Put your NatSec hat on and come over and read...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure it does. It helps eliminate one of the last pockets of opposition

It didn't need help to do that. Assad's opposition was already, to all intents and purposes, defeated. The pocket was not effective against Assad, and could have been eliminated with conventional warfare. Using the chemical weapon which is against UN and international law would stir up the international pot against Assad. It would not be an advantage for Assad, but more of an advantage for ISIS and for those fighting Assad to have the US destroy a big portion of Assad's military capability.

and allows Russia to stir the pot and create more pressure on the US. The risk of a response, even a coalition led response that could depose Assad is really pretty low.

Why would Russia want to put more pressure on the US to attack Assad and destroy his weapons and delivery systems? If Russia wanted to do that, why would it want the very thing used, a chemical weapon attack, which international opinion would be morally and legally against?

And if Russia was colluding with Trump, why would it want to pressure Trump to do something that would help bring him down?

There's also the scenario where the attack was carried out by the Deep State to bait Trump into war with Syria

Do you have a romance with the Deep State? Have the CIA, the FBI, and the rest of them always acted honorably? Have they not illegally killed? Haven't they helped to start wars before? I don't know if Deep State had a hand in this or not. You, of course, are damn sure it didn't.

But there are other scenarios--such as ISIS using the chems to "stir up the pot" against Assad.

At any rate, I'm not with Trump on bombing Syria until there is irrefutable evidence that Assad used the chems. And if that would be the case, I'm not for the US unilaterally exacting punishment.

On the other hand, if Trump is using it as a message to NK that it could actually get the same, it might be a useful bluff in convincing Kim that he needs to cooperate. And the bluff could be swerved away from by some other "lie."

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure it does. It helps eliminate one of the last pockets of opposition and allows Russia to stir the pot and create more pressure on the US. The risk of a response, even a coalition led response that could depose Assad is really pretty low.

If Assad is responsible for the gas attack - like his previous gas attacks, particularly since winging the documents regarding use and inventory of chem weapons, the penalty must be severe. I do not believe Russia when they say it was a false flag crap.

All that said, Syria is not wort starting WW3 over. Though keeping Russia in check - a must - will raise those risks.

Originally Posted by spence

There's also the scenario where the attack was carried out by the Deep State to bait Trump into war with Syria

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It didn't need help to do that. Assad's opposition was already, to all intents and purposes, defeated. The pocket was not effective against Assad, and could have been eliminated with conventional warfare. Using the chemical weapon which is against UN and international law would stir up the international pot against Assad. It would not be an advantage for Assad, but more of an advantage for ISIS and for those fighting Assad to have the US destroy a big portion of Assad's military capability.

The advantage wasn't for Assad more likely Russia.

Why would Russia want to put more pressure on the US to attack Assad and destroy his weapons and delivery systems? If Russia wanted to do that, why would it want the very thing used, a chemical weapon attack, which international opinion would be morally and legally against?

Because their objective is to stir the pot.

And if Russia was colluding with Trump, why would it want to pressure Trump to do something that would help bring him down?

The collusion has always been about Russian interests. They are running this show.

Do you have a romance with the Deep State? Have the CIA, the FBI, and the rest of them always acted honorably? Have they not illegally killed? Haven't they helped to start wars before? I don't know if Deep State had a hand in this or not. You, of course, are damn sure it didn't.

Does the Deep State even exist? I was just quoting my Michael Flynn's son's tweet.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The advantage wasn't for Assad more likely Russia.

How is Russia advantaged?

Because their objective is to stir the pot.

There must be some deep meaning behind that.

The collusion has always been about Russian interests. They are running this show.

Russia had Syria in its hand and the rebels were basically defeated. Assad was no longer in danger. What did Russia have to gain by having Assad gas a few people?

Does the Deep State even exist? I was just quoting my Michael Flynn's son's tweet.

The term has existed for a long time. There are various but similar versions of it. Mainstream media mostly like to discredit the idea. But credible sources including those who were once part of it have written or done videos describing the phenomenon of the American Deep State, and their analyses have been pretty much in agreement. Here are two articles, the first being the shorter one, and the second being longer and more detailed:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...state-america/
https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/an...he-deep-state/

Peter Dale Scott's book "The American Deep State" is often cited as an excellent informative source. Sheldon Wolin talks about it. Even David Halberstam briefly mentions it in his "The Best and the Brightest."

There are some good youtube videos (the positive ones) including some by Kevin Shipp such as this (it comes in three parts):

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The term has existed for a long time. There are various but similar versions of it. Mainstream media mostly like to discredit the idea. But credible sources including those who were once part of it have written or done videos describing the phenomenon of the American Deep State, and their analyses have been pretty much in agreement. Here are two articles, the first being the shorter one, and the second being longer and more detailed:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...state-america/
https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/an...he-deep-state/

Peter Dale Scott's book "The American Deep State" is often cited as an excellent informative source. Sheldon Wolin talks about it. Even David Halberstam briefly mentions it in his "The Best and the Brightest."

There are some good youtube videos (the positive ones) including some by Kevin Shipp such as this (it comes in three parts):

However, after he started out as a whistleblower on his own, he had major personal problems. an addiction, according to Shipp, that the CIA deliberately placed him in a contaminated house that caused all his assets to be destroyed. As a result, he sued the CIA in 2001.

he is sounding alarms about geoengineering programs, vaccines and the autism link, the 9/11 false flag terror event and how our food supply is poisoned with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

again your source's are lets say questionable but perfect if your a conspiracy theorist

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again your source's are lets say questionable but perfect if your a conspiracy theorist

pavlovian....

read this...I hope the NY Times is in your mind a less "questionable" source of conspiracy theory

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/u...11secrets.html


"Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer