Mick,
For what it's worth, Zane has not claimed that the chemical weapons attack was a false-flag operation and his article was written on the assumption that Assad used chemical weapons to kill 1400 people.
The article I posted from "the people's history" notes that the U.S. and its allies have been arming and supplying rebels in Syria for a while now, and during this time the death toll has gone from several thousand to over one hundred thousand. I agree with you that framing our opposition as against further escalation of american involvement in Syria may be more accurate but the bottom-line is that Zane and I both feel very strongly that violent military action and further escalation will not make the situation any better.
If the USfg doesn't want another war, why are Obama and Kerry pushing so hard for one despite widespread public opposition? Maybe the CIA wants another war.
There are many examples of false-flag terrorism supported or undertaken by covert agencies and a priori ruling out that possibility is also confirmation bias.
Advocates for further intervention need certainties, opponents do not. Obama and Kerry are claiming to know, with certainty, that Assad used chemical weapons. They are not saying that the situation is ambiguous, and they are not saying that the rebels might have used chemical weapons.
Brian,
1. Not intervening. The death toll has gone from a few thousand to one hundred thousand since the u.s. and its allies started arming and sending in syrian rebels. Intervening will only further the cycle of violence. And why the chemical weapons exceptionalism when most of the deaths in this war have been from ordinary weapons?
2. I think people get the idea that Obama is pro-war from his failure to shut down guantanmo bay, expansion of a global surveilance regime, the surge in afghanistan, the slow end to wars in iraq and afghanistan, our intervention in Libya, covert operations in Egypt, and saber-rattling rhetoric regarding Iran.
Iran and Russia may not have much to gain from widening the scope of the conflict. That may be why they are also trying to call into question the factual basis of the U.S.'s justification for war (that Assad used chemical weapons). Does that mean Iranian and Russian leaders may not push for war in response to a strike, just like American leaders are now?
"war ain't about one land against the next. it's poor people dyin' so the rich cash checks":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYvmz0Muw4U3. There is not universal agreement that Assad's forces carried out the attack. The UK's parliament failed to vote in favor of intervention on the basis of these claims. 12 former US intelligence officials have called this into question. Russian and Iranian news affiliates have called this into question. Testimony from Syrian rebels have called this into question.
Why do you find the claim that Assad may not have been responsible for the chemical weapons attacks laughable, given that escalation and most of the deaths in the conflict occurred after the u.s. started arming and sending in rebels?
And why do you think our involvement will just end with these strikes? Remember when we went into Afghanistan just to "kill and capture bin laden?"
If you think the bright-line for military action against an army is showing "no moral or practical restraint in unleashing chemical weapons on thousands of innocents"... why are you not pushing for us to take military action against the u.s. military, which has shown no moral or practical restraint in using chemical, nuclear weapons, and other tools to kill millions of innocents? How on earth is the u.s. military a credible alternative? And why isn't "end our military involvement in syria" (which includes not striking them, and withdrawing our military support for some of the rebels) a credible alternative?
Who does assad have to gas when we aren't arming the rebels and 80% of syrians want the war to end?