Well, that's just eerie....

[Smartmarzipan]

So, I was doing some research and reading and stumbled across this article.....From January 2013.

U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime'
Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying 'the idea is approved by Washington'
 Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was 'totally unacceptable'
http://web.archive.org/web/201301292138 ... Assad.html

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

It reads: 'Phil... We've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.
'We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.
'They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.
'Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?
'Kind regards, David.'
Britam Defence had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.

I know that both of these sources are fucking dubious as hell, but it's still really weird.

The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumés and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.

Dave Goulding's Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations. A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.

The U.S. State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication.

However the use of chemical warfare was raised at a press briefing in D.C. on January 28.

A spokesman said that the U.S. joined the international community in 'setting common redlines about the consequences of using chemical weapons'.

/tinfoilhat

[Colanth]

/tinfoilhat

Maybe not.  Refer to Desert Storm I.

[Agramon]

Yeah... infowars is just crazy talk 99% of the time. There's always the chance they've actually got something, but I won't believe it until it's confirmed by more legitimate sources.

[Nonsensei]

What defines a more legitimate source in your mind?

[Agramon]

What defines a more legitimate source in your mind?

One example: the Guardian. I'll go for anything that doesn't regularly go tinfoil hat.

[Nonsensei]

Sadly to me this stuff doesn't amount to tinfoil hat material anymore. 1984 is now, and the federal government has been engaged in some overtly bad things lately. To me, tinfoil hat stuff is now things like aliens and faked moon landings. Its no longer far fetched to imagine the government engaging in a conspiracy about pretty much anything anymore.

[Agramon]

At least in this case I think it's far more probable that Assad is following in the footsteps of his father and doing all he can to crush resistance than some crazy conspiracy that would allow us to fire off some tomahawk/cruise missiles.

[SGOS]

I watched a lengthy news article way back when that described Saddam complaining to the US ambassador that Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil.  He asked the ambassador what would be done if he attacked Kuwait, and was told that it was strictly a matter of Arab affairs and the US would not intercede.  Saddam left the room, and then returned to ask the same question again, and the ambassador repeated that this was strictly an Arab affair.

I can't recall if the ambassador consulted with Bush Senior or just came up with the answer on his own.  It was not described as a set up, rather just that Saddam had been given a green light to attack Kuwait.  I had the feeling it was just a major case of lack of communication with the White House, with an ambassador making an unwarranted assumption, albeit one of a disastrous magnitude.

Sometimes these things sound like conspiracy theories, but sometimes conspiracy theories describe actual conspiracies.  Furthermore I heard this on the news, so it must have been 100% accurate, right?  Yeah, right.  Who knows?

[Nonsensei]

I don't think thats likely at all. At least I don't accept that on face value. The first problem I have is the presumption that Assad is stupid - as he would have to be to know about the redline for US intervention and use chemical weapons anyway. He gains nothing by using chemical weapons instead of the extremely deadly conventional weapons that he has been using, and stands to lose everything by compelling US intervention.

Which bring me to my second problem: The presumption that, once approved, the US intervention that starts with bombing will never go beyond that point. Throughout this whole push for action the one thing the president and his aides have refused to concede was an agreement that precludes boots on the ground in Syria. Cruise missiles are phase 1 and they know it. You can't topple a regime with bombing only. You cant assure the acquisition or destruction of chemical weapons through bombing only. Boots would eventually be on the ground in Syria and then it would be Iraq 2. They know they can't get this done without troops, and that is why they refuse to accept any deal that would disable their ability to deploy.

[Colanth]

I watched a lengthy news article way back when that described Saddam complaining to the US ambassador that Kuwait was slant drilling Iraqi oil.  He asked the ambassador what would be done if he attacked Kuwait, and was told that it was strictly a matter of Arab affairs and the US would not intercede.  Saddam left the room, and then returned to ask the same question again, and the ambassador repeated that this was strictly an Arab affair.

I can't recall if the ambassador consulted with Bush Senior or just came up with the answer on his own.

Her own, April Glaspie, and the administration later claimed that the story was made up, and that she never told him that we wouldn't get involved.  But later, AFTER Hussein invaded Kuwait.  At the time they didn't argue with the story, because they maintained that it WAS strictly between Iraq and Kuwait and they were keeping out of it ("and aren't we being nice, not starting a war in the Middle East?").  The "we never said that" claim was pure and simple damage control.

It was not described as a set up

Not until the analysts got into it after we sent our troops there.  But we were so hopped up on "winning" (even when the hotel that CNN was staying in was nearly destroyed, it was a great thing for us to be there, shooting missiles into doorways from great distances  - which never happened) that no one noticed the analyses about Glaspie's part in the whole mess.

[Colanth]

Which bring me to my second problem: The presumption that, once approved, the US intervention that starts with bombing will never go beyond that point.

Especially now that a few nations in the area have agreed to foot the entire bill for us to put boots on the ground.  (But you'll notice that they didn't offer to use their own troops under our command.  Muslims can't be seen killing other Muslims, unless it's their own idea - or something.)

[Jmpty]

You guys must have missed his speech tonight, where he said he would not put boots on the ground in Syria.

[Nonsensei]

You guys must have missed his speech tonight, where he said he would not put boots on the ground in Syria.

he's been saying that all along. Nobody is fooled. Well almost nobody apparently.

Just saying what he needs to say to get himself over this public backlash hurdle. Once we are involved militarily, it will be much harder for congress to say no to his demands for escalation. With their approval given once, he might not even need to ask them.

[Shiranu]

You guys must have missed his speech tonight, where he said he would not put boots on the ground in Syria.

You mean like how he would close Gitmo?
Stand up for students?
Protect whistleblowers?
Not attack states with legalized medicinal marijuana?
Etc.?

He has said alot of things and not done them, the dude is the stereotypical politician straight from the mold.

[Colanth]

He WON'T put boots on the ground.  Under present conditions. But if conditions change ... well, there no way we can allow <insert something the black ops guys did to make Assad look even worse>.