The Trump Presidency

[iceaura]

But it is clear and obvious, trivial, that all cases when gas attacks have been claimed, this has seriously harmed the actual progress on the ground, lead to a danger of direct US attack.

But it is not clear whether he gains more than those delays and risks cost.

His success on the large-scale shows he is not completely stupid. Repeating many times the same obviously stupid thing would prove him stupid.

Gas attacks as calculated terrorism are not necessarily stupid.

Yes, that's the way I work. If I find something interesting, I follow the links to the original, instead of, say, retranslating translations.

You're wandering around on bullshit mountain without a reality base to calibrate your assessments. And so you get played.

I have a simple method to avoid errors - there are a lot of supporters for the other side here in this forum, they could easily tell me here if the source I have given lies about the facts. Once they restrict themselves to simple ad hominem, the claims appear accurate.

And you actually believe you can avoid errors by that method, correctly evaluate "ad hominem", etc, without information. So you get played.

And then the political decisions in furthering the Syrian war do not look that stupid.

Yeah, they do. They're making a mess, and luck is going to pick the winner if any.
The guys who start these things always think they're going to gain - they might, but only by chance.

And, given that there was not presented any evidence to the contrary, it looks like, indeed, in this particular question (bombing Syria based on an obvious fake) there is such an agreement.

And so we see you've been played.
There is not, and no good reason to think there is.

Whatever your problems with the typical use of "bipartisan" and "America", I have explained how I have understood the word - namely simply that both Republicans and Democrats support the same thing.

Now you are telling me you think the Republican propaganda use of "bipartisan" and "America" is "typical", and your propaganda-addled understanding of things is something I need explained to me.
There's no mystery where you are getting your ideas of what "same things" Republicans and Democrats support - you post the links right here. To Tucker Carlson, and the like. Because you find him "interesting".
Like I said: you have no defenses. Your only hope is to avoid exposure to rightwing propaganda from US pros.

Which brings us to Trump, and his bombing Syria without Congressional authorization - twice now. Do you remember who predicted this kind of behavior from Trump, way back when? Do you remember how and why that prediction was made?

 

[sculptor]

If you believe that the recent chemical attack in Syria ( not UK ) was and obvious fake then you must also think that the USA, Britain and France have launched their retaliation in Syria knowing that it was an obvious fake.
Can I ask then why do you think the coalition of three knowingly launched their missiles, planes etc in response to, by your reckoning, an obviously fake attack?

That is something that I would also like to know.

 

[sculptor]

Trump’s strike on Syria is a violation of international law and the United Nations Carter—to which the United States is a party—according to a number of legal experts. “This military action is illegal,” Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project, said in a statement. “In the face of constitutional law barring hostile use of force without congressional authorization, and international law forbidding unilateral use of force except in self-defense, President Trump has unilaterally launched strikes against a country that has not attacked us — and without any authorization from Congress. Doing so violates some of the most important legal constraints on the use of force.”

 

[spidergoat]

Chemical weapons are illegal.

 

[Schmelzer]

But it is not clear whether he gains more than those delays and risks cost.

No, it is clear that he gains nothing. And the risk of a real war with the US is extremely heavy.

Gas attacks as calculated terrorism are not necessarily stupid.

In a situation where the US cries about red lines it is stupid. To create terror at home, if one would like to do this (Assad doesn't), one could use a lot of other things, like those by the US in Falludja.

And you actually believe you can avoid errors by that method, correctly evaluate "ad hominem", etc, without information. So you get played.

No. I avoid getting played by your cheap ad hominems when you have nothing else to present.

Yeah, they do. They're making a mess, and luck is going to pick the winner if any.

Learn to read. The warmongering is not stupid if one takes into account the personal interests of the politicians. You remember last year, when after bombing Shairat Trump was hailed by all the anti-Trumpers as "today he became our president"? So, was is stupid to bomb Shairat for Trump personally? Certainly not. Was it stupid this night? How much of the US media wrote something against the attacks? Tell me, I do not read them.

And so we see you've been played. There is not, and no good reason to think there is.

No. If I would have been played, you would have been able to present evidence for this. So, I have avoided being played by your empty, unsupported claims.

Now you are telling me you think the Republican propaganda use of "bipartisan" and "America" is "typical",

Learn to read. Given the context, it was clear that I mean "typical" contrary to the use as in this particular video. And that means, "typical for Republicans" because this was what you argued about.

