Hacker News Reader

Comment by amasad | Hacker News Reader

One only needs to apply basic game theory and skepticism to come to the conclusion that Assad has no incentives to gas citizens. He's winning the war!

On the other hand who would benefit from a gas attack? Obviously, the "rebels" (read islamists). They have been losing ground for the past two years and if the US pulled out (which was planned) and a peace settlement is reached then they would lose.

Now consider that the exact same sequence of events happened almost exactly the same time last year -- the US announced that "regime change is no longer a priority" and a few days later we saw reports of a gas attack. See http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/timelines-of-gas-attack...

For the game theory see: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2018/04/from_game_theor....

View on HN

It's sad that the top comment here is a conspiratorial hypothesis with game theory as a supporting argument. It seems wrong to cite game theory as evidence that a gas attack was unnecessary when that gas attack achieved victory by forcing the Douma rebels to, just hours later, agree to surrender. It's sickening to contemplate, but one could argue that in this case, the despicable use of chemical weapons brought a remarkably swift end to the fighting in Douma and in the longer term actually saved lives in that region of Syria.

http://www.dw.com/en/syria-rebels-evacuate-douma-under-new-a...

The biggest trick the devil ever pulled on smart people is to convince them that there are no conspiracies. ok

On your point in Douma, the deal to evacuate was reached two weeks ago (about 10 days befoe the alleged attacks) https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/...

So it's more likely that the attack is false flag last ditch effort one. We all know that the civilians that the "rebels" hold are hostages. Even the article you cite says this much.

http://www.businessinsider.com/syrias-assad-allegedly-used-g...

Hmm, I never thought my informative post would get flagged, while baseless speculation is upvoted.

The parent is pretty much 9/11 inside job conspiracy level stuff. I just stated a few facts about what happened, and how that contradicts the parent's speculation.

Anyway, whatever. Evidently HN is not a forum for reasonable discussion around this topic, because people don't follow what's happening wrt Syria closely.

EDIT: Let's just say, that this reaction is pretty typical. Almost universally, whenever a chemical attack happens and is reported, we're told that rebels are doing it to themselves as a false flag, to inspire western intervention.

After 40th case of rebels successfully throwing canisters with chlorine upon themselves from helicopters they don't have, to inspire intervention that never happened in the last 7 years or didn't bring anything good,... it gets ridiculous...

The problem is that anyone who doesn't watch closely, only sees this one medialized case in MSM, and thinks that false flag somehow may make sense. And "why would Assad use chlorine?" pops up, when it's docummented he uses it regularly.

I'm just guessing but maybe you were flagged because of the way you argue. You're both strawmaning my argument and associating it with a conspiracy theory. Nobody would be against a good faith debate.

My opinion is not as fringe as you make it to be. It's true that there are consensus from politicians and the media about what happened but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. In fact, respectable academics are looking at this from scientific point-of-view and coming to the same conclusion.

Here is a UK professor applying probablity theory to understand the weight of the evidence for the alternative explanation in the alleged gas attacks in 2017 and 2013: https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/who-is-responsib...

I’ve read that blog post a while ago and sorry but it just doesn’t cut it the problem with applying game theory in these cases is that you don’t actually have access to correct intelligence and information both in terms of the actual events as well as the motives and parameters under which all the parties operate.

In this case he's applying probablity theory which is basically "reasoning under uncertainty". If you're interested in this check out a book called Superforcasters which is an elite team of forcasters that use similar methods to predict and answer questions about geopolitics and other stuff. They beat government and intelligence community forcasting using Bayesian reasoning and similar methods.

I have read supercasters and also unmaking the west i think you are either projecting and extrapolating way too much from them.

You are also ignoring the IO that russia is been running which is essentially a carbon copy what they used to run during the cold war, only considerably more amplified and effective these days.

I'm actually frightened by the fact that there are now links here to what is an unquestionably a new breed of academic UIC's now I thought the last of these died shortly after the wall fell.

Perhaps your comments would be received better if you'd cite some sources for your claims, otherwise they look pretty much like a speculation as well, and not informative or stating facts.

He didn’t made any claims other that those which were well proven and reported on.

The other half of this thread is a conspiracy.

This assumes that 1. Assad is a rational actor 2. Assad has absolutely control over the military

Saddam gased the Kurds with even less “strategic” or “tactical” reasons to do so if you simply apply game theory.

Considering Russia went on a conspiracy theory blitz from the get go which started about 3 weeks prior to the recent attack it follows the same pattern as 2 previous attack with high confidence of attribution to Syrian government or what is left of it since Russia and Iran are running the show now.

It’s quire scary just how efficient their information warfare has become.

At the time Saddam was emboldened by the US and when he gassed the Kurds the CIA blamed Iran for it to cover it up for him. If anything that proves that we can't trust Western intelligence reports. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack#Afte...

Shouting "consipracy" as loud as you can doesn't make you sound smart and it's not an argument. Try reasoning about this and bring something substantial to the discussion instead of this shoddy attempt at mccarthysim.

And trusting Russian intelligence sources and the new breed of academic 'useful idiot' cooperatives is any better?

Russian run IO social media accounts have started spreading news about an "eminent false flag" attack in Syria 3 weeks ago this is exactly the same pattern that we've seen on several of the attacks before specifically to all attacks that were eventually attributed to the Syrian government.

And while you may say that "shouting conspiracy" isn't fruitful neither does spreading it without anything that could be considered even remotely as a shred of any proof.

If that's true, then why don't they let investigators in?

They will get there on weekend. OPCW was allowed in. Unless the strikes will change that.

The OPCW inspectors are not being allowed to visit Douma.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/world/middleeast/syria-do...

Or Russia is trying to drag the US into a war in Syria, using gas was a surefire way of bringing them into it, regardless of Trump's anti interventionist stance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com