The U.S. Intelligence Community intercepted communications in which the Syrian military is heard planning the chemical weapons attack that took place last week. From CNN:
The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN.
The intercepts were part of an immediate review of all intelligence in the hours after the attack to confirm responsibility for the use of chemical weapons in an attack in northwestern Syria, which killed at least 70 people.
So far, no intercepts indicate that Russia had any direct involvement or advance knowledge of the attack, but CNN’s source suggests this may be because the Russians are more wary of having their communications intercepted. At a briefing, the source told CNN, “We know the Russians have chemical expertise in-country.” However, the source would only say the U.S. was still “assessing” Russian involvement.
Monday an unnamed government source told the Associated Press Russia knew about the attack in advance. That judgment was based on the presence of a Russian drone over a hospital where victims of the attack were treated. There was subsequently an airstrike on that hospital in what the U.S. believes was an attempt to cover up the use of chemical weapons. The AP’s source suggested the drone and the later bombing were too much of a coincidence and must indicate Russian complicity in the attack.
President Trump sounded less certain when he was asked if Russia knew about the attack. “I would like to think that they didn’t know, but certainly they could have,” the President said Wednesday. He added, “We’ll find out.”
But is it proof or just evidence that can be faked? Releasing well after the attack, assuming it's released at all, makes it look like it's saving face rather than showing just cause. Unfortunately, since the US took action, it is now highly biased in the result of any investigation on the matter, ergo any evidence the US has is suspect.
I would not put it past the US intelligence community to fake evidence against a government it wants taken down. It's not like they haven't carried out assassinations, for crying out loud. And radio communications could be faked by rebels or state sponsors in any event.
I agree. By all means. It was an extraordinary strike, in that it did not involve American national security. Congress and the public should hear all of it.
But is it proof or just evidence that can be faked? Releasing well after the attack, assuming it's released at all, makes it look like it's saving face rather than showing just cause. Unfortunately, since the US took action, it is now highly biased in the result of any investigation on the matter, ergo any evidence the US has is suspect.
There is a level of skepticism you can't go beyond and expect anyone to debate you seriously.
My guess is that Israel would have these recordings (they've intercepted and released such recordings before). We have them via our spy satellites. And the British would have them via their big electronic eavesdropping station in Cyprus, a very good location to spy on Syria. They have also intercepted and released recordings from Syria in the past.
At some point when you get into the he-says-she-says of it, you have to ask yourself if you find Putin and Assad more credible than various Western leaders and military/intel officials. There is a level of confidence in the accusations against Assad that this time they really do have the goods on him, maybe even recordings of him directly ordering the use of sarin.
This is not like some of the previous episodes that seem similar, at least superficially. Just because we do think that the rebels used chemical weapons at least a few times doesn't mean that Assad is innocent in this recent attack.
There is a level of skepticism you can't go beyond and expect anyone to debate you seriously.
This is true for everyone. But you cannot deny the US has covertly meddled in the affairs of other countries in dark ways, and I think believing what US "Intelligence" reports say just because it came from US "Intelligence" is naive. The US government is biased. It's clearly a fact now.
At some point when you get into the he-says-she-says of it, you have to ask yourself if you find Putin and Assad more credible than various Western leaders and military/intel officials.
That's what it comes down too. But it depends on the subject in question. I'd trust the US and West on some matters, but Russia and Syria government on other matters. And motives have to be taken into account, and I have yet to hear anyone float any motive whatsoever for Assad ordering chem weapon use, including yourself. The question is important because in addition to having no motive to use the weapons, he had every motive NOT to use them. It's kindof like finding an accusation of Bolivia attacking Switzerland credible, when both are land locked countries on different continents.
I'm thinking Assad did do it this time.
Then show me a motive that supersedes what should be a desire for him to keep the policy change of the US toward him just days earlier.
