[amasad]

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...

[dogma1138]

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.

[amasad]

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.

[dogma1138]

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.