The Trump White House is at war with reality. Threats of harsh action directed against Syria if there is another chemical weapons attack, setting up a perfect scenario for the “rebels” to stage one. And what is the evidence that such a thing is being planned? Where was the evidence tha Assad planned and carried out the Chemical attack in which Trump was so devastated about 'beautify children' being gassed that he ordered Tomahawk strikes?

Your emotions are noted, flyhardmo. Suggest that you remember that the year is 2017, and information is a tool of war, and even moreso a tool of conflict "other than war" which seems to be the popular pastime anymore.
What Mr Assad and his crew have to now consider is as follows:
If they haven't any such thing in the works, is this a good chance to send counterbattery fire of news/noise/propaganda in the other direction? Or just ignore?
If they have something in the works, is Trump "bluffing or not?" (The last strike leans toward not, but the ever-mercurial President Trump might be tossing this out for a different reason).

This isn't about what did or didn't previously happen: that's water under the bridge. The story you linked to is on the topic of possible futures.

ISIS / Al Qaeda under pressure and Saudi' not happy that their mates are under presssure hence time to concoct something to enable bombing of Syrian Government to take place. SAA about to begin a big offensive in Hama province

Are Qatari's and Saudi's good guys this week or bad guys..................... just changes so often, what about Al Qaeda have they been fogiven for that little misunderstanding on 9/11.

Reasons for starting wars:

Let us see,

Vietnam - Golf of Tonkin - made up
Iraq - WMD - made up
Afghanistan - 9/11 - not Afghanistan, still seeking true culprits
Libya - made up
Syria - made up

Assad is winning, ISIS is being wiped out, it would be ludicrous to suggest Assad would carry out such an attack considering the repercussions.

The Syrian Free Army or ISIS if you like have everything to gain by faking an attack.

Let's see how our 'bought and paid for' media react if such an attack does take place.

Drone Dog "The Syrian Free Army or ISIS if you like..."


Are you serious?

Hot barrel!
Female Kurdish sniper cheats death at hands of IS - BBC News

Argument from incredulity noted. Not convincing. From where I sit, it makes no sense for him to engage in a chemical attack because he knows the whole world is watching and getting into his business. Has been since the uprising 2011-2012. In the long game, politically, since his intention is to remain in power and not go into exile (or whatever) then he's got to take the long position.
Balanced against that is the general imperative in a civil war of "hit the opponent hard enough so that they stop fighting." Look at how long this civil war has been going on, and the hope that any and all of his opponents have that he'll get removed if they just keep fighting. This hope that is boosted by foreign assistance (from numerous actors) to the various factions who are his opponents. (The longer this thing goes on the more I am reminded of the Spanish Civil War, but it's got its own sort of logic ... ) Assad and his inner circle do not want a forever war. It's incredibly destructive to the unity and prosperity of their country.

Would he and his team reach for something beyond the pale with the aim of "ending this?" Maybe. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, nor beyond the range of the plausible that the chemical weapons tool is perceived as useful toward that end.

Preposterous? Not if you analyze it unemotionally.
A good idea? If one considers the long range political fall out ... I'd say it's would be a bad move since his intent is to stay in office/stay in power in Syria. But I am not sitting in his chair trying to figure out how to do two things at once:
1. end this civil war
2. remain in office
I won't pretend to know what steps he will or won't take to achieve that end.

Has he actually run out of other options? I don't know, and opinions on that vary.

I can see your point about Assad. My question has always been, why does it matter how you kill people? They end up dead, as we all do. It seems to me more about 'niceties'.
I do wonder whether people will accept 100000 people being killed by bullets and then complain about 100 by chemical weapons?
The quicker this war finishes the less will die anyway.

I'll forward your question to the folks who arranged the Peace of Westphalia, to be forwarded onward to the folks in Geneva and in the UN building in New York. The how seems to matter. :hmm: (I admit, it sure gets to be a bit of a head scratcher at times ...) Yeah. The number of outsiders who have chosen to support faction A, B, C, D, and F, as well as Assad's faction, are feeding the war's continuation. Sadly for the people in Syria, it's apparently about more than who is in charge in their country. :suspect: :sad:

Framing yourself in a window while working in in a sniper / counter sniper is not a recipy for a long life....

ISIS has recently been mostly put out of Mosul, which means their power base is moving back towards Syria. And now some news that may or may not be verifiable. How many times has Al Baghdadi been reported dead? Let's add one more.
If he is now dead, what is the likelihood that it was an air strike, or a drone strike, that did for him?
I'd say low. I suspect if he'd been targeted/taken out by an air attack, the air force would not be able to shut up about it.

Sometime in late June there were many publications in the Russian media with references to the Russian AF (or MoD) officials that there was a strike specially undertaken on the location where this rat was hiding. It was said that though the strike was massive and precise, it was, however, not possible to confirm for sure that he was eliminated. It was suggested to wait for intelligence data or indirect confirmation from sources linked to terrorists. Now it seems that such indirect confirmations started spreading.
I agree that anyway that it is indeed very difficult to be 100% sure in such cases.

You could scrape some DNA off the walls, I suppose but in the Russian aerial photos that I saw the buildings were gone, leaving two flat squares.
"Square bombs?" I remember thinking.

Its going to be interesting to see what happens if and when the American backed Syrian Democratic Forces win in Raqqa. The city will swap from one anti Assad force to another so will that lead to Assad besieging the city or will it become a political bargaining chip.

17 minutes if you have them, skydiver69.


Well considered and thought out. Includes a discussion of a possible temporary working solution to Raqqa.


The women leading the fight against so-called IS in Syria - BBC News

Someone's out there fighting, but on his own dime?

Revisionist clap-trap, and why name-check only these wars?

Iraq did have WMD, as Saddam Hussein had already used them against his own people. This is well documented. He chose to hamper and obstruct the work of the UN inspectors sent in to ascertain the status of his programme just ahead of the 2003 war, so giving credence to the belief that he still had them.

Afghanistan - the 9/11 attacks were planned and orchestrated from that country, not Saudi Arabia. The Taliban government were given the opportunity to give Bin Laden up, but opted not too leaving the US and its allies with no alternative than to go in and get him.

Libya - what was "made up" about Libya? Colonel Gadaffi publicly stated that he was going to 'exterminate the rats' in Benghazi, and the West intervened to prevent a massacre.

Syria - what is "made up" about Syria. There is a war going on that the West did not start. The West has become involved to eliminate Islamic State, which has perpetrated attacks against us.

That's an interesting news story so thanks for highlighting it. If anything like the arrangements suggested by the story come to fruition then a new can of worms will be opened or agitated. I can't see the Syrians, Iranians or Turks accepting a well armed and battle hardened pseudo Kurd state being set up in the area.

I am all for it. Galbraith wrote an interesting critique of OIF in about 2006, called The End of Iraq. One of the points he belabored was that a possible silver lining was Kurds getting their own home as a result.


Granted, he was a little biased having worked with the Kurds quite a bit when he was in government. Let's just say that I am not the only person who referred to OIF as OKF: Operation Kurdish Freedom.


I still want to see that come true, even moreso now that Erdogan is playing the neo-caliph in Istanbul.