. And it is also the case that without analysis, it can be hard to tell the difference between nerve gas poisoning and pesticide poisoning.
So, then you have to look at motives and possibilities which include, but are not limited too:
1. Assad went rogue on the Russians. Hard to believe unless he sought to create a rift between then U.S. and Russia.
2. Somebody in the Syrian armed force went rogue.
3. Russia was on board with this attack - not likely.
4. It really was a resistance weapons facility or depot.
The problem now is that the Trump Administration basically did their Bugs Bunny Tasmanian Devil routine and burned every bridge in sight so that if it was possibility 1 or 2, it no longer matters.
The Trump Administration has gone from being pro-Russia to being about as hostile towards Russia as possible without actual combat.
tjohn said:
And it is also the case that without analysis, it can be hard to tell the difference between nerve gas poisoning and pesticide poisoning.
Turkey said that doctors there who performed autopsies on three victims believe the poison was sarin.
DaveSchmidt said:
tjohn said:
And it is also the case that without analysis, it can be hard to tell the difference between nerve gas poisoning and pesticide poisoning.
Turkey said that doctors there who performed autopsies on three victims believe the poison was sarin.
Did they perform lab work or detailed analysis of trace chemicals? If not, I would be skeptical of their conclusions since organo-phosphate pesticide poisoning can look like organo-phosphate nerve gas poisoning.
Certainly there is evidence that this chemical attack was deliberate. However, we have a one-sided argument like a trial where only the prosecution delivers their arguments.
I am amused that paulsurovell ignored my written comment about what I actually think about the situation (which comment he may or may not agree with). He focused on the cartoon, which pushed a button causing another dump of anti-anti-Trump commentary.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Not that this would be possible given his personality and attitude, but -
If Trump had instead presented a request to Congress for authorization (as a prelude and warning, not to automatically use it), spent time working for consensus from other nations, and put pressure on Russia, it would probably have had more of an effect than his one-off airstrike. Apparently, the base was back in business yesterday.
In response to your "Trump-Putin collusion" cartoon, here's a spot-on commentary excerpted from a larger, brilliant analysis of the Syrian strike by Glenn Greenwald:
https://theintercept.com/2017/...
6. Like all good conspiracy theories, no evidence can kill the Kremlin-controls-Trump tale.
Central to the conspiracy theories woven for months by Democrats is the claim that Putin wields power over Trump in the form of blackmail, debts or other leverage. As a result, this conspiracy theory goes, the Kremlin has now infiltrated American institutions of power and controls the U.S. Government, because Trump is unwilling – indeed, unable – to defy Putin’s orders.
Yet here is Trump – less than three months after being inaugurated – bombing one of the Kremlin’s closest allies, in a country where Russia has spent more than a year fighting to preserve his government. Will any of this undermine or dilute the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin controls the White House? Of course not. Warped conspiracy theorists are not only immune to evidence that disproves their theories but, worse, find ways to convert such evidence into further proof of their conspiracies.
Already, the most obsessive Democratic conspiracists have cited the fact that the U.S. military advised Russia in advance of the strikes – something they would have been incredibly reckless not to do – as innuendo showing that Trump serves Putin. If Trump tomorrow bombed Red Square, Democrats – after cheering him – would quickly announce that he only did so to throw everyone off the trail of his collusion with Putin.
As for what I think of the cartoon – I think it’s an amusing take on the state of discussion, which is due in no small part to the behavior and deliberate obfuscation by the Trump folks regarding their contacts and dealings with Russia and Russians. It also reflects something serious – of course the Russians were going to be tipped off in advance. That is how the armed forces of Russia and the U.S. have to deal with each other on a daily basis, as they are operating in the same theater of war but not otherwise coordinating. Our countries tell each other where our planes are going to fly and where we might have personnel. So advance word of incoming cruise missiles should have been taken into account when deciding to launch a “surprise attack” on a Syrian airfield. And the fact that it was a lot of “making boom noises” without much else to show for it, was the inevitable result.
