MIT Rocket Scientist: White House Claims on Syria Chemical Attack “Cannot Be True”

[laughing dog]

I meant it as a quote in a story, not that he's fake. Big deal anyway.

I'd never heard of the guy, but a quick perusal of his track record includes:

1) Heavily criticizing the intelligence backing the lead-up to the Iraq war. Seems like he's been vindicated there
2) Heavily criticizing the use of torture. Again, seems like he's been vindicated there.

The real question is, why do you claim he is a crackpot? He seems like he has been entirely sensible to me. It seems to me your only basis is that he disagrees with *you*.

You're right, I shouldn't have called him a crackpot, only that he's used by crackpots. He's more a cranky old man than crackpot. His main thing is being antiwar, which I do like about him, I've seen him speak before. But he doesn't have any special inside knowledge about anything, he doesn't know anymore than what's public, well he does claim to have his sources, but that's not worth much as info. He may have good general geopolitical knowledge, but he still has his own bias about it all. He just a guy with strong opinions and speculations more than facts.

Other ex-CIA guys like Larry Johnson are actual crackpots.

So, you think someone who was a CIA analyst for almost 4 decades doesn't have any special knowledge about *anything*? Like, the types of bullshit the intelligence community regularly engages in, for example?

CIA analyst indicates the person worked for the CIA analyzing something. The CIA has people analyzing unemployment statistics, price indices and all sorts of things. There is no reason to think that any particular CIA analyst has the necessary expertise or knowledge in a specific area. I don't know anything about the person in question, but the claim he is an ex CIA analyst should lend any special credence to his views on these matters.

 

[J842P]

I meant it as a quote in a story, not that he's fake. Big deal anyway.

I'd never heard of the guy, but a quick perusal of his track record includes:

1) Heavily criticizing the intelligence backing the lead-up to the Iraq war. Seems like he's been vindicated there
2) Heavily criticizing the use of torture. Again, seems like he's been vindicated there.

The real question is, why do you claim he is a crackpot? He seems like he has been entirely sensible to me. It seems to me your only basis is that he disagrees with *you*.

You're right, I shouldn't have called him a crackpot, only that he's used by crackpots. He's more a cranky old man than crackpot. His main thing is being antiwar, which I do like about him, I've seen him speak before. But he doesn't have any special inside knowledge about anything, he doesn't know anymore than what's public, well he does claim to have his sources, but that's not worth much as info. He may have good general geopolitical knowledge, but he still has his own bias about it all. He just a guy with strong opinions and speculations more than facts.

Other ex-CIA guys like Larry Johnson are actual crackpots.

So, you think someone who was a CIA analyst for almost 4 decades doesn't have any special knowledge about *anything*? Like, the types of bullshit the intelligence community regularly engages in, for example?

CIA analyst indicates the person worked for the CIA analyzing something. The CIA has people analyzing unemployment statistics, price indices and all sorts of things. There is no reason to think that any particular CIA analyst has the necessary expertise or knowledge in a specific area. I don't know anything about the person in question, but the claim he is an ex CIA analyst should lend any special credence to his views on these matters.

As per SimpleDon's original post, the guy chaired the National Intelligence Estimates and was in charge preparing the President's Daily Brief. And in his earlier career was involved the analysis of Soviet policy in Vietnam. He's not some internal accounting auditor or other mid-level bureaucrat.

 

[blastula]

By knowledge I mean specific facts, not expertise. He has expertise, but no special facts nobody else has. He's a pundit.

 

[whichphilosophy]

By knowledge I mean specific facts, not expertise. He has expertise, but no special facts nobody else has. He's a pundit.

Sometimes it is the analysis and interpretation of the facts. No investigation has started anyway which has caused speculation either way.

 

[Jayjay]

By knowledge I mean specific facts, not expertise. He has expertise, but no special facts nobody else has. He's a pundit.

Sometimes it is the analysis and interpretation of the facts. No investigation has started anyway which has caused speculation either way.

Of course it has started. OPCW fact-finding mission in Syria is investigating this incident already. Just because Russia blocked the resolution to empower OPCW to better do its job, doesn't mean that there is no investigation at all.

 

[tupac chopra]

Has there been any news on this?

France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86

The French foreign minister has said that France's intelligence services have evidence that the Syrian government carried out the alleged chemical weapons attack on a rebel village earlier this month.

"There is an investigation underway... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCP television on Wednesday

 

[braces_for_impact]

Another pretty damning article on who's responsible.

Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault told reporters that samples taken from the scene bore the "signature" of Sarin produced by Syria's government.

Wednesday's declassified French intelligence report concludes that the Sarin was manufactured by the Syrian government.
"We know, from a certain source, that the process of fabrication of the samples taken is typical of the method developed in Syrian laboratories," said Mr Ayrault.

"This method is the signature of the regime and it is what enables us to establish the responsibility of the attack. We know because we kept samples from previous attacks that we were able to use for comparison," he added.
The report says France - which backs the opposition to Mr Assad - obtained environmental samples collected at one of the impact points of the suspected attack, and that its analysis revealed the presence of Sarin, the secondary product diisopropyl methylphosphonate (DIMP) and hexamine.
"The process of synthesizing Sarin, developed by the [Syrian government's] Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) and employed by the Syrian armed forces and security services, involves the use of hexamine as a stabilizer. DIMP is also known as a by-product generated by this process," it adds.

As to other suggestions of what may have happened:

It also says that rebel and jihadist groups operating in the area around Khan Sheikhoun did not have the capability to employ a neurotoxic agent or access to aircraft. The theory of an attack perpetrated by so-called Islamic State is also not credible because the group is not present in the region, it adds.
"Neither do the French services assess that the theory of a staged attack or manipulation by the opposition is credible, particularly because of the massive influx in a very limited time towards hospitals in Syria and Turkey, and the simultaneous, massive uploading of videos showing symptoms of the use of neurotoxic agents."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has there been any news on this?