There's no mystery where you are getting your ideas of what "same things" Republicans and Democrats support - you post the links right here. To Tucker Carlson, and the like. Because you find him "interesting".

Learn to read. I wrote "If I find something interesting", not "somebody". The interesting thing was he claimed. That all the politicians, from both parties (if you don't like "bipartisan", ok) favor the attack against Syria. And, again, I don't care if he is a propagandist, they all are. The information he gave in this particular case seems correct, given you were unable to present evidence to the contrary. The guy iself is not interesting at all.

Your only hope is to avoid exposure to rightwing propaganda from US pros.

At least against leftwing propaganda from US pros like you, it works nicely

Which brings us to Trump, and his bombing Syria without Congressional authorization - twice now. Do you remember who predicted this kind of behavior from Trump, way back when?

Yes, I remember, you predicted this kind of behavior. But I was happy that it was Trump bombing one airfield a little bit, causing almost no damage, and compared with what Clinton has said after this. You remember?
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/

In comparison with what happened this morning, I continue to be quite satisfied with Trump. Now he did not even damage an airport, nobody dead at all. (IIRC there were a few victims last year). Something is known about what Clinton thinks about this? Have you heard her condemning this violation of international (and maybe American) law?

 

[spidergoat]

You can't violate the law and then come to the law for help. Officer, that man stole my drugs. See, doesn't work.

 

[iceaura]

No, it is clear that he gains nothing.

No, that is not clear. It's not even likely - there are some obvious gains for him in that, even it he didn't do it. The question would be net gain.

In a situation where the US cries about red lines it is stupid.

Not necessarily. He may have gained a lot simply by demonstrating to his opposition that US cry-baby "red lines" are no protection for them. Others have in the past - public transgression of "red lines" is a standard autocrat domination tactic, like telling big lies and forcing public expressions of belief.

The warmongering is not stupid if one takes into account the personal interests of the politicians.

Yeah, it is. Sometimes it is even more stupid - a politician making the ultimate mistake. Look at W. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a19547603/iraq-15-years-george-bush/

No. If I would have been played, you would have been able to present evidence for this.

I have, many times. You can read more below, but since you are unable to register the fact that linking to Tucker Carlson because you found something he said "interesting" is essentially proof you are being played, I doubt you can see or remember any of it.

Learn to read. I wrote "If I find something interesting", not "somebody". The interesting thing was he claimed.

What he claimed was bullshit, like everything else that guy claims - both true and false. You were being played.

The interesting thing was he claimed. That all the politicians, from both parties (if you don't like "bipartisan", ok) favor the attack against Syria.

That isn't interesting, it's commonplace and media-wide and same-old boring crapola, in this case also quite obviously and stupidly false. And like many such widely spread falsehoods, it has a source - rightwing Republican professional propaganda feeds.

Yes, I remember, you predicted this kind of behavior. But I was happy that it was Trump bombing one airfield a little bit, causing almost no damage, and compared with what Clinton has said after this. You remember?

You were also fine with Trump's big increase in the military budget, expansion of drone strikes, expansion of US military deployment, restoration of military capability to the CIA, progress toward re-establishing torture prison, pressure toward use of tactical nukes, undermining the State Department, undermining all scientific agencies, undermining the judiciary, attempted (and occasionally successful) transferral of power from all these and Congress to the White House, and so forth.

The standard, familiar, ordinary, and long-predicted pattern of behaviors common to a fascist demagogue taking power. This is invisible to you.

Since you can't see the situation, since you have no vocabulary or mental category for the pattern, each little separate thing can be dismissed individually by your propaganda armory. With each incoming event, you compared what Trump actually and verifiably did with what you had been suckered into thinking a Clinton administration would have done in general, what you had been suckered into thinking the "deep state" wanted, etc, and incorporated Trump's behavior into your same prior view unaltered. There is no end to this - there is nothing Trump can do that would shake your allegiance to the US rightwing authoritarian Republican propagandist's inculcated worldview. If Trump actually launched nuclear missiles at somebody, first strike, just as he and his new NSC adviser have publicly advocated, you would blame the "deep state", or one of the Clintons, or "bipartisan" forces, or maybe Obama even (after long enough for amnesia) - not the Republican Party or its corporate backing, and not Trump.

It's like the guy himself said: he could do murder in the middle of the street in broad daylight on camera, and not lose the loyalty of his base. Cult loyalty is how fascists roll.

And so we have the pardoning of Scooter Libby: https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...bby-pardon-is-a-signal-in-more-ways-than-one/

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer,
If you believe that the recent chemical attack in Syria ( not UK ) was and obvious fake then you must also think that the USA, Britain and France have launched their retaliation in Syria knowing that it was an obvious fake.
Can I ask then why do you think the coalition of three knowingly launched their missiles, planes etc in response to, by your reckoning, an obviously fake attack?

That they did know it, is clear, else they would 1.) care about the evidence presented by the Russians that at least one video was faked, 2.) reject that video with the gas bottle in the bed as an obvious fake, 3.) and wait what the OPCW finds on the ground.

Why they have decided to bomb Syria, and faked a gas attack for this? This is less clear. The most plausible explanation is that the warmongers were in a panic because Trump said its time to go out of Syria. The organization of the fake attack itself was with high probability British, at least I doubt Lavrov would openly blame the MI6 without knowing who has done it. That means, with May and Macron the question is simple - they are globalist warmongers. Trump, it seems, has simply reacted. And he has reacted in the appropriate way - following all the prescriptions of the Russians.

About the fantasy gains for Assad using gas, there was nothing new. About warmongering being useful personally for democratic politicians, we read:

Sometimes it is even more stupid - a politician making the ultimate mistake. Look at W. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a19547603/iraq-15-years-george-bush/

Not found anything there that the Iraq war has harmed personally W. The war has horribly harmed Iraq, and harmed US interests a lot too. But W himself? 2003 "Mission accomplished", but 2004 reelected? Horrible personal harm.

I have, many times. You can read more below, ... [ok, let's look below] ...
That isn't interesting, it's commonplace and media-wide and same-old boring crapola, in this case also quite obviously and stupidly false. And like many such widely spread falsehoods, it has a source - rightwing Republican professional propaganda feeds.

LOL. Do you have an idea what "evidence" means? Ok, I forgot, you are used to the US "we have proofs, but these are top secret" standards of proof.

You were also fine with Trump's big increase in the military budget, expansion of drone strikes, expansion of US military deployment, restoration of military capability to the CIA, progress toward re-establishing torture prison, pressure toward use of tactical nukes, undermining the State Department, undermining all scientific agencies, undermining the judiciary, attempted (and occasionally successful) transferral of power from all these and Congress to the White House, and so forth.
The standard, familiar, ordinary, and long-predicted pattern of behaviors common to a fascist demagogue taking power. This is invisible to you.

I do not care about internal policies. Fascist or not, that's your personal problem. I will certainly never even visit that state, for me it was fascist already under Obama. What matters for me is US foreign policy, only. Fascists can be peaceful in foreign policy, like Franco or Pinochet for example, so that this is not the most important question for me.

The large military budget is not as dangerous - it is a long time problem, but the actual problem (avoiding US starting war to prevent the multipolar world) is short time. If there will be no war during the next 3 or 7 years, this problem will be solved. The US corruption level is sufficiently high, so that the budget itself is not that dangerous, as long as the final result remains the same.

With each incoming event, you compared what Trump actually and verifiably did with what you had been suckered into thinking a Clinton administration would have done in general,

Ok, I'm "suckered into thinking" a Clinton administration would have done in general by Clinton himself telling what should have been done immediately after Trump has done his first harmless bombing. I'm so stupid that I thought Hillary Clinton thought that the US should 'take out' Assad's airfields. Evil Republicans have played me.

There is no end to this - there is nothing Trump can do that would shake your allegiance to the US rightwing authoritarian Republican propagandist's inculcated worldview. If Trump actually launched nuclear missiles at somebody, first strike, just as he and his new NSC adviser have publicly advocated, you would blame the "deep state", or one of the Clintons, or "bipartisan" forces, or maybe Obama even (after long enough for amnesia) - not the Republican Party or its corporate backing, and not Trump.

Nice try but nonsense. I have already admitted that it looks now like the warmongers have got the power so that there is no difference now between Trump and Clinton. And if he starts a real war against NK or Iran (even without nukes), I have no problem to admit that you were right and that that unpredictable idiot appeared indeed to be a greater danger than that known war criminal.

But don't forget, there was serious argumentation about Hillary starting a war with Iran too ( http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/07/28/middle-east-prepares-for-hillarys-war/ )

Moreover, after this action, I think that I have overestimated this danger too. What he has done now was following the Russian invitation to repeat Shayrat. And, by the way, he has nicely discredited the globalist hawks May and Macron as lying warmongers.

 

[iceaura]

I do not care about internal policies. Fascist or not, that's your personal problem.

They are not internal only. W invaded Iraq - Trump is right in the same line.

Fascists can be peaceful in foreign policy, like Franco or Pinochet for example, so that this is not the most important question for me.

Neither Franco nor Pinochet was peaceful in foreign policy.
Certainly the US Republican Party is not. Trump is expanding US foreign military involvement, and talking about using nuclear weapons first strike.

The large military budget is not as dangerou

Yes, it is.

But don't forget, there was serious argumentation about Hillary starting a war with Iran too

It wasn't serious. And she has never threatened first use of nukes.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That they did know it, is clear, else they would 1.) care about the evidence presented by the Russians that at least one video was faked, 2.) reject that video with the gas bottle in the bed as an obvious fake, 3.) and wait what the OPCW finds on the ground.

Why they have decided to bomb Syria, and faked a gas attack for this? This is less clear. The most plausible explanation is that the warmongers were in a panic because Trump said its time to go out of Syria. The organization of the fake attack itself was with high probability British, at least I doubt Lavrov would openly blame the MI6 without knowing who has done it. That means, with May and Macron the question is simple - they are globalist warmongers. Trump, it seems, has simply reacted. And he has reacted in the appropriate way - following all the prescriptions of the Russians.

I think you need to dig deeper than that..

Each missile costs 1.87million USD
x 103 missiles fired = 192.61million USD
+ logistics etc...
not much change out of 200million USD

and all mainly for one fake amateur gas attack video that appears to have no date stamp etc...no solid evidence to support it. yet.

not much sense to it is there?
yet... perhaps it was as they (the three nuke powers USA, France and UK) said to provide a deterrent to any future use of chemical weapons...(not just Syrian either)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might have something to do with it?

 

[Schmelzer]

Neither Franco nor Pinochet was peaceful in foreign policy.

How many wars have they started?

Certainly the US Republican Party is not. Trump is expanding US foreign military involvement, and talking about using nuclear weapons first strike.

Up to now, he has not started his own war. And this is what matters.

I think you need to dig deeper than that..
Each missile costs 1.87million USD x 103 missiles fired = 192.61million USD + logistics etc... not much change out of 200million USD
and all mainly for one fake amateur gas attack video that appears to have no date stamp etc...no solid evidence to support it. yet. not much sense to it is there? Not much sense to trump either...

To the organizers, there is sense. Trump does not leave Syria. You think they care about taxpayers money? LOL.

For Trump, the thing last year was a full public relation success. He "became our president today", remember? So it certainly makes sense to repeat this.

 

[iceaura]

How many wars have they started?

Both civil and national? A couple - depends on how you define and count. As many as they could fight, would be the short answer. Pinochet was completely surrounded by mountains, had almost nothing for navy and air force, and still managed to get his soldiers into most of his neighbor's countries.

And of course Pinochet - as a direct beneficiary of CIA directed proxy civil war and violence-abetting foreign policy under Republican Party direction - is a strange example of expected isolationism from a US Republican President.

And of course any form of government - including most obviously liberal democracy - has its insular examples. You demonstrate nothing about the belligerent and militarily aggressive US fascist movement by pointing to less belligerent governments. Franco lending his citizenry to his fellow fascists in Germany and Italy to use for target and tactical practice (as Assad has loaned his to Putin) might not be starting his own war - but he was in on the ground floor of a pretty big one that they were starting.

Up to now, he has not started his own war. And this is what matters.

He's a Republican, inheriting the Republican wars - and looking toward expanding them, and starting others.
Give him time - it took even W more than a year or two to get rolling, and he had a head start from his daddy and Clinton's shilly-shally. Trump has to reverse Obama's drawbacks, and since he's a Russian mob-connected criminal he has distractions and interferences to handle as well.
Wasn't your major concern nuclear strikes? Trump is your worst nightmare - he has the will, as well as the means, and he's slipshod enough to touch off nuclear terrorism. Fascists are not competent - you could get nuked by accident or at random, with this guy.

For Trump, the thing last year was a full public relation success. He "became our president today", remember?

There is no wingnut talking point from the Republican media feed, no matter how completely idiotic, that you will not believe. You have no defenses.

Trump, like W, is talking big and belligerent and expanding the US military operations. As predicted, remember? One difference is that W really was popular for a short time, however fraudulently, where Trump is dealing in hype and delusion and a minority core base of support from the beginning. But that is not encouraging to those who fear war.

 

[spidergoat]

.no solid evidence to support it.

Then how do you know it's fake?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How many wars have they started?

Up to now, he has not started his own war. And this is what matters.

To the organizers, there is sense. Trump does not leave Syria. You think they care about taxpayers money? LOL.

For Trump, the thing last year was a full public relation success. He "became our president today", remember? So it certainly makes sense to repeat this.

Do you think that the deterrent issue was valid or not?
perhaps it was as they (the three nuke powers USA, France and UK) said to provide a deterrent to any future use of chemical weapons...(not just Syrian either)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might have something to do with it?

 

[Schmelzer]

Both civil and national?

Only national. The context was international policy, not internal affairs. If Trump starts a civil war, this is your problem.

A couple - depends on how you define and count. As many as they could fight, would be the short answer. Pinochet was completely surrounded by mountains, had almost nothing for navy and air force, and still managed to get his soldiers into most of his neighbor's countries.

A few soldiers are not what matters. This is what the US has everywhere. For Pinochet, there is a minor border conflict with Argentina, where one can reasonably blame Argentina to be the aggressor.

And of course Pinochet - as a direct beneficiary of CIA directed proxy civil war and violence-abetting foreign policy under Republican Party direction - is a strange example of expected isolationism from a US Republican President.

All the fascist regimes all over the world after WW II were supported by the US, so why would this matter?

And of course any form of government - including most obviously liberal democracy - has its insular examples. You demonstrate nothing about the belligerent and militarily aggressive US fascist movement by pointing to less belligerent governments.

You cry all the time "fascist" as if this would matter. It's boring. The US fights wars when they like, Democrats with similar intensity as Republicans. Obama was fighting wars all the time, and he made new types of wars popular, like drone wars, and terrorist wars. Wars which have completely destroyed the classical international law, where one was at least obliged to declare war.

Give him time - it took even W more than a year or two to get rolling, and he had a head start from his daddy and Clinton's shilly-shally.

Trump had an even better headstart from Obama's terrorist wars.

Wasn't your major concern nuclear strikes? Trump is your worst nightmare - he has the will, as well as the means, and he's slipshod enough to touch off nuclear terrorism.

No, my major concern is a nuclear war with Russia. And Trump has now already two times accepted the Russian red lines in Syria. Despite the fake attacks created by the globalists (actually with high probability by the Brits).

There is no wingnut talking point from the Republican media feed, no matter how completely idiotic, that you will not believe. You have no defenses.

I have seen support for this strike everywhere where I have looked (admittedly this was not much). Do you remember relevant Democrats protesting against that attack? Do they exist now? Links, please.

Do you think that the deterrent issue was valid or not?
perhaps it was as they (the three nuke powers USA, France and UK) said to provide a deterrent to any future use of chemical weapons...(not just Syrian either)
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might have something to do with it?

Which deterrent issue when everybody knows that the attack is faked?

Ok, they may want to deter other states from switching sides. If you don't submit to the US, we will fake something, we do not even have to care about any plausibility of the fake, and bomb you, and any Russian defense will not help you. Unfortunately for this deterrence, it helped.

 

[Tiassa]

#rigged | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

This thing with Republicans just coming right out and saying it—

Election officials and Democrats in Wisconsin have repeatedly argued that the state's strict voter ID law allowed Donald Trump to win the state in 2016 by keeping thousands of voters—predominantly in Democratic-leaning areas—from the polls. Now a top Republican official in the state is saying the same thing.

"We battled to get voter ID on the ballot for the November '16 election," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, who defended the law in court, told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna on April 12. "How many of your listeners really honestly are sure that Sen. [Ron] Johnson was going to win reelection or President Trump was going to win Wisconsin if we didn't have voter ID to keep Wisconsin's elections clean and honest and have integrity?"

(Berman↱)​

—is not insignificant. They can't help themselves.

No, really. They warned us↑, explicitly. They really, really did.
____________________

Notes:

Berman, Ari. "Top Republican Official Says Trump Won Wisconsin Because of Voter ID Law". Mother Jones. 16 April 2018. MotherJones.com. 16 April 2018. http://bit.ly/2H4X1Vr

 

[Quantum Quack]

Only national. The context was international policy, not internal affairs. If Trump starts a civil war, this is your problem.

