CNN Reporting that US Launched 50 Missiles on Syria

[Yttrium]

Looking back through the thread (after emptying my ignore list), I suppose I should clear up some things.

I am not a liberal.

I've never been interested in removing Assad from power.

Yes, I think it's more immoral to subject someone to an eventually lethal dose of chemical weapons than shooting someone in the head with a bullet. The more suffering induced before death, the more immoral in my opinion. Look at what happened in World War I. That's why we banned chemical weapons. That's why we continue to try to enforce the ban on chemical weapons. If someone says that horrible suffering before death is no worse than a quick and painless death, I will always strongly disagree with that person. Certainly, there are other ways to induce horrible suffering before death, including using conventional bombs and bullets. Chemical weapons were banned because they do it far too well.

[rogue06]

on the Rachel Maddow show she had someone on there that seriously put forward the idea that Putin gassed the children just to give Trump an excuse to retaliate and make him look good and hide his Russian connection.

You, Tassy and JimL will probably think that is a viable conspiracy.

Lawrence O'Donnell, who hosts The Last Word on MSNBC, wondered aloud on Maddow's show if "Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week, so that his friend in the White House could have a big night." He went on to repeat it again on his show later that night as the lead story where he said that Putin told Assad to do it in order to

"attract media attention so that my friend in the White House will see it on TV. And then Donald Trump can fire some missiles at Syria that'll do no real damage and then the American news media will change the subject from Russian influence and the Trump campaign, and the Trump transition and the Trump White House. It's perfect."

Also on MSNBC^[1] the day before, on Chris Matthew's Hardball both he and Mother Jones D.C. bureau chief David Corn were both saying the strike was meant as a, in Corn's words, "wag the dog scenario," to distract from the investigation of the charge that Trump and Putin colluded to win the election^[2].

Matthews:

Of course in the real world Putin has been provoking, as O'Donnell blathers, "his friend in the White House" [Trump] pretty much ever since he took office. These incitements range from fly-bys of U.S. ships by Russian jets to blatantly violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a transgression serious enough to have led Trump to postpone any diplomatic outreach to Russia. And even the rabidly anti-Trump New York Times announced that Trump's missile attack on Syria's Shayrat air base (where the Sarin nerve gas attack is believed to have been launched from) has "threatened Russian-American relations."













1 MSNBC is not alone here. Obama's Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region, Philip Gordon, has been pushing this conspiracy theory as well including in an article Politico

2. A charge, in spite of several months of intensive investigation, has not produced any corroborating evidence.

[Meh Gerbil]

Yes, I think it's more immoral to subject someone to an eventually lethal dose of chemical weapons than shooting someone in the head with a bullet. The more suffering induced before death, the more immoral in my opinion. Look at what happened in World War I. That's why we banned chemical weapons. That's why we continue to try to enforce the ban on chemical weapons. If someone says that horrible suffering before death is no worse than a quick and painless death, I will always strongly disagree with that person. Certainly, there are other ways to induce horrible suffering before death, including using conventional bombs and bullets. Chemical weapons were banned because they do it far too well.

Conventional weapons do not guarantee a quick and painless death and can result in just as much long term suffering as chemical weapons. Google 'land mines' or visit a V.A. hospital. You're living in a fantasy land if you think there is any real difference. That said, if you'd like to illustrate a substantive difference go ahead and give it a shot.

I think the distinction is utterly fabricated.

If you want to know about the moral authority of international law consider this: You aren't allowed to assassinate a leader but you can kill hundreds of thousands of young men and women in his country in an effort to bring him to his knees. International law is written by old oligarchs to protect themselves. It has nothing do to with morality. Also, the idea that after WWI we banned chemical weapons only to use nuclear weaponry on Japan is another short lesson in the real meaning of those kinds of bans.

[Yttrium]

Conventional weapons do not guarantee a quick and painless death and can result in just as much long term suffering as chemical weapons.

Yes. I said as much in the paragraph you quoted, specifically to counter that kind of response.

[Meh Gerbil]

Yes. I said as much in the paragraph you quoted, specifically to counter that kind of response.

Naturally, that left me wondering what the substantive differences between the two types of weapons.
If they produce the same results the reasons for moral objections to A over B would be?

[Yttrium]

Naturally, that left me wondering what the substantive differences between the two types of weapons.
If they produce the same results the reasons for moral objections to A over B would be?

They can produce the same results. However, chemical weapons are generally far more effective at producing horrible, lingering deaths. As I said, "Chemical weapons were banned because they do it far too well".

[Starlight]

on the Rachel Maddow show she had someone on there that seriously put forward the idea that Putin gassed the children just to give Trump an excuse to retaliate and make him look good and hide his Russian connection.

You, Tassy and JimL will probably think that is a viable conspiracy.

Not quite.

Currently I think the balance of probability leans towards the idea that the Syrian rebels (ISIS, and Al Qaeda etc) faked a chemical attack which they blamed on Assad, but really no chemicals were used and the rebels just recorded footage and photos of bodies and people they had killed, in order to try and get the West to side against the rebel's enemy Assad. It worked and most of the world believed there had been an attack and that it was done by Assad.