That being said – I can disagree Trump’s unilateral decision to make an ultimately meaningless bombing run, without adopting the argument that Assad was “framed” and didn’t really use chemical weapons. One can criticize direct U.S. military action, without making excuses for a mass murderer as part of that criticism. Anyone who does the latter is insulting the memory and lives of the innocent Syrian victims (of ALL of Assad’s atrocities, be it chemical weapons, barrel bombs, or indiscriminate bombing such as in Aleppo), and that’s not what being “about peace” should be about at all, in my opinion.
paulsurovell said:
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. ...
tjohn said:
paulsurovell said:
How does one confirm point number 3?
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker
Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:
- The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
- The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
- The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
- There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
- We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
Start with a second source:
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell / special assistant to Chairman of Joint Chiefs Colin Powell:
http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...
LARRY WILKERSON: . . . In fact, most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the U.S. intelligence community, that what most likely happened -- and this intelligence, by the way, was shared with the United States, by Russia in accordance with the Deconfliction Agreement we have with Russia -- that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit. And had told both sides, Russia and the United States, that they were going to hit. This is the Syrian air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supplies in it, and, indeed, it probably did, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals. Or, possibly an alternative, they were phosphates for the cotton growing, fertilizing the cotton-growing region that's adjacent to this area. And the bombs hit, conventional bombs, hit the warehouse, and because of a very strong wind, and because of the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people. [. . .]
LARRY WILKERSON: . . . And I agree with the Russian ambassador, that it would be good if we had an internationally sponsored, hosted, UN, for example investigation, and the forensic team that would accompany that. But I don't think we're going to get that. And, by and large, I would think that the people who perpetrated this, shall we say, hoax, would have the area cleaned up as much as possible before such a team got there. So, I'm not sure that would do anything. As I said, in the bigger scheme of things, Paul, we kill more people with our airstrikes, incidental collateral damage, if you will, than this did, we did it most recently. And Assad has killed tens of thousands of people with his barrel bombs and his artillery and so forth. So, this is really not that significant an incident.
And yet, look what we did, Paul, we made it a Tonkin Gulf. We made it an Iraq WMD, so that we could make our strike. We had no concern with whether it was a genuine provocation or not. We just wanted something on which we could base our strike, and we got it.
paulsurovell said:
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell / special assistant to Chairman of Joint Chiefs Colin Powell:
http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...
LARRY WILKERSON: . . . In fact, most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the U.S. intelligence community, that what most likely happened -- and this intelligence, by the way, was shared with the United States, by Russia in accordance with the Deconfliction Agreement we have with Russia -- that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit. And had told both sides, Russia and the United States, that they were going to hit. This is the Syrian air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supplies in it, and, indeed, it probably did, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals. Or, possibly an alternative, they were phosphates for the cotton growing, fertilizing the cotton-growing region that's adjacent to this area. And the bombs hit, conventional bombs, hit the warehouse, and because of a very strong wind, and because of the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people. [. . .]LARRY WILKERSON: . . . And I agree with the Russian ambassador, that it would be good if we had an internationally sponsored, hosted, UN, for example investigation, and the forensic team that would accompany that. But I don't think we're going to get that. And, by and large, I would think that the people who perpetrated this, shall we say, hoax, would have the area cleaned up as much as possible before such a team got there. So, I'm not sure that would do anything. As I said, in the bigger scheme of things, Paul, we kill more people with our airstrikes, incidental collateral damage, if you will, than this did, we did it most recently. And Assad has killed tens of thousands of people with his barrel bombs and his artillery and so forth. So, this is really not that significant an incident.And yet, look what we did, Paul, we made it a Tonkin Gulf. We made it an Iraq WMD, so that we could make our strike. We had no concern with whether it was a genuine provocation or not. We just wanted something on which we could base our strike, and we got it.
At least Wilkerson is not suggesting that it might have been Israel conducting a "false flag" operation with a gas attack, like he did in 2013.
It seems like there are enough lingering questions to make one wonder. I can't imagine any scenarios where Russia would approve of the use of chemical weapons. I have heard some theories that Syria would do this to drive a wedge between Russia and the U.S., but things were actually looking pretty good for Assad. I suppose it could have been a rogue operation within the Syrian military - who knows what sort of chemical weapons the Syrian military still has. And there is always the possibility that this was a strike on a warehouse containing agricultural chemicals. As many a farm worker can tell you, agricultural pesticides can be plenty toxic to human beings.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell / special assistant to Chairman of Joint Chiefs Colin Powell:
http://therealnews.com/t2/inde...
LARRY WILKERSON: . . . In fact, most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the U.S. intelligence community, that what most likely happened -- and this intelligence, by the way, was shared with the United States, by Russia in accordance with the Deconfliction Agreement we have with Russia -- that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit. And had told both sides, Russia and the United States, that they were going to hit. This is the Syrian air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supplies in it, and, indeed, it probably did, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals. Or, possibly an alternative, they were phosphates for the cotton growing, fertilizing the cotton-growing region that's adjacent to this area. And the bombs hit, conventional bombs, hit the warehouse, and because of a very strong wind, and because of the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people. [. . .]LARRY WILKERSON: . . . And I agree with the Russian ambassador, that it would be good if we had an internationally sponsored, hosted, UN, for example investigation, and the forensic team that would accompany that. But I don't think we're going to get that. And, by and large, I would think that the people who perpetrated this, shall we say, hoax, would have the area cleaned up as much as possible before such a team got there. So, I'm not sure that would do anything. As I said, in the bigger scheme of things, Paul, we kill more people with our airstrikes, incidental collateral damage, if you will, than this did, we did it most recently. And Assad has killed tens of thousands of people with his barrel bombs and his artillery and so forth. So, this is really not that significant an incident.And yet, look what we did, Paul, we made it a Tonkin Gulf. We made it an Iraq WMD, so that we could make our strike. We had no concern with whether it was a genuine provocation or not. We just wanted something on which we could base our strike, and we got it.
At least Wilkerson is not suggesting that it might have been Israel conducting a "false flag" operation with a gas attack, like he did in 2013.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/w...
He said "we don't know who used the sarin" and cited three possibilities: Assad or false-flags by either Israel or the Syrian opposition.
His third possibility was correct:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Scott Ritter is a third expert to challenge the official Syria chemical weapons story. Ritter was a UN inspector of weapons in Iraq, including chemical weapons. Ironically, Wilkerson helped Colin Powell prepare his presentation on Iraq WMDs at the UN, while Ritter was adamant that Iraq had been disarmed of WMDs.
These are two experts of a longer, substantive article that is well-worth reading:
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 Russians are correct, and 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 . . .
. . .And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account. Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by “White Helmet” rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the “White Helmets” is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a “White Helmet” base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.
The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)
More than 20 victims of the Khan Sheikhoun incident were transported to Turkish hospitals for care; three subsequently died. According to the Turkish Justice Minister, autopsies conducted on the bodies confirm that the cause of death was exposure to chemical agents. The World Health Organization has indicated that the symptoms of the Khan Sheikhoun victims are consistent with both Sarin and Chlorine exposure. American media outlets have latched onto the Turkish and WHO statements as “proof” of Syrian government involvement; however, any exposure to the chlorine/white phosphorous blend associated with Al Nusra chemical weapons would produce similar symptoms.
Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in 2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened). But the Trump administration chose to act before these samples could be processed, perhaps afraid that their results would not sustain the underlying allegation of the employment of Sarin by the Syrian air force.
paulsurovell said:
He said "we don't know who used the sarin" and cited three possibilities: Assad or false-flags by either Israel or the Syrian opposition.
His third possibility was correct:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Wilkerson isn't as certain as you are. Last year, he was asked about his suggestion that Israel might have been responsible for the 2013 use of gas against civilians:
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Wilkerson was not remorseful about suggesting that Israel might have played a role in the attacks. But he said he was merely listing those who could have played a part, and wasn’t trying to fan flames against Israel.