France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86

The French foreign minister has said that France's intelligence services have evidence that the Syrian government carried out the alleged chemical weapons attack on a rebel village earlier this month.

"There is an investigation underway... it's a question of days and we will provide proof that the regime carried out these strikes," Jean-Marc Ayrault told LCP television on Wednesday

Yes, you just provided it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no evidence that 59 reached their targets, and rumours that 36 went missing. ( I linked to a video discussing this, but it's around the web) Possibly defected by the Russians.
The missiles didn't seem to work very well, as the Syrians soon had the airstrip up and running.

Tomahawks take out objects, not runways. You need to drop a bomb on a runway, not fire a missile. The strategic benefits of the attack are certainly questionable, both diplomatically and physical damage wise.

 

[barbos]

There is no evidence that 59 reached their targets, and rumours that 36 went missing. ( I linked to a video discussing this, but it's around the web) Possibly defected by the Russians.
The missiles didn't seem to work very well, as the Syrians soon had the airstrip up and running.

Tomahawks take out objects, not runways. You need to drop a bomb on a runway, not fire a missile. The strategic benefits of the attack are certainly questionable, both diplomatically and physical damage wise.

Well, bombs are more dangerous for US to deploy. Pentagon had to ask Putin for "permission" to use Tomahawks.
As for theories that russians shot half of them down they are distributed by marginal news outlets and it's doubtful to me that russians wold risk harassing US military
But I understand technically they are pretty easy to shoot down when you expect them.

 

[tupac chopra]

Has there been any news on this?

France says it has proof Assad carried out chemical attack that killed 86

Yes, you just provided it.

No, I mean he said in a matter of days they would provide the evidence. But nothing has been forthcoming.

 

[barbos]

Yes, you just provided it.

No, I mean he said in a matter of days they would provide the evidence. But nothing has been forthcoming.

Russians already read it and were not impressed. I understand french say sarin used in the attack was manufactured using technology Syria were using before. Calling it "incontrovertible proof" is an exaggeration I think.

 

[Will Wiley]

No, I mean he said in a matter of days they would provide the evidence. But nothing has been forthcoming.

Russians already read it and were not impressed. I understand french say sarin used in the attack was manufactured using technology Syria were using before. Calling it "incontrovertible proof" is a an exaggeration I think.

Here is the report. Nothing relevant that can be fact checked or confirmed.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p...n_nationale_-_anglais_-_final_cle0dbf47-1.pdf

And surprise surprise it supports the regime change agenda.

 

[Will Wiley]

There is no evidence that 59 reached their targets, and rumours that 36 went missing. ( I linked to a video discussing this, but it's around the web) Possibly defected by the Russians.
The missiles didn't seem to work very well, as the Syrians soon had the airstrip up and running.

Tomahawks take out objects, not runways. You need to drop a bomb on a runway, not fire a missile. The strategic benefits of the attack are certainly questionable, both diplomatically and physical damage wise.

But not politically. Your President has pleased his supporters in important areas

 

[barbos]

Russians already read it and were not impressed. I understand french say sarin used in the attack was manufactured using technology Syria were using before. Calling it "incontrovertible proof" is a an exaggeration I think.

Here is the report. Nothing relevant that can be fact checked or confirmed.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p...n_nationale_-_anglais_-_final_cle0dbf47-1.pdf

And surprise surprise it supports the regime change agenda.

Yes, they want to change regime ...... in Russia.

 

[Will Wiley]

Here is the report. Nothing relevant that can be fact checked or confirmed.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p...n_nationale_-_anglais_-_final_cle0dbf47-1.pdf

And surprise surprise it supports the regime change agenda.

Yes, they want to change regime ...... in Russia.

Neoconservatism

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

 

[blastula]

Russians already read it and were not impressed. I understand french say sarin used in the attack was manufactured using technology Syria were using before. Calling it "incontrovertible proof" is a an exaggeration I think.

Here is the report. Nothing relevant that can be fact checked or confirmed.

As opposed to Postol's posts? And by the way, your links to his posts are dead now.

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p...n_nationale_-_anglais_-_final_cle0dbf47-1.pdf

And surprise surprise it supports the regime change agenda. :

The report doesn't say that.

 

[Malintent]

Professor Emeritus

When an old scientist says something is impossible they're almost always wrong.

lol, yea... I might go as far as saying that when any scientist says something is impossible, they're not being a scientist.

 

[blastula]

Tomahawks take out objects, not runways. You need to drop a bomb on a runway, not fire a missile. The strategic benefits of the attack are certainly questionable, both diplomatically and physical damage wise.

But not politically. Your President has pleased his supporters in important areas

He didn't please supporters like you. Lots of his well-known supporters criticized the strike. It's establishment Republicans who liked it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

lol, yea... I might go as far as saying that when any scientist says something is impossible, they're not being a scientist.

I wouldn't go that far. There are plenty of things that are truly impossible. Legitimate claims of that nature rarely reach the talking-head level, though.

Just yesterday I was telling my boss that the SQL we were looking at wasn't responsible for the numbers we were trying to figure out. The queries in question were all aimed at producing a list of records to be displayed one per line, the value we were trying to understand was in the totals. They obviously were not the source. Sure enough, something like and hour of poking and prodding and we find some more SQL that is explicitly labeled as being totals. (This is a third party program that has a highly configurable reporting engine, including exposing all the SQL that runs it. It's sorely lacking in proper documentation, though, and suffers from a serious lack of being dogfooded.)