A few soldiers are not what matters. This is what the US has everywhere. For Pinochet, there is a minor border conflict with Argentina, where one can reasonably blame Argentina to be the aggressor.

All the fascist regimes all over the world after WW II were supported by the US, so why would this matter?

You cry all the time "fascist" as if this would matter. It's boring. The US fights wars when they like, Democrats with similar intensity as Republicans. Obama was fighting wars all the time, and he made new types of wars popular, like drone wars, and terrorist wars. Wars which have completely destroyed the classical international law, where one was at least obliged to declare war.

Trump had an even better headstart from Obama's terrorist wars.

No, my major concern is a nuclear war with Russia. And Trump has now already two times accepted the Russian red lines in Syria. Despite the fake attacks created by the globalists (actually with high probability by the Brits).

I have seen support for this strike everywhere where I have looked (admittedly this was not much). Do you remember relevant Democrats protesting against that attack? Do they exist now? Links, please.

Which deterrent issue when everybody knows that the attack is faked?

Ok, they may want to deter other states from switching sides. If you don't submit to the US, we will fake something, we do not even have to care about any plausibility of the fake, and bomb you, and any Russian defense will not help you. Unfortunately for this deterrence, it helped.

There is a logical reason to believe the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not fake. Can you guess what that reason is?
You're a conspiracy theorist. Should be easy to work it out.
Exclude dead bodies and other material evidence yet to be analysed in your workings..

 

[Schmelzer]

There is a logical reason to believe the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not fake. Can you guess what that reason is?
You're a conspiracy theorist.

Am I a conspiracy theorist? I don't think so. Of course, in the sense that anybody who does not believe the official CIA version is a conspiracy theorist, I am. And I'm always open to hearing some alternative theories. And, say, the theory that behind the JFK murder were more than that lonely guy seems more plausible to me than the official version. So, given that this was the original "conspiracy" - where the CIA decided to introduce it as a swearword into the political discussion - that means that I'm a conspiracy theorist by definition. But those theories which really deserve to be named "conspiracy theories", like all those about the Elders of Zion and so on, are nothing I would find even interesting or worth consideration. I start with the official version, and alternative theories get a chance only if the official version has serious problems. Like 9/11.

In this case, we do not have one official version, but two, but the principle is the same. I start with the two official versions and check for clear inconsistencies. The major inconsistency in the "Assad did it" theories is that "cui bono" question. Assad is on the winning ways, the only imaginable game changer would be an open entry of a state actor like US or Israel into the war. In such a situation I do not cross red lines. And for the same reason, the other side will do anything they can to motivate the US to start an open war.

I guess I know what you mean. To fake a gas attack by Assad is easy. All you have to do is to gas some people in Ghouta. The "Assad has done it" part needs no proof at all, this part is done by the Western media without any evidence for this. But it would be stupid to claim a gas attack without even gassing some people.

But is this an inconsistency, which makes the version "there was no gas attack at all" implausible? Not really. Different from Khan Sheikhun, Ghouta was no longer under Western control, the terrorist forces were collapsing. The Brits (or somebody else with money from outside) insisted on a fake, but in that situation, it is quite plausible that there was no longer access to the prepared chemicals. Alternatively, the Western specialists who had to do the job disappeared (there have been claims that some British special forces have been killed or taken as prisoners by Russian special forces, the sort of typical small conspiracy theories which I usually give a 5% plausibility). So, the local guys are in a situation where they have a chance to get some money, they need them a lot to survive the next days, and whatever follows later does not really matter. So, they will nonetheless give what is wanted, creating an extremely bad quality fake, without even gassing real people, essentially faking the fake.

Note also that in the past, the West was quite satisfied with low-quality fakes. Say, if simply presenting a collection of the many similar pictures presented already tells you that all this is staged, see http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...d-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html or if the same child actor appears on many different pictures http://rusvesna.su/news/1476642213 this is simply low quality, but the White Helmets got away with it. And why not faking whatever, given that those who are faked are those despised Western dogs?

Of course, the next "Assad gas attack" will be a more professional one, with really gassed people. And there is nothing Russians and Assad can do to prevent this. But this time, the fake failed miserably:

But I have a really funny conspiracy theory for you: The Russians offered some money to the terrorists to buy their connections with the Brits. And then they have simply faked the fake attack. Without a necessity to gas anybody, but simply delivering to the Brits what they wanted to hear and get. The video "proofs" were taken by the Russians, with the very intention to be easily identifiable as fakes. And this also explains how Lavrov knows that the Brits are behind this - they have all the communication because they were the participants of this communication on the "terrorists" side. And, of course, they told the Brits that they have really gassed people, and given them some numbers. Nice?

 

[iceaura]

The major inconsistency in the "Assad did it" theories is that "cui bono" question.

That would be a major weakness in your argument, then. Because you seem to be unable to see how Assad benefits here, or could easily see himself as benefitting as other such strongmen have.

So completely have you dismissed Assad benefits that you have overlooked an obvious source of bad fakes of gas attack videos - fakes so bad that they can be seen through by those who know better immediately, and thereby discredit the entire claim of gas attacks by Assad.

Assad himself. And Putin.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Am I a conspiracy theorist? I don't think so. Of course, in the sense that anybody who does not believe the official CIA version is a conspiracy theorist, I am. And I'm always open to hearing some alternative theories. And, say, the theory that behind the JFK murder were more than that lonely guy seems more plausible to me than the official version. So, given that this was the original "conspiracy" - where the CIA decided to introduce it as a swearword into the political discussion - that means that I'm a conspiracy theorist by definition. But those theories which really deserve to be named "conspiracy theories", like all those about the Elders of Zion and so on, are nothing I would find even interesting or worth consideration. I start with the official version, and alternative theories get a chance only if the official version has serious problems. Like 9/11.

In this case, we do not have one official version, but two, but the principle is the same. I start with the two official versions and check for clear inconsistencies. The major inconsistency in the "Assad did it" theories is that "cui bono" question. Assad is on the winning ways, the only imaginable game changer would be an open entry of a state actor like US or Israel into the war. In such a situation I do not cross red lines. And for the same reason, the other side will do anything they can to motivate the US to start an open war.

ok .. remember your own words

And for the same reason, the other side will do anything they can to motivate the US to start an open war.

Summary:
Syria - no motive
Rebels - motive

moving on....

I guess I know what you mean. To fake a gas attack by Assad is easy. All you have to do is to gas some people in Ghouta. The "Assad has done it" part needs no proof at all, this part is done by the Western media without any evidence for this. But it would be stupid to claim a gas attack without even gassing some people.

but if he actually gassed people then is that not a real gas attack regardless of motivation?

.... but any way... keep going...

But is this an inconsistency, which makes the version "there was no gas attack at all" implausible? Not really. Different from Khan Sheikhun, Ghouta was no longer under Western control, the terrorist forces were collapsing. The Brits (or somebody else with money from outside) insisted on a fake, but in that situation, it is quite plausible that there was no longer access to the prepared chemicals. Alternatively, the Western specialists who had to do the job disappeared (there have been claims that some British special forces have been killed or taken as prisoners by Russian special forces, the sort of typical small conspiracy theories which I usually give a 5% plausibility). So, the local guys are in a situation where they have a chance to get some money, they need them a lot to survive the next days, and whatever follows later does not really matter. So, they will nonetheless give what is wanted, creating an extremely bad quality fake, without even gassing real people, essentially faking the fake.

I thought you denied that you are a conspiracy theorist?

Note also that in the past, the West was quite satisfied with low-quality fakes. Say, if simply presenting a collection of the many similar pictures presented already tells you that all this is staged, see http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...d-runs-towards-camera-43-staged-pictures.html or if the same child actor appears on many different pictures http://rusvesna.su/news/1476642213 this is simply low quality, but the White Helmets got away with it. And why not faking whatever, given that those who are faked are those despised Western dogs?

the motivation being to bait the West into action yes?

Of course, the next "Assad gas attack" will be a more professional one, with really gassed people. And there is nothing Russians and Assad can do to prevent this. But this time, the fake failed miserably:

ahhh... now you are getting there....but still got a way to go...


let me ask you ...
Why do you think that this issue is limited to the known players?
Is their room for a possible unknown player in this bizarre game that seems to be going on?
=====
btw regarding that video,
You believe the reporters commentary. Why?
No eyewitness statements, no corroborating testimony ...only his word? Really?

Do you believe that the recent ongoing global cyber attack is a fake as well and as such there is no one to blame?