“I was just suggesting all the different people that could have been involved at a time when speculation was rampant,” said Mr. Wilkerson, adding that there was still some debate within the intelligence community about exactly what took place.
https://www.nytimes.com/politi...
Personally, I disagree with casually suggesting that it was Israel, the way he did and (apparently) still thinks was okay.
I am always skeptical of official government pronouncements of this type, especially when it's almost impossible to really sure who is responsible for an attack. And now we're expected to believe the Trump Administration when they accuse Assad of a chemical weapons attack? I'm inclined to disbelieve it specifically because it's an accusation coming from a group of people who lie constantly about everything.
ml1 said:
I am always skeptical of official government pronouncements of this type, especially when it's almost impossible to really sure who is responsible for an attack. And now we're expected to believe the Trump Administration when they accuse Assad of a chemical weapons attack? I'm inclined to disbelieve it specifically because it's an accusation coming from a group of people who lie constantly about everything.
I can understand the skepticism, if the source of information was the Trump administration. The details from non-Trump sources are that there were planes, munitions were dropped, and the injuries are consistent with gas. The NY Times initial story and a "fact check" from today's paper go over the details.
South_Mountaineer said:
ml1 said:
I am always skeptical of official government pronouncements of this type, especially when it's almost impossible to really sure who is responsible for an attack. And now we're expected to believe the Trump Administration when they accuse Assad of a chemical weapons attack? I'm inclined to disbelieve it specifically because it's an accusation coming from a group of people who lie constantly about everything.
I can understand the skepticism, if the source of information was the Trump administration. The details from non-Trump sources are that there were planes, munitions were dropped, and the injuries are consistent with gas. The NY Times initial story and a "fact check" from today's paper go over the details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
None of which disproves the argument that a supply building containing organo-phosphates was hit. I know that the truth is a scarce commodity in Syria, but the Russians would have no reasons to allow the use of chemical weapons and neither would Assad unless he thought it beneficial to really antagonize the U.S.
tjohn said:
None of which disproves the argument that a supply building containing organo-phosphates was hit. I know that the truth is a scarce commodity in Syria, but the Russians would have no reasons to allow the use of chemical weapons and neither would Assad unless he thought it beneficial to really antagonize the U.S.
Regarding "was it gas", some reporting via NPR -
In a separate statement, Doctors Without Borders said one of its teams had examined eight survivors of the attack who had exhibited symptoms of exposure to "a neurotoxic agent such as sarin" — including constricted pupils and muscle spasms. Those symptoms are consistent with "any one of the chemicals in that chemical family of nerve agents," agrees Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security, a London-based consultancy.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
There's some discussion "why would he do it" in the NY Times piece from today, linked to previously -
There are numerous reasons Mr. Assad’s forces would conduct a chemical attack.
The attack is consistent with Mr. Assad’s calculated strategy of attempting to drive out the civilian population in rebel strongholds through bombing neighborhoods and civilian targets, The Times’s Anne Barnard reported.
Mr. Assad also may have felt emboldened after Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that driving him from power was not a priority.
So using sarin gas “made a lot of sense after public signals that the U.S. might not be seeking to oust him,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You don’t need to kill a lot of people, but you can frighten a lot of people.”
South_Mountaineer said:
ml1 said:
I am always skeptical of official government pronouncements of this type, especially when it's almost impossible to really sure who is responsible for an attack. And now we're expected to believe the Trump Administration when they accuse Assad of a chemical weapons attack? I'm inclined to disbelieve it specifically because it's an accusation coming from a group of people who lie constantly about everything.
I can understand the skepticism, if the source of information was the Trump administration. The details from non-Trump sources are that there were planes, munitions were dropped, and the injuries are consistent with gas. The NY Times initial story and a "fact check" from today's paper go over the details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Consistent with conventional munitions hitting a storage depot with chemicals.
South_Mountaineer said:
tjohn said:Regarding "was it gas", some reporting via NPR -
None of which disproves the argument that a supply building containing organo-phosphates was hit. I know that the truth is a scarce commodity in Syria, but the Russians would have no reasons to allow the use of chemical weapons and neither would Assad unless he thought it beneficial to really antagonize the U.S.
In a separate statement, Doctors Without Borders said one of its teams had examined eight survivors of the attack who had exhibited symptoms of exposure to "a neurotoxic agent such as sarin" — including constricted pupils and muscle spasms. Those symptoms are consistent with "any one of the chemicals in that chemical family of nerve agents," agrees Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security, a London-based consultancy.http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
There's some discussion "why would he do it" in the NY Times piece from today, linked to previously -
There are numerous reasons Mr. Assad’s forces would conduct a chemical attack.
The attack is consistent with Mr. Assad’s calculated strategy of attempting to drive out the civilian population in rebel strongholds through bombing neighborhoods and civilian targets, The Times’s Anne Barnard reported.
Mr. Assad also may have felt emboldened after Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that driving him from power was not a priority.
So using sarin gas “made a lot of sense after public signals that the U.S. might not be seeking to oust him,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You don’t need to kill a lot of people, but you can frighten a lot of people.”
Can you think of any reasons why the anti-Assad forces would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
Regarding paulsurovell's "Consistent with conventional munitions hitting a storage depot with chemicals" comment:
The "it was chemicals in a warehouse that was bombed" was discussed on April 6 in this thread. Paulsurovell responded, but not substantively, in my opinion. Below is my comment from April 6. I'd direct anyone interested to the NPR piece linked in my earlier post, which quotes a different expert also debunking that theory.
South_Mountaineer said:
What is known is that there are victims of poison gas.
The Russians say that Assad's forces bombed a storehouse where rebels were keeping the gas. The BBC had a report this morning doubting that claim:
Is Russia's explanation credible?Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the British Armed Forces Joint Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment, said it was "pretty fanciful"."Axiomatically, if you blow up Sarin, you destroy it," he told the BBC.Experts say the explosion resulting from an air strike on a chemical weapons facility would most likely incinerate any agents. Sarin and other nerve agents are also usually stocked in a "binary manner", which means they are kept as two distinct chemical precursors that are combined just before use, either manually or automatically inside a weapon when launched."It's very clear it's a Sarin attack," Mr de Bretton-Gordon added. "The view that it's an al-Qaeda or rebel stockpile of Sarin that's been blown up in an explosion, I think is completely unsustainable and completely untrue."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
Assad's forces did drop bombs. If investigation confirms that the victims suffered from poison gas, then it was dropped from the sky (not already there in a warehouse). That's what I meant when I wrote earlier: "There's no evidence to contradict the conclusion that Assad's forces were responsible for the recent attack."
Post edited to add - The text from the NPR story also responding to the claim, if anyone doesn't want to click the link:
The Russian government has claimed the chemicals were released after Syrian government forces hit a rebel chemical depot. Kaszeta says that's doubtful because nerve agents are unstable and are typically stored as two separate chemicals. With sarin, for example, one of those precursor chemicals is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol.
"You drop a bomb on it, the whole thing is going up in a huge fireball," he says. Even if the nerve agent was pre-mixed, a bomb strike would fail to disperse it in a way that could cause mass casualties.
Kaszeta says he thinks the most likely source of chemical was the Syrian regime. Sarin and other nerve agents are hard to make, and it's unlikely that rebel groups would have access to it. Assad was known to hold large quantities of "precursor chemicals" used to make sarin, and although the government surrendered much of that material, it's possible that some was left undeclared to international inspectors.
In addition, Kaszeta says, the Syrian regime is still believed to have experts who could make nerve agent from scratch. "It's not like we arrested their scientists and chemical engineers and technicians," he says. "Nothing happened to those guys."
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker
It may be the view of Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, but the post was written by an anonymous contributor under the pseudonym Publius Tacitus, whose credentials (other than training at Fort McClellan) were not detailed.
The same post is attributed directly to Patrick Lang by the "Intel Today" site. As far as I know, Lang has not denied this:
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
tjohn said:Regarding "was it gas", some reporting via NPR -
None of which disproves the argument that a supply building containing organo-phosphates was hit. I know that the truth is a scarce commodity in Syria, but the Russians would have no reasons to allow the use of chemical weapons and neither would Assad unless he thought it beneficial to really antagonize the U.S.
In a separate statement, Doctors Without Borders said one of its teams had examined eight survivors of the attack who had exhibited symptoms of exposure to "a neurotoxic agent such as sarin" — including constricted pupils and muscle spasms. Those symptoms are consistent with "any one of the chemicals in that chemical family of nerve agents," agrees Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security, a London-based consultancy.http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
There's some discussion "why would he do it" in the NY Times piece from today, linked to previously -
There are numerous reasons Mr. Assad’s forces would conduct a chemical attack.
The attack is consistent with Mr. Assad’s calculated strategy of attempting to drive out the civilian population in rebel strongholds through bombing neighborhoods and civilian targets, The Times’s Anne Barnard reported.
Mr. Assad also may have felt emboldened after Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that driving him from power was not a priority.
So using sarin gas “made a lot of sense after public signals that the U.S. might not be seeking to oust him,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You don’t need to kill a lot of people, but you can frighten a lot of people.”
Can you think of any reasons why the anti-Assad forces would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
Why don't you theorize, instead of asking someone else to do that.
Post edited to add - Make sure to take account of the dead people who are victims of the "not poison gas".
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
tjohn said:Regarding "was it gas", some reporting via NPR -
None of which disproves the argument that a supply building containing organo-phosphates was hit. I know that the truth is a scarce commodity in Syria, but the Russians would have no reasons to allow the use of chemical weapons and neither would Assad unless he thought it beneficial to really antagonize the U.S.
In a separate statement, Doctors Without Borders said one of its teams had examined eight survivors of the attack who had exhibited symptoms of exposure to "a neurotoxic agent such as sarin" — including constricted pupils and muscle spasms. Those symptoms are consistent with "any one of the chemicals in that chemical family of nerve agents," agrees Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert with Strongpoint Security, a London-based consultancy.http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
There's some discussion "why would he do it" in the NY Times piece from today, linked to previously -
There are numerous reasons Mr. Assad’s forces would conduct a chemical attack.
The attack is consistent with Mr. Assad’s calculated strategy of attempting to drive out the civilian population in rebel strongholds through bombing neighborhoods and civilian targets, The Times’s Anne Barnard reported.
Mr. Assad also may have felt emboldened after Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that driving him from power was not a priority.
So using sarin gas “made a lot of sense after public signals that the U.S. might not be seeking to oust him,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You don’t need to kill a lot of people, but you can frighten a lot of people.”
Can you think of any reasons why the anti-Assad forces would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
Why don't you theorize, instead of asking someone else to do that.
Post edited to add - Make sure to take account of the dead people who are victims of the "not poison gas".
Let's try another tack: Can you think of any reasons why your man Trump would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Can you think of any reasons why the anti-Assad forces would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
Why don't you theorize, instead of asking someone else to do that.
Post edited to add - Make sure to take account of the dead people who are victims of the "not poison gas".
Let's try another tack: Can you think of any reasons why your man Trump would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
For the same reason, the exact question can be directed back to you, if you wish to theorize.
As you know (since you quoted it), I've repeated my view of the proper course of action (not that anyone cares what I think about it).
South_Mountaineer said:
I am amused that paulsurovell ignored my written comment about what I actually think about the situation (which comment he may or may not agree with). He focused on the cartoon, which pushed a button causing another dump of anti-anti-Trump commentary.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Not that this would be possible given his personality and attitude, but -
If Trump had instead presented a request to Congress for authorization (as a prelude and warning, not to automatically use it), spent time working for consensus from other nations, and put pressure on Russia, it would probably have had more of an effect than his one-off airstrike. Apparently, the base was back in business yesterday.
In response to your "Trump-Putin collusion" cartoon, here's a spot-on commentary excerpted from a larger, brilliant analysis of the Syrian strike by Glenn Greenwald:
...
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Can you think of any reasons why the anti-Assad forces would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
Why don't you theorize, instead of asking someone else to do that.
Post edited to add - Make sure to take account of the dead people who are victims of the "not poison gas".
Let's try another tack: Can you think of any reasons why your man Trump would promote a false narrative that Assad used chemical weapons?
For the same reason, the exact question can be directed back to you, if you wish to theorize.
As you know (since you quoted it), I've repeated my view of the proper course of action (not that anyone cares what I think about it).
South_Mountaineer said:
I am amused that paulsurovell ignored my written comment about what I actually think about the situation (which comment he may or may not agree with). He focused on the cartoon, which pushed a button causing another dump of anti-anti-Trump commentary.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
Not that this would be possible given his personality and attitude, but -
If Trump had instead presented a request to Congress for authorization (as a prelude and warning, not to automatically use it), spent time working for consensus from other nations, and put pressure on Russia, it would probably have had more of an effect than his one-off airstrike. Apparently, the base was back in business yesterday.
In response to your "Trump-Putin collusion" cartoon, here's a spot-on commentary excerpted from a larger, brilliant analysis of the Syrian strike by Glenn Greenwald:
...
I'm glad that I at least provided you with some "amusement." By the way, your idea was shot down this afternoon by the G7 which, like Russia and Iran, called for an investigation of the Syrian CW incident, rejecting US and British calls for tougher sanctions against Russia.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) memo to Pres Trump says there was no Syrian CW attack:
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
Trump Should Rethink Syrian Escalation
April 11, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)*
SUBJECT: Syria: Was It Really “A Chemical Weapons Attack”?
1 – We write to give you an unambiguous warning of the threat of armed hostilities with Russia – with the risk of escalation to nuclear war. The threat has grown after the cruise missile attack on Syria in retaliation for what you claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” on April 4 on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province.
2 – Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian “chemical weapons attack.” Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.
3 – This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.
4 – Do we conclude that the White House has been giving our generals dictation; that they are mouthing what they have been told to say?
5 – After Putin persuaded Assad in 2013 to give up his chemical weapons, the U.S. Army destroyed 600 metric tons of Syria’s CW stockpile in just six weeks. The mandate of the U.N.’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW-UN) was to ensure that all were destroyed – like the mandate for the U.N. inspectors for Iraq regarding WMD. The U.N. inspectors’ findings on WMD were the truth. Rumsfeld and his generals lied and this seems to be happening again. The stakes are even higher now; the importance of a relationship of trust with Russia’s leaders cannot be overstated.
6 – In September 2013, after Putin persuaded Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons (giving Obama a way out of a tough dilemma), the Russian President wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he said: “My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this.”
Détente Nipped in the Bud
7 – Three-plus years later, on April 4, 2017, Russian Prime Minister Medvedev spoke of “absolute mistrust,” which he characterized as “sad for our now completely ruined relations [but] good news for terrorists.” Not only sad, in our view, but totally unnecessary – worse still, dangerous.
8 – With Moscow’s cancellation of the agreement to de-conflict flight activity over Syria, the clock has been turned back six months to the situation last September/October when 11 months of tough negotiation brought a ceasefire agreement. U.S. Air Force attacks on fixed Syrian army positions on Sept. 17, 2016, killing about 70 and wounding another 100, scuttled the fledgling ceasefire agreement approved by Obama and Putin a week before. Trust evaporated.
9 – On Sept 26, 2016, Foreign Minister Lavrov lamented: “My good friend John Kerry … is under fierce criticism from the US military machine, [which] apparently does not really listen to the Commander in Chief.” Lavrov criticized JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia on Syria, “after the [ceasefire] agreement, concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama, had stipulated that the two sides would share intelligence. … It is difficult to work with such partners. …”
10 – On Oct. 1, 2016, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned, “If the US launches a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian Army, it would cause a terrible, tectonic shift not only in the country, but in the entire region.”
11 – On Oct 6, 2016, Russian defense spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov cautioned that Russia was prepared to shoot down unidentified aircraft – including any stealth aircraft – over Syria. Konashenkov made a point of adding that Russian air defenses “will not have time to identify the origin” of the aircraft.
12 – On Oct 27, 2016, Putin publicly lamented, “My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results,” and complained about “people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice.” Referring to Syria, Putin decried the lack of a “common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises.”
13 – Thus, the unnecessarily precarious state into which U.S.-Russian relations have now sunk – from “growing trust” to “absolute mistrust.” To be sure, many welcome the high tension, which – admittedly – is super for the arms business.
14 – We believe it of transcendent importance to prevent relations with Russia from falling into a state of complete disrepair. Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow this week offers an opportunity to stanch the damage, but there is also a danger that it could increase the acrimony – particularly if Secretary Tillerson is not familiar with the brief history set down above.
15 – Surely it is time to deal with Russia on the basis of facts, not allegations based largely on dubious evidence – from “social media,” for example. While many would view this time of high tension as ruling out a summit, we suggest the opposite may be true. You might consider instructing Secretary Tillerson to begin arrangements for an early summit with President Putin.
* Background on Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a list of whose issuances can be found at https://consortiumnews.com/vips-memos/.
A handful of CIA veterans established VIPS in January 2003 after concluding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had ordered our former colleagues to manufacture intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war with Iraq. At the time we chose to assume that President George W. Bush was not fully aware of this.
We issued our first Memorandum for the President on the afternoon of Feb. 5, 2003, after Colin Powell’s ill-begotten speech at the United Nations. Addressing President Bush, we closed with these words:
No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable” or “undeniable” [adjectives Powell applied to his charges against Saddam Hussein]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
Respectfully, we offer the same advice to you, President Trump.
* * *
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Eugene D. Betit, Intelligence Analyst, DIA, Soviet FAO, (US Army, ret.)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and former Office Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive Service, NSA (former)
Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, CEC, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (Ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
John Kiriakou, former CIA analyst and counterterrorism officer, and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Lisa Ling, TSgt USAF (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Near East, CIA and National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Torin Nelson, former Intelligence Officer/Interrogator, Department of the Army
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, and former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Sarah G. Wilton, Commander, US Naval Reserve (ret), DIA (ret.)
Robert Wing, former Foreign Service Officer (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:The same post is attributed directly to Patrick Lang by the "Intel Today" site. As far as I know, Lang has not denied this:
paulsurovell said:It may be the view of Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, but the post was written by an anonymous contributor under the pseudonym Publius Tacitus, whose credentials (other than training at Fort McClellan) were not detailed.
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2...
So he uses a pseudonym to post analysis on his own blog, which ends up giving him no cover because people assume it's him and attribute the posts to him anyway. One might wonder what the point of the pseudonym is. Or wonder whether the assumption may just be sloppiness, of a kind that Mr. Lang is either too busy or too unbothered to police.
Unfortunately, Trump would see the world destroyed before ever admitting he was wrong about anything.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:The same post is attributed directly to Patrick Lang by the "Intel Today" site. As far as I know, Lang has not denied this:
paulsurovell said:It may be the view of Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, but the post was written by an anonymous contributor under the pseudonym Publius Tacitus, whose credentials (other than training at Fort McClellan) were not detailed.
Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com...
Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2...
So he uses a pseudonym to post analysis on his own blog, which ends up giving him no cover because people assume it's him and attribute the posts to him anyway. One might wonder what the point of the pseudonym is. Or wonder whether the assumption may just be sloppiness, of a kind that Mr. Lang is either too busy or too unbothered to police.
I have the same questions. I think I'll ask him.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
It may be the view of Patrick Lang, a retired military intelligence officer, but the post was written by an anonymous contributor under the pseudonym Publius Tacitus, whose credentials (other than training at Fort McClellan) were not detailed.