As we consider the ramifications and impact of last week’s strike against Syria over Assad’s use of sarin against his own people, we should examine the facts.

However, this is 2017.  Instead of being responsible and factual, what we’re going to do instead is put forward our best and wildest conspiracy theories worthy of our favorite fake news outlets.  Because why not?  Everyone else is doing it.

Let’s start off with the official story as a baseline for the wackiness to come.

Alright, so the reasoning goes that Assad knew that he was dealing with a new and embattled US president in Donald Trump.  During the campaign, Trump had expressed an unwillingness to seek regime change in Syria.  It was also apparent that he was well-disposed toward Russia and would not take any action that would exacerbate tensions with that country.

Assad decided, based on this favorable climate, to use sarin against a rebel-held neighborhood.  Perhaps it was intended to terrorize the rest of the population into refusing to harbor or support rebel forces in their area.  That’s as good a motive as any, right?

Trouble is that Assad miscalculated.  Trump launched a limited retaliatory strike was a warning to Assad not to use chemical weapons in the future.  Presumably, the next reprisal for doing so will be more severe.

Is that about right for the official, mainstream version of events we’ve been getting?  Does everyone believe that?

Here’s another version.  The sarin attack was a false flag attack by Syrian rebels, intended to bring international pressure against Assad and strengthen their position in their losing war against him.   Trump was duped and attacked the wrong people.  Whoops.

Or this.  There was no sarin attack.  All of the observers made it up and the “victims” are “crisis actors”.  The whole thing was a psy-op to justify an international intervention to remove Assad, for his refusal to authorize the Syrian pipeline or whatever.  Maybe that’s too far out there.

How about this: Assad’s forces did carry out the attack, at Putin’s direction.  Why?  Because Putin and Trump recognize that there is no possibility of the US removing sanctions against Russia or achieving any other level of rapprochement because of the domestic effect of Russiagate on Trump.

Putin and Trump agreed that in the aftermath of a chemical attack by Syrian forces, US forces would be “allowed” to inflict minimal damage on Syrian military resources, such as an airfield, without Russian retaliation.  Putin would protest, but otherwise not escalate the situation.

This would have several benefits:

  1. Trump would be able to minimize the Russiagate accusations, since a direct assault against Russia’s most important client state would prove that he’s not in any sort of secret cahoots with Putin.
  2. Trump would get the benefit of his decisive action dominating news headlines for a few days, knocking bad news like Russiagate and the bad jobs report off aside.  He could also count on a bump in the polls.
  3. Putin would now be free to exercise as aggressive a strategy in the Syrian Civil War as he likes provided that he ensures that Assad doesn’t use chemical weapons again.  It’s clear that this really is the only “red line” that there is anyhow.  No chemical weapons, bomb as much as you like.
  4. Trump gets to embarrass the Obama team.  Both by discrediting their contention that Syria removed their chemical weapons and that they failed to meaningfully respond to Assad’s previous use of chemical weapons.  Trump gets to settle a personal vendetta.
  5. The ongoing civil war will ensure that thousands of children can be supplied for future Illuminati human sacrifices for a couple of more years.  I don’t know.  I just thought that’s what they do.

Proof?  Ah, who needs it?  Okay, fine.

Maybe we could ask why dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles apparently didn’t take the airbase offline for any significant amount of time.  Or question how it is that the cruise missiles were able to penetrate Russian air defense systems.  Further, we could note how convenient it is that virtually everyone on Earth was given advance warning that the attack was coming.

Another possibility is that “Deep State” and the Globalists orchestrated this whole thing because they want war with Russia.  In exchange for Deep State squashing some compelling evidence they have on Russiagate, Trump has agreed to betray his political base and do as they ask.  It’s blackmail!  In the coming months, there will be a troop buildup and a serious, overt effort to remove Assad from power.

It could be nothing more complicated than that Trump saw dead kids on television and decided to fire off missiles because Ivanka told him to, I suppose.  Maybe it’s nothing sinister and Trump really is just an impulsive character who doesn’t think things through.

What do you see as the most likely scenario and what do you think is coming next?  Go nuts with it.  I’d like to see the craziest theories we can put together.  Be as serious or as comical as you like.

45 comments

  1. The most likely scenario is the mainstream one. Given a chemical attack was conducted in 2013 and widely believed to have been committed, or at least supported by the Assad regime, it’s not any stretch to think the regime is behind this latest attack. As you correctly point out, it would have been easy for Assad to miscalculate the U.S. response, given the President’s prior rhetoric.

    For what it’s worth, I have concern about the President launching the strike without Congressional approval. The legality is not as clear as anyone wants to say it is on either side. It is an interesting debate, but one that I think is largely overtaken by the reality that the President is the CiC, we live in a world where prompt decisive action is necessary (in contrast with the time of the framing, in which time was less of the essence), and Congress itself is largely willing to go along with it because it abdicates them of the responsibility to make a tough call.

    Setting aside the legality question, the action was the right decision. It is clearly within the U.S. national interest to enforce norms and treaties against the use of chemical weapons, and the strike was an entirely appropriate proportional response.

  2. 1. Clinton is secretly the real President of the US. She publicly stated she supports bombing Syrian air fields. 10 hours later, boom, Trump bombs Syrian air fields.

    or

    2. There was no Sarin gas. Assad insulted Bush Sr., so Bush Jr. (who is still secretly President, and has been all along) felt he had to get them back, but couldn’t go as far as invading like he did against Hussein after coming up with all of that fake WMD crap.

    or

    3. The US Government secretly used the Sarin gas to both raise oil prices, and bump the stock of Raytheon, the manufacturer of the missiles. Cheney was behind the whole thing to benefit Halliburton.

  3. You are missing the part where the sarin was Russian-made and supplied (there are pictures of the airfield after the strike that RT accidentally showed which included Russian sarin canisters sitting around.)
    1 Putin gave sarin to Assad or just used sarin himself.
    2 Putin told Trump to attack the airfield, carefully.
    3 Russia acts mad.
    4 Trump looks strong. Russiagate is deniable.
    5 Tillerson goes to Moscow this week.
    6 I predict that they will agree to an easing of sanctions in exchange for no more chemical weapons and a resumption of the memorandum of understanding.
    7 Profit. Oil is already up, etc. (Trump owns Raytheon stock, btw.)
    😉

    Did you see United’s latest PR oops?

  4. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt on this and assume the intelligence he received pointed to Assad as the culprit for the gassing and that it was credible intel. He then might have done what many intelligent people do in the face of new information: he changed his mind.

    I don’t quite but that gassing is the thin red line, because I’d venture to say that one could look in the daily newspaper and find much more trigger-worthy reasons to intervene in atrocity but we’ve discussed before that no one really gives a fuck about Africa (sadly).

    I don’t think he could’ve done this for popularity because all of the twitter loons that are his most fervent supporters are fapping away trying to trend topics like #firekushner, #syrianhoax, #globalisttakeover, #keepbannon and a bunch of other tin foil hat stuff. Some of this stuff is actually trending. Aside from that the raid will be forgotten in a week, new articles will surface about the cost of 50 tomahawk missiles (more than 110 million dollars and the cost to rotate a depleted destroyer out after using them), that the airport is functional, and ultimately we’ll refocus on the domestic issues he championed in office.

    If trump doesn’t cobble together a budget, a tax code overhaul and can’t keep the lights on it doesn’t matter who he bombs, really. I applaud him for cucking bannon’ and preibus, it needed to be done, and now we as a nation get to learn the lesson that we seem to forget every election cycle: you can’t wish complex problem away with a silver tongue politician.

  5. Did you see United’s latest PR oops?

    I couldn’t believe that nobody would take the $800 to volunteer!

  6. Wouldn’t have happened if he’d been wearing a tie and slacks, as I recommend.

    Seriously though, I don’t see how United gets to fuck up and then have the man forcibly manhandled by the cops. There’s something very wrong with that.

  7. Airlines overbook as common practice. As best as I understand it, it’s better to occasionally overbook and have to take a loss by bribing passengers to exit than it is to habitually have empty seats from passengers who cancel/rebook. I remember one time that Spirit was offering 2 round trips for anybody willing to give up their seat (right before the March Madness tournament). My buddy and I both agreed that we’d volunteer for 3 but it didn’t come to that. I’m guessing that it doesn’t happen very often that they have to resort to the randomized removal system. Out of those instances, I wonder how often the passengers resist. In those cases, what is the *right* way to remove the passenger?

  8. Thing is that the guy was doing nothing more than trying to fly in the seat he paid for. The airline arbitrarily decided to remove him from the flight. There was no need to call the cops and the cops should have refused to get involved since there was no crime being committed.

    There was no right way to remove him. They should have offered more for a volunteer.

    United deserves everything bad that happens to them as a result of this. And this is coming from someone who defended them on Leggingsgate. I hope he sues the police department too and wins.

  9. There was no right way to remove him. They should have offered more for a volunteer.

    I would agree.

  10. I think the part you guys are missing is that he was removed for failing to obey crew instructions. In this day and age the cops take that very seriously.
    There is also the contract of carriage, which covers denied boarding as well the federal law (crew instructions.)
    I think the gate agent f’d – they should have done this before everyone boarded, rather than after. But, I don’t think there is a lot of room for a lawsuit, just like legginsgate. PR-wise, it’s a different matter
    I am not even sure it was cops who removed him. My impression was that it was TSA.

  11. I don’t think there is a lot of room for a lawsuit

    This is so, so wrong. Dude is going to get a huge payday.

  12. Maybe from the airport cops, I don’t know what the rules are for them, but United is pretty well covered.

  13. Yeah they can refuse or change anyone’s flight. I don’t see what could be sued for here unless the removal caused some form of traumatic injury, but the case would be dead from the onset because the passenger was the person resisting.

  14. I think the people who see a winnable lawsuit don’t quite get what the contract between the airline and the passenger represents. The general public thinks that they are buying a specific seat on a specific flight. Sadly, that’s not even close to the truth.
    btw, United was trying to re-position 4 pilots, from what I understand. That’s at least 2 flights full of people who would be inconvenienced, instead of 4 individual passengers.

  15. One i heard: Assad Took down a UFO, and was holding it for the Russians, who came in to look at it.

    Assad threatened to sell oil in a currency other than the dollar./ or he would not let the world baker entity into Syria.

    …………

    The Air strike hit a warehouse that was the rebel storage site for Sarin.

    The Russians cajoled the Syrians to do it, just to see what Trump would do.

  16. now i do buy the theory about Syria being one of the last secular mideast nations….. its seems odd that every secular nation has had a arab spring and or unrest civil war. and the one religious nation, Iran had is uprising the Obama administration ignored it….

  17. Whether or not he has a legal standing, United will settle for whatever this guy asks for (within reason) to keep it further out of the headlines. If he sues, it will never be decided in court. They know they will lose more money from it if it stays in the headlines than any possible settlement – I’ll bet they’ve already talked to him.

  18. The airline will settle. There’s no way they’re having the video of the incident played in front of a jury. The aviation police are really boned though.

  19. Other travelers from the flight are being interviewed on various news agencies tonight, and they are claiming he was told to get off the plane so that United personnel could get on to fly. United is screwed.

    The fact that nobody has interviewed him yet tonight to me points to United already talking to him, and possibly paying him off.

  20. Yeah, I definitely can’t see Trump doing this just for a bump in the polls. It wouldn’t make sense to change the headlines from an easy win like Gorsuch getting confirmed to something this frightening. It does appear to me that he sincerely wanted to do this, for whatever reason, and that the reason was less overtly political.

  21. Jeez. They let just anybody blog over there these days. That’s either bad comedy or batshit conspiracy theorizing.

  22. Yes, they needed 4 people to get off so that 4 crew could fly to be positioned so that another flight could take off the next day. That actually makes their case stronger, rather than weaker. IMHO, they look better bumping 4 people so a full flight can take off later, rather than bumping 4 people for 4 other people with higher status/more expensive tickets.
    Of course UA is taking to the guy and will settle. They still will not be able to make this go away any time soon. The videos are all over Chinese SM and the story there is that he was singled out for being Chinese (as opposed to randomly chosen by the computer.)
    As an aside, I don’t know what kind of doctor this guy is, but I would not want someone who acts that way under pressure treating me. The video after he ran back on the plane and stood there chanting ‘kill me’ makes me question his stability.

  23. United stock is currently down 2.6% – costing them $600 million in value. They want this to go away as soon as possible.

    I actually have a bigger problem with them asking paying customers to get off the flight for their own people to travel. They screwed up by over-selling the plane (a far too common occurrence).

    Beyond that, we’re not talking about a trans-national flight. You can drive between the two cities in about four hours – United’s personnel should have driven it to not impact paying customers. That is one thing I will give Southwest. I have seen them be in oversold situations, and they made employees ride in the jump seat in the cockpit, and/or get off the plane before asking a customer to get off.

  24. I fly Southwest as well. Companion Status is unbeatable in flying perks.

    This story keeps getting more and more odd.

    Dao (the doctor) was arrested in 2003 as part of an undercover operation. Two years later, Dao was convicted on six felony counts of obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit and in 2005, he was sentenced to five years probation. Dao was also convicted for writing prescriptions and checks to a male patient in exchange for sexual favors.

    In February 2005, Dao surrendered his license to practice medicine in Kentucky.

    In response, the state medical licensing board issued a suspension that was lifted in 2015. But the board has since placed severe restrictions on Dao’s ability to practice internal medicine, which will be lifted on Feb. 28, 2018, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.

    State records indicate the board believes Dao’s practices are outdated.

    Last year, the medical board imposed restrictions on his right to practice. He can only practice internal medicine in an outpatient facility one day a week.

  25. Here’s some information that I found from a “lawyer”, pertaining to the contract of carriage and United’s/passenger’s obligations in this scenario. Take it with a grain of salt:

    Lawyer here. This myth that passengers don’t have rights needs to go away, ASAP. You are dead wrong when saying that United legally kicked him off the plane.

    1. First of all, it’s airline spin to call this an overbooking. The statutory provision granting them the ability to deny boarding is about “OVERSELLING”, which is specifically defined as booking more reserved confirmed seats than there are available. This is not what happened. They did not overbook the flight; they had a fully booked flight, and not only did everyone already have a reserved confirmed seat, they were all sitting in them. The law allowing them to deny boarding in the event of an oversale does not apply.

    2. Even if it did apply, the law is unambiguously clear that airlines have to give preference to everyone with reserved confirmed seats when choosing to involuntarily deny boarding. They have to always choose the solution that will affect the least amount of reserved confirmed seats. This rule is straightforward, and United makes very clear in their own contract of carriage that employees of their own or of other carriers may be denied boarding without compensation because they do not have reserved confirmed seats. On its face, it’s clear that what they did was illegal– they gave preference to their employees over people who had reserved confirmed seats, in violation of 14 CFR 250.2a.

    3. Furthermore, even if you try and twist this into a legal application of 250.2a and say that United had the right to deny him boarding in the event of an overbooking; they did NOT have the right to kick him off the plane. Their contract of carriage highlights there is a complete difference in rights after you’ve boarded and sat on the plane, and Rule 21 goes over the specific scenarios where you could get kicked off. NONE of them apply here. He did absolutely nothing wrong and shouldn’t have been targeted. He’s going to leave with a hefty settlement after this fiasco.

  26. These guys were going to operate a flight in the morning. If they go illegal (by driving themselves) the whole flight the next day gets cancelled. This is not the same as an employee needing to get home or using a buddy pass.
    I agree that something is weird here – why did’t they know these must-flys needed seats before the whole plane was boarded? Could at least one of the pilots ride on the cockpit jumpseat? Why didn’t UA keep upping the compensation until someone took it? (I am still in shock that no one on that plane tool $1000 to drive 4 hours. kevinmkr knows I would have been all over that offer.)
    However, I have no issue with the practice of overbooking, since it keeps our ticket prices lower, overall.
    I am not heartless, I feel bad that this 69 year old guy got hurt. I think the police were in the wrong to use that much force and will pay the price. But I have little patience for people who don’t know what the rules are, who think they are more important than the others on the plane and who start acting hysterical when things don’t go their way. Sure, it sucked that he got chosen, but there were 3 other people chosen and they got off the plane without shreaking like a banshee. Even before he got hurt, he made a plane full of people wait while police were called to escort him out. You ask why the UA pilots could not have driven home. I ask why he didn’t take $1000 and drive home instead of acting like UA killed his firstborn.

  27. Yeah, I saw another article this morning that said that all of the Contract of Carriage stuff applied to passengers before boarding, not after. I wasn’t sure enough on it to comment. Either way, I agree that the guy’s getting a payday.

    Which is hilarious because he’s clearly a fuckin’ weirdo.

  28. These guys were going to operate a flight in the morning. If they go illegal (by driving themselves) the whole flight the next day gets cancelled. This is not the same as an employee needing to get home or using a buddy pass.

    That’s a terrible situation that United put themselves in. It’s cost them about $600,000,000.00 thus far.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: