Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Eli Observes

Eli is by nature an observer.  Wait till the rubble bounces and then speak up was the advice he got from Mom Rabett, and in this the bunny has been quietly chewing his carrots while thinking about the Syrian situation.  Darkly thinking The Bunny has reached some conclusions, or perhaps better put, some speculations.

First, there was a poison gas attack that killed a World Trade Center (this is 9/11 and we mourn those lost) level of people

Second, that the attack was by the Syrian Army.  The Assad government it self has been pretty quiet on this after some initial claims and the level of sophistication was not rabble level.

Third, it is reasonable to believe that under stress, tightly controlled chemical weapons were dispersed to operating units of the army so that they could not be easily captured in toto.

Fourth, the attack was (and here we are deeper into speculation and a bit of evidence leaking into the press) not ordered by Assad, or those immediately under him.  This was a freelance by a low level unit.

Fifth, one thing that came out of the US bellicosity is that Syria no longer denies that it has chemical weapons.

Sixth, return of the weapons to central control is seen by the Syrian and Russian governments as a necessity.

Seventh, that putting the Syrian chemical weapons under "international" control, in practice means putting them into a well defended (by the Syrian army) central location with seals on the storage bunkers from Russian or UN observers

Eighth, that destruction of the weapons under those conditions will take a long, long time.

Ninth, that Assad believes that come the Gotterdamthe seals can be broken. 

Tenth, Obama backed the US into a nasty corner and would be lucky to escape.  Perhaps there is a bit of light at the end of the tunnel and it is not an onrushing train.


Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

The fundamental problem here is that the American people and their elected representatives are too corrupt and too stupid to just pay off their debts, build a fence, dig in and get their asses off the planet. You aren't going to stop violence, corruption and religion here. Humanity is a violent, corrupt and delusional species. Deep space will get rid of those problems very quickly, lol.

Anonymous said...

Syrian president did not admit to owning chems. Charlie Rose interview yesterday. Hardy Cross

EliRabett said...

Then why did he accept the Russian proposal in principle??

Anonymous said...

"Then why did he accept the Russian proposal in principle??"

Because that was part of the plan. Putin and Assad (as well as Iran) were ready for this "play". Putin was waiting for an opportunity to propose this before anyone else did. Notice how Putin is now putting conditions on this plan, such as the US must renounce any plans of any strikes on Syria in the future?

It a great advantage to delay the possibility of strikes, the longer the less likely they are to occur.

FWIW I am against strikes against Syria.


Anonymous said...

He may have chems but no one can say for sure. I heard him say Syria is singled out to disarm because Israel won't disarm and disarmament should be universal. This all sounds like WMD/Iraq - low evidence and rumors but no smoking gun evidence.

Hardy Cross

Anonymous said...

Anybody, especially people in high levels of government, that listen to what mafia thug dictators say, are not doing themselves or their constituents any favors. Mafia thug dictators will say anything to buy time with any BS they can think of. It's the mafia thug dictator way.

David B. Benson said...

Eli, your second point is not established beyond a reasonable doubt. There are certain indications that the chemical attack was conducted by one of the many rebel groups operating in the area.

Brian said...

Human Rights Watch just said it's highly likely a government op.

Anonymous said...

"Human Rights Watch just said it's highly likely a government op."

I'd say that is less than you 99%+ standard for action.


EliRabett said...

DBB the problem with that is where did they get it.

EliRabett said...

#1 please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things Brian and Eli neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

Brian said...

BTW, Eli's third and fourth conclusions are pretty scary even if it's true this was an unauthorized operation. A more ominous reason for the third conclusion is not to prevent capture in toto but to be ready to use them when authorized. The government is putting chemical weapons in position to use them against their own population, with so few controls that a freelance could make it happen.

I think the fourth conclusion is the most likely but not certain. The other possibility is that it was an authorized test to see what they could get away with, and maybe of effectiveness.

Anonymous said...

Sorry that you have a need to unnecessarily lash out at someone who has responded on topic and attacked no one.

You get back what you put in, Eli.


EliRabett said...

Poor baby 1. C'mon your entire life here has been one incompetent Brian bash.

Anonymous said...

Eli you are mistaken.

Brian said in another thread about Syria "Waiting so that we can go from 97% sure of what happened to 99%+ sure is also a good idea."

I was simply pointing out that "highly likely' and 99%+ are probably not equal.

No attack, no made up quote a typical on point comment.

Now do you have another foot you would like to chew on?


David B. Benson said...

Eli --- I would suppose any reasonably competent chemist could whip up a batch. The other choices are defectors from the Syrian Army or even just plain stealing the chemical munitions.

Anonymous said...

<a href=">Brian's statement</a> "Waiting so that we can go from 97% sure of what happened to 99%+ sure is also a good idea" seems to be completely out of touch with reality.

Being "97% sure of what happened" in this context includes being "97% certain" of who was responsible.

How Brian can claim 97% certainty of that when the Obama admin itself won't even claim "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" is a complete mystery.

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said the administration lacks "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence"

Perhaps Brian has access to evidence that no one else has seen??

I would suggest that Brian take an introductory science class so that he might gain a clue about what "97% certainty" actually means.

Such unsupported claims made on a science blog are very embarrassing, or at least should be.

Anonymous said...

Brian's statement