The Trump administration seems to have then gone to Putin and discussed what their response was going to be. The Trump team said "we have to look strong" and "we can't let the use of chemical weapons go unchallenged". Putin said "Assad is my guy, leave him alone." They came up with a compromise that the US would do a symbolic strike against a pre-evacuated airfield where the chemical attacks had been launched from, to demonstrate power and show a response and totally show that they weren't in the pocket of the Russians because they were prepared to act against Assad. And Putin agreed to publicly denounce that action and say that what the US was doing was terrible, and that he totally opposed what the Trump administration was doing in Syria, wink.

That's currently what I think probably happened. But obviously as more information comes to light, my working hypothesis will be updated.

[Yttrium]

Currently I think the balance of probability leans towards the idea that the Syrian rebels (ISIS, and Al Qaeda etc) faked a chemical attack which they blamed on Assad, but really no chemicals were used and the rebels just recorded footage and photos of bodies and people they had killed, in order to try and get the West to side against the rebel's enemy Assad. It worked and most of the world believed there had been an attack and that it was done by Assad.

Dude. Considering the evidence so far, you're approaching faked moon landing level of conspiracy theory here.

I could understand a theory that someone else was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, but not that the chemical weapons effects were fake.

[Starlight]

I could understand a theory that someone else was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, but not that the chemical weapons effects were fake.

It could absolutely turn out to be the case that chemical weapons were used. And as time passes and more analysis is done we will be able to be more sure of that one way or the other.

But what is more important would still be the question of who actually used them.

[Meh Gerbil]

It could absolutely turn out to be the case that chemical weapons were used. And as time passes and more analysis is done we will be able to be more sure of that one way or the other.

But what is more important would still be the question of who actually used them.

I didn't vote for Hillary because she killed Vince Foster.
I think she lured Vince Foster to that park with the promise of sex and capped him instead.

I know there is no evidence of that and probably only 1% chance of that being true but I'm following your example of basing decisions on a total absence of evidence.

[Starlight]

I know there is no evidence of that and probably only 1% chance of that being true but I'm following your example of basing decisions on a total absence of evidence.

They are hypotheses not decisions. And there's not an absence of evidence - just because I didn't happen to discuss the evidence in this thread doesn't mean I haven't looked at it elsewhere.

[Darth Executor]

The US military claims to have tracked the Syrian aircraft that dropped the chemicals from the base Trump dropped and had visual confirmation of it dropping chems. Fartlight's inane conspiracy theory would require the military (which has been saber rattling about Russia and pushing for war in Syria since the Obama era) to suddenly be willing to play Trump's patsy while he pals around with Putin.

[demi-conservative]

I could understand a theory that someone else was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, but not that the chemical weapons effects were fake.

Was agitprop especially good this time??

[JimL]

Not quite.

Currently I think the balance of probability leans towards the idea that the Syrian rebels (ISIS, and Al Qaeda etc) faked a chemical attack which they blamed on Assad, but really no chemicals were used and the rebels just recorded footage and photos of bodies and people they had killed, in order to try and get the West to side against the rebel's enemy Assad. It worked and most of the world believed there had been an attack and that it was done by Assad.

The Trump administration seems to have then gone to Putin and discussed what their response was going to be. The Trump team said "we have to look strong" and "we can't let the use of chemical weapons go unchallenged". Putin said "Assad is my guy, leave him alone." They came up with a compromise that the US would do a symbolic strike against a pre-evacuated airfield where the chemical attacks had been launched from, to demonstrate power and show a response and totally show that they weren't in the pocket of the Russians because they were prepared to act against Assad. And Putin agreed to publicly denounce that action and say that what the US was doing was terrible, and that he totally opposed what the Trump administration was doing in Syria, wink.

That's currently what I think probably happened. But obviously as more information comes to light, my working hypothesis will be updated.

I doubt that star, I doubt the Syrian rebels faked the attack, those were real people who were really dying. But what I wouldn't disbelieve is that this whole thing was orchestrated by Putin, Trump and Syria. It really doesn't make much sense otherwise. Why would Syria after all this time suddenly decide to use chemical weapons, weapons which they and their strongest ally, the Russians, had assured the world were disposed of. Why would Syria implicate their strongest ally, Russia. I don't think they would, I don't think they would do that without Putins okay. We all know that they have it in them, they are both obvious psychopaths, and it gives Trump the opportunity to look as though he is not in Putin's pocket by shooting a few tomahawk missiles at an abandoned air base, doing little damage which the Russians can then repair in short order. Having his buddy Trump in the White House is more important to Putin than any backlash he might get for his role in the chemical weapons attack by Assad.

[rogue06]

I didn't vote for Hillary because she killed Vince Foster.
I think she lured Vince Foster to that park with the promise of sex and capped him instead.

I know there is no evidence of that and probably only 1% chance of that being true but I'm following your example of basing decisions on a total absence of evidence.

The obvious hole in that theory is the idea of anyone being lured anywhere in hopes of having sex with Hillary.