3 ms·

I suspect I'll get downvoted for this by people who believe our media, but I think with some critical thinking it's possible to at least realize the possibility

I suspect I'll get downvoted for this by people who believe our media, but I think with some critical thinking it's possible to at least realize the possibility that the UN JIT/OPCW may be influenced to the point of bias by the US and its allies. Many smart people around me have asked, what would have been Assad's motivation to bring down the wrath of the US on himself at a point when he's winning the war? What is the US doing in Syria without an invitation by the Syrian government, supposedly "fighting terrorists" but against the government? Why does the US have the right to constantly invade other governments it doesn't like because "they're not legitimate"? Assuming the US was the size of Connecticut and had no nuclear weapons, it would be easy for a power like China to take the domestic unrest after the Bush, Trump, or any of several other elections to claim that the US has become a dictatorship and they need to occupy large parts of our territory to ensure freedom. Then assume that somehow that tiny US manages to start winning against the China-supported "insurgents". Then suddenly, out of nowhere, with the war turning in favor of the US, the US uses some chemical weapons on civilians and brings down international condemnation on itself. Who wouldn't be skeptical? But our government has done a great job of making every other country in the world and its government seem suspicious, so it's easy for many of us to think it's perfectly reasonable that Assad is a crazy person who doesn't want to live past next week, and so is perfectly happy to use unnecessary chemical weapons in a war he's already winning, with a major global power backing him. Some of the people who were even in the video showing the "chemical attack" have said that they were not attacked with chemical weapons. Those witnesses have been dismissed as "Russian propaganda". See for yourself, the "Russian propaganda" and a US-friendly media source denouncing the Russian propaganda. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-alleged-syrian-witnesses-to-opcw/9702128 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/russia-presents-allege... https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoax/ https://www.rt.com/op-ed/428514-douma-civilians-chemical-hoa... By the way, there are plenty of people in the US who have criticized this overall US strategy for a long time. https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/dp/0745316336 https://www.amazon.com/New-Military-Humanism-Lessons-Kosovo/... But I suppose people on both sides of this debate will think that the other side is just believing the "obviously wrong" propaganda of the other side.

Fnoord 8y ago
> I suspect I'll get downvoted for this [...] Why do you start your post with an appeal to pity?
zeth___ 8y ago
This type of thing is always presented as 'if you don't believe us, you must believe the evil doers!'. Anyone with half a brain will not believe our side and the other side.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Thinking in terms of "our side" and "other side" is part of the problem I think. I may pay taxes to one of the involved parties, but that's not a rational reason to root for that side like it was my preferred sports team. It's "my" side only in a very abstract and indirect sense, through some sort of democratic system and accident of geography, but I shouldn't let either of those bias my analysis.
SCHiM 8y ago
Without insinuating anything about your post, your opinions or your beliefs, I have the following hopefully partially objective points to note about your post for fellow readers of hackernews. You raise suspicions that the OPCW and JIT are biased or influenced by the US and its allies. But offer nothing more than a convoluted, hearsay, appeal to authority to back it up. "Smart people around me also think that <something>". That <something> is a frequent talking point of 'the other side' (ie. not the US and its allies). 'Why use chemical weapons if you're winning and you know the US would crack down': because you didn't know, you've been using them since the start and noticed no significant reaction from the west[0], and because there's more to war than just 'winning'[1]. The instances in which chemical weapon use was suspected were instances where a high attrition for both sides was likely: entrenched enemy combatants in civilian areas. Even if you 'win' there by conventional means, you're likely to have sustained losses that can quite conveniently be avoided if you can just gas your enemies out of their basements. Having cast and fortified your suspicion on the supposedly true, neutral, authority on the subject, but not actually pointing to any concrete points of contention, but keeping it mostly vague using hindsight rationalizations (as if everyone has perfect knowledge of what the other side would do?), you then shift your focus to an implausible scenario that seems calculated to produce a large amount of moral outrage. "What if <contemporary rival of USA> were to invade the USA and then <suddenly[0]> use chemical weapons while casting blame on the USA?". Of course, we have already established that it is perfectly rational to use chemical weapons when you can get away with it: it's effective, it didn't cause much ruckus until now and, looking at what was actually achieved: you've definitely come out on top[2]. Not to say that the USA is always blameless, but this false-flag-poison-gas operation just doesn't cut it. We all know the US doesn't need much to start assassinating people with drones. [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Ch... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabitants-prepare-leave-deadly-syria-chemical-attack https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabita...

Fnoord 8y ago

> I suspect I'll get downvoted for this [...] Why do you start your post with an appeal to pity?

zeth___ 8y ago

This type of thing is always presented as 'if you don't believe us, you must believe the evil doers!'. Anyone with half a brain will not believe our side and the other side.

JackCh 8y ago
Thinking in terms of "our side" and "other side" is part of the problem I think. I may pay taxes to one of the involved parties, but that's not a rational reason to root for that side like it was my preferred sports team. It's "my" side only in a very abstract and indirect sense, through some sort of democratic system and accident of geography, but I shouldn't let either of those bias my analysis.

SCHiM 8y ago

Without insinuating anything about your post, your opinions or your beliefs, I have the following hopefully partially objective points to note about your post for fellow readers of hackernews. You raise suspicions that the OPCW and JIT are biased or influenced by the US and its allies. But offer nothing more than a convoluted, hearsay, appeal to authority to back it up. "Smart people around me also think that <something>". That <something> is a frequent talking point of 'the other side' (ie. not the US and its allies). 'Why use chemical weapons if you're winning and you know the US would crack down': because you didn't know, you've been using them since the start and noticed no significant reaction from the west[0], and because there's more to war than just 'winning'[1]. The instances in which chemical weapon use was suspected were instances where a high attrition for both sides was likely: entrenched enemy combatants in civilian areas. Even if you 'win' there by conventional means, you're likely to have sustained losses that can quite conveniently be avoided if you can just gas your enemies out of their basements. Having cast and fortified your suspicion on the supposedly true, neutral, authority on the subject, but not actually pointing to any concrete points of contention, but keeping it mostly vague using hindsight rationalizations (as if everyone has perfect knowledge of what the other side would do?), you then shift your focus to an implausible scenario that seems calculated to produce a large amount of moral outrage. "What if <contemporary rival of USA> were to invade the USA and then <suddenly[0]> use chemical weapons while casting blame on the USA?". Of course, we have already established that it is perfectly rational to use chemical weapons when you can get away with it: it's effective, it didn't cause much ruckus until now and, looking at what was actually achieved: you've definitely come out on top[2]. Not to say that the USA is always blameless, but this false-flag-poison-gas operation just doesn't cut it. We all know the US doesn't need much to start assassinating people with drones. [0]: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Ch... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabitants-prepare-leave-deadly-syria-chemical-attack https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/09/douma-inhabita...