A Manefesto

[Musburger1]

Powerful stuff. Brad will likely read this and give his thoughts. Perhaps Joe. Maybe Deez. Hope more of you find the time. I'm not sure about the John Wayne comparisons, but I think Saker hits the nail on the head most of the way through. Think of this as a critique of your perspective on where are government currently resides and challenge yourself to take an objective look as presented from someone outside. There is much to debate and its a fascinating, if not frightening, piece.

http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-an...missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/

 

[Brad Austin]

Maybe I'll go back and finish later, but the pretext isn't inspiring much reason to.

It's incredibly weak to base the entire 'false flag' premise on Assad couldn't have done it because it makes no sense.

Since when did rogue, 'there's gonna be hell to pay' actions taken by Middle Eastern leaders ever need to make sense to have been ordered?

Not long ago Erogdan shot down a Russian fighter jet that barely crossed his airspace. It was widely seen as an "oh f*ck, what's this idiot thinking?" moment.

Everybody knew Russia could wipe the floor with Turkey. Soon after he was licking Putin's boots to save his backside. I'd imagine Turkey is much more receptive to whatever demands Moscow makes of them these days. And that one's much milder than other senseless acts over the last decades.

Then he claims Assad didn't do it because he has no such weapons. BS. Countless reports from wide-ranging sources all over the spectrum and globe claim he still does.

Not to mention there was a former Syrian Army general who defected that claimed the other day they retained chemical weapons after the ordered removal and he was ordered to use them three times. He also claimed they faked it by switching in benign chemicals until Assad got suspicious.

I certainly don't buy Syria doesn't have the means to commit a chemical weapons attack. And 'it makes no sense' is not a conclusion I'm willing to rely on when judging if an action was really ordered by provenly barbaric Middle Eastern leaders.

Not saying the false flag angle is still not possible, just that the reasons being put forth in the pretext of this article have poor credibility.

 

[Musburger1]

Erdogan's hope was that NATO would give assurance they would stand behind him and escalate the war should Russia retaliate militarily. When they did not, he backed down. He didn't shoot the jet down because he is a rogue lunatic. He has geopolitical aspirations and miscalculated.

The part of the post that most interest me is the latter half which describes the perception of the US by an outside analyst. This viewpoint is also reflected in the comments.

 

[Brad Austin]

Erdogan's hope was that NATO would give assurance they would stand behind him and escalate the war should Russia retaliate militarily.

That's why it was viewed as senseless. It was easy to tell he was counting on NATO back-up, and even simpler to conclude he wasn't going to get it.

It's pretty senseless to bitchslap a 6'5, 280 roided out guy in hopes your not so reliable, UFC friends will show up after he starts to kick your *ss.

That was only a minor example in the vast collection of senseless ME actions. Just saying that requiring a rogue, ruthless action by a ME leader to make sense to earn credit is ignoring the insane history of the region.

A provenly barbaric leader like Assad has the potential to be even more unpredictable and senselessly ruthless with two pitbulls standing over his shoulder.

It's certainly not beyond possible that Assad and Putin set up Trump to see what he'd do. They could've picked a target knowing it was storing chemicals, then hit it with conventional bombs to simulate a chemical attack.

They'd assume both outcomes could work in their favor. One, DT pulls an Obama, fails to act, and reveals himself as 'soft'. Two, DT retaliates and Russia proves Assad dropped conventional bombs, thus making DT look like an incompetent or irrational lawbreaker.

What they wouldn't have counted on with this scenario, is still being seen as responsible for intentionally unleashing chemicals onto civilians, even with a conventional attack.

There's no way they'd prove hitting a chemical storage was unintentional, and the horror of footage from the event removed the 'benefit of the doubt' from Assad's corner.

So either if they dropped chemical bombs or struck chemical storage with normal bombs on purpose, the kick in the nuts that followed will still be accepted.

I'm still not ready to take a firm stance on who did what and why. Neither Washington's push to blame Assad nor conspiracy claims of 'false flag' are without holes. A firm conclusion will arise when more concrete evidence accumulates.

 

[Musburger1]

That's why it was viewed as senseless. It was easy to tell he was counting on NATO back-up, and even simpler to conclude he wasn't going to get it.

That was only a minor example in the vast collection of senseless ME actions. Just saying that requiring a rogue, ruthless action by a ME leader to make sense to earn credit is ignoring the insane history of the region.

A provenly barbaric leader like Assad has the potential to be even more unpredictable and senselessly ruthless with two pitbulls standing over his shoulder.

I would argue the trillions wasted by the US the past 15 years is even more senseless and Trump is indicating the policies will continue unabated.

 

[Brad Austin]

I would argue the trillions wasted by the US the past 15 years is even more senseless and Trump is indicating the policies will continue unabated.

Agreed. The U.S. was not immune from abusing common sense at an alarming rate either. The ME is the devil's den. Anyone who plays in that sandbox will get burned. Been that way for centuries.

This might be the most senseless decision of all...trying to force democracy on a religion that's defining rift and brutal history of war and slaughter is all because they supported a different person to succeed their prophet.

Talk about the ultimate election fallout. Every war we speak of between Muslim countries involves the fight between those who backed one candidate over another. And the West expects Democracy to work on said religion? Now that's senseless.