Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

White Chief of Staff admits the evidence that Assad did it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

McDonough acknowledged to CNN’s Candy Crowley on "State of the Union" that U.S. officials are not 100 percent certain that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attacks, given the inconsistencies inherent in intelligence.

 

“Now do we have irrefutable, beyond reasonable doubt evidence? This is not a court of law, and intelligence does not work that way,” McDonough said. He added that common sense says Assad "is responsible for this. He should be held accountable."

 

 

of course one could argue that "common sense" says Assad had nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this.

 

 

WH chief of staff: ‘This is not Iraq or Afghanistan’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

It is more likely it was one of Assads generals who done the attack. There was some resentment towards Assad in his own ranks he was going to do some sort of deal with America.

The hardliners on his side dont want this to happen so this is one way to make sure it wont happen imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course 100% isn't obtainable, but actually the 65% you mention does not sound very good to me.

 

Put it into context. What's the downside of a false positive? We impair the capability of a guy who has used these things in the past. Doesn't seem so bad does it?

 

Now ask yourself what is the actual significance of this thing of which we are 65% sure. Has the USUK decided to intervene on the basis of this # alone. Of course it hasn't, it decided back a while ago that we would intervene, that's why the US/EU etc have quietly been lifting arms embargoes etc. So in actuality the 65% is only significant to the extent that it's sufficient to bolster the propaganda case to execute a plan that had already been drawn up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
And you know this how, exactly?

 

It's just an analytic confidence rating level in an intelligence report. It's not to say it can't be wrong but in this case, and most cases that don't involve field operatives working under cover inside the regime, it's the highest available level of analytical assessment, as the White House has said in their press releases. Actually, even if he had him on video and audio, I think the level would likely stay the same.

 

The UK's own Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee wrote to the Prime Minster and said much the same thing, using our own analytic confidence rating system, which was to say that we considered it 'highly likely' that it was the Assad regime and that in every assessment it had 'high confidence' with the exception of motive to do it at that time, although he stated it could well increase with further intelligence gathering.

Edited by Numero Veinticinco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just an analytic confidence rating level in an intelligence report. It's not to say it can't be wrong but in this case, and most cases that don't involve field operatives working under cover inside the regime, it's the highest available level of analytical assessment, as the White House has said in their press releases. Actually, even if he had him on video and audio, I think the level would likely stay the same.

Is that the same "level of confidence" that said Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

 

Also, excuse me if I don't take CIA's own "level of analytical assessment", particularly if it comes out of a White House press release, as gospel. They are not going to say "fuck, we've got it all wrong and fabricated all the evidence" would they?

 

The UK's own Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee wrote to the Prime Minster and said much the same thing, using our own analytic confidence rating system, which was to say that we considered it 'highly likely' that it was the Assad regime and that in every assessment it had 'high confidence' with the exception of motive to do it at that time, although he stated it could well increase with further intelligence gathering.

Link(s)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it into context. What's the downside of a false positive? We impair the capability of a guy who has used these things in the past. Doesn't seem so bad does it?

 

Now ask yourself what is the actual significance of this thing of which we are 65% sure. Has the USUK decided to intervene on the basis of this # alone. Of course it hasn't, it decided back a while ago that we would intervene, that's why the US/EU etc have quietly been lifting arms embargoes etc. So in actuality the 65% is only significant to the extent that it's sufficient to bolster the propaganda case to execute a plan that had already been drawn up.

 

This all presupposes though that you find one side less morally repugnant than the other and also feel that involvement by a small set of countries without any UN backing is a good thing.

 

Isn't it basically saying that since they want to have a pop at Assad anyway, anything goes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put it into context. What's the downside of a false positive? We impair the capability of a guy who has used these things in the past. Doesn't seem so bad does it?

 

Now ask yourself what is the actual significance of this thing of which we are 65% sure. Has the USUK decided to intervene on the basis of this # alone. Of course it hasn't, it decided back a while ago that we would intervene, that's why the US/EU etc have quietly been lifting arms embargoes etc. So in actuality the 65% is only significant to the extent that it's sufficient to bolster the propaganda case to execute a plan that had already been drawn up.

 

We halt momentum towards Assad regaining stability and cause a prolonged war in which there is more death and horror. Possibly it leads to a situation where Assad is removed and elements that are much less moderate gain control. Ethnic cleansing takes place as a response to the real and perceived ills during Alawite rule.

 

I think that Assad rule is probably a better outcome for Syrians than many of the other possible outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Is that the same "level of confidence" that said Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

 

Also, excuse me if I don't take CIA's own "level of analytical assessment", particularly if it comes out of a White House press release, as gospel. They are not going to say "fuck, we've got it all wrong and fabricated all the evidence" would they?

 

I'm not asking you to take anybody's anything as gospel. Actually, I'd encourage you do not. What I'm doing is answering the question you asked of me. Whether they're actually highly confident or not, or have made it all up and it's a giant conspiracy, well, that's got nothing to do with me or anything I've said in this thread.

 

However, the answer to your question is that 'high confidence' is the highest level of analytic confidence. That's just a factual answer to the question about my statement, which is true. I spoke about the White House pre-release because they say themselves it is, in fact, the highest level of confidence in the rating system used by Intelligence Analysts. Here's a link to an influential Masters in Applied Intelligence thesis about analytic confidence. Here's a wiki link giving a brief summary of the levels.

 

Debate the reliability of those doing the analysis all you like, but please don't fall into the trap of thinking I'm some stooge for the American war machine, intent on pushing their agenda. I'm backing up what I said, which is that it's the highest level of confidence. What the Americans do is on their own shoulders and has nothing to do with me or what I've said.

 

Link(s)?

 

As long as you don't mistake me giving you the link to it with me saying it myself, fine. Here you go. And yes, it could be a total fabrication on their part. However, just like I'd only ever support military action of any kind with certain provisos - credible, corroborated intelligence; legal grounding; multilateralism, etc - I'd only accept that this is a massive conspiracy if there was evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We halt momentum towards Assad regaining stability and cause a prolonged war in which there is more death and horror. Possibly it leads to a situation where Assad is removed and elements that are much less moderate gain control. Ethnic cleansing takes place as a response to the real and perceived ills during Alawite rule.

 

I think that Assad rule is probably a better outcome for Syrians than many of the other possible outcomes.

 

That's the downside of an intervention full stop. And yeah, I'm splitting hairs, but the hair splitting was the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We halt momentum towards Assad regaining stability and cause a prolonged war in which there is more death and horror. Possibly it leads to a situation where Assad is removed and elements that are much less moderate gain control. Ethnic cleansing takes place as a response to the real and perceived ills during Alawite rule.

I think that Assad rule is probably a better outcome for Syrians than many of the other possible outcomes.

 

Agree completely. Look at Libya now Ghadaafi is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all presupposes though that you find one side less morally repugnant than the other and also feel that involvement by a small set of countries without any UN backing is a good thing.

 

Isn't it basically saying that since they want to have a pop at Assad anyway, anything goes?

 

Sorry, i'd switched to epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if many of us have brought this up, but a huge interest for Israel (so in turn the US too, seeing as they're so manipulated by Israel.) and Sunni Muslims will be cutting off supply routes for Hezbollah in Lebanon. A lot of their supply comes from Iran who use Syria to pass through, so that's almost definitely a decent-sized factor in all this too.

 

So we have Israel being more secure, oil and gas pipeline issues, the usual US, French, and UK manipulation of the middle-east, Sunni Muslims weakening the power of Shia Muslims, weakening Russian influence in the middle-east, defence contractors making loads of cash, plenty of other corporations making cash rebuilding Syria if al-Assad is removed from power, and the banksters making tons of money by funding either side.

 

I think the picture is starting to become clearer now.

Edited by Red Phoenix
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relative to an ongoing civil war you could argue that just about any outcome is good.

 

I don't think there is an outcome for Syria which will stop innocent lives being lost at a high rate, or leave the country with a less oppressive regime. Those things certainly haven't happened in any other Middle Eastern countries recently, regardless of the level of outside interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is an outcome for Syria which will stop innocent lives being lost at a high rate, or leave the country with a less oppressive regime. Those things certainly haven't happened in any other Middle Eastern countries recently, regardless of the level of outside interference.

 

All I'm saying is when the war is finished, less people will be dying. And that is good. Alas, ending the war isn't really on anyone's agenda, but hey ho, geo-politics and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, what you see as loss of self-assurance is just not caring enough about Syria to spend the political capital. If those missiles had landed in Israel syria would be ex-syria already and China and Russia would have done bugger all, because there is bugger all they can do.

 

This Obama dude, just ain't all that big on killing people for the sake of it.

 

Surely having the national security team stumping all over the world and cajoling congress is using political capital? If he had just went ahead with the strike immediately and went on tv a few hours proclaiming how he had upheld the responsibility to protect, then his approval rating would be up about 10 points and this thing would be over. Having it drag on hurts him.

 

Won't comment on that last line, as I assume you're just trying to bait Monty - and fine bait it is, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely having the national security team stumping all over the world and cajoling congress is using political capital? If he had just went ahead with the strike immediately and went on tv a few hours proclaiming how he had upheld the responsibility to protect, then his approval rating would be up about 10 points and this thing would be over. Having it drag on hurts him.

 

The cost of a unitary action lacking even the consensus of the UK is far less than a bit of talking out of both sides of your mouth while projecting yourself as the reluctant world police force against the backdrop of your nobel prize.

 

And you're right about Plan A, but Cameron fucked that right up. So they scrabble around looking for different ways to look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Syria have to list all their chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, they must give chemical weapons inspectors access to all their chemical weapons ahead of their complete destruction, but the U S of A are exempt from this, did I get that right, America has no chemical weapons and will not ever use them again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Syria have to list all their chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, they must give chemical weapons inspectors access to all their chemical weapons ahead of their complete destruction, but the U S of A are exempt from this, did I get that right, America has no chemical weapons and will not ever use them again?

 

As of 18 months ago, the US had destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons, the last 10% is located at two sites which are being prepared for decommissioning and should be complete by the end of the decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Syria have to list all their chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, they must give chemical weapons inspectors access to all their chemical weapons ahead of their complete destruction, but the U S of A are exempt from this, did I get that right, America has no chemical weapons and will not ever use them again?

Syria are just signing up to the same terms as everyone else who has signed the Chemical Weapon Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of 18 months ago, the US had destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons, the last 10% is located at two sites which are being prepared for decommissioning and should be complete by the end of the decade.

Syria are just signing up to the same terms as everyone else who has signed the Chemical Weapon Convention.

Cheers for that info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

Here are some good videos on the various geopolitical agendas at work in Syria:

What's good about them, mate? Are we talking about the same Michel Chossudovsky who has been banging on for the best part of a decade about the US being on the verge of a nuclear attack on Iran? The Michel Chossudovsky who is all 'new world order' this and '9/11 conspiracy' that? If we are, not sure I want to invest too much time into them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...