Compassion?

Written By: - Date published: 12:05 pm, April 17th, 2018 - 70 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, International, Politics, Propaganda, Russia, Syria, uk politics, us politics, war - Tags: , ,

In relation to Teresa May claiming humanitarian grounds existed for bombing Syria in the wake of an alleged 50 deaths from the deployment of chemical weapons, I found myself asking…

“Where was this woman’s compassion when 71 people burned to death in Grenfeld Tower?”

Didn’t even see fit to talk to survivors when she visited the place, did she?

And where is her compassion when it comes to the 600 suicides that have been linked to the Work Capability Assessments her government subjects people to?

And I could go on.

Meanwhile, we’ve got Macron pathetically strutting his stuff as “the little big man” who’s calling the shots.

In relation to Donald Trump and his horror at the alleged use of chemicals in Douma – where had he filed his horror when he jokingly minimised the use of chemicals by Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war?

And since chemicals are seemingly right up there beside holocaust denial, where was the corporate/liberal media when Trump was making those remarks? Weren’t they out to get him at every turn? I seem to recall they were out to get him at every turn. So a “date range” google search should surely throw up headline after headline condemning Trump’s minimisation of chemical weapons use in the most strident of terms, right? Nope. Nothing.

I don’t want to write a book on all of this – I’m sure you get the picture.

Corbyn, Sturgeon, Melenchon and (even) Sanders– who liberal/corporate media have and do routinely rubbish and decry – have all spoken out against the missile strikes. Is it reasonable to couch their opposition in terms of them being the political figureheads within their countries who represent a political sea change that has been eating away at the dominance of late 20thC early 21stC liberalism?

I don’t think that’s an irrelevant observation.

The US resolution (the one Russia vetoed and that we’re meant to jump up and down about) included a call for immediate ceasefires in Syria in the event of allegations being aired about the use of chemicals. Is it necessary to spell out how that would encourage (often) western backed terrorists to use chemicals (or even simply make an allegation of use) in order to get respite and re-supplies if/when they find themselves in a “tight corner”? And off the back of such a resolution, what action then could be taken by third parties against Syria in the event of Syria not immediately recognising a ceasefire?

Of course Russia voted against that. Anyone without an agenda or pressure being applied to them would.

What then of the Russian resolution that France, the UK and the US voted against? I’ve read it. Unlike the US one, I can see nothing underhanded, devious or politically loaded in it. But maybe you can. Maybe I’m missing something.

Unfortunately, I can’t find my way back to the page that contained the downloadable word documents of the resolutions. So (and I’m sorry about this) I’m cutting and pasting  the main text body (not the pre-amble) of the  Russian one.

The Russian Federation –

1. Reiterates its condemnation in the strongest terms of any use of any toxic chemical as a weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic;

2. Expresses its alarm at the allegations of use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the alleged incident in Douma on 7 April 2018, notes its outrage that individuals reportedly continue to be killed and injured by chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, and reiterates its determination that those responsible must be held accountable;

3. Welcomes the decision of the OPCW Director-General to send the FFM experts for investigation in accordance with the CWC to the site of the alleged incident in Douma and adjacent areas and requests the FFM to report the results of this investigation to the OPCW Executive Council as soon as possible and further requests the Director-General to keep the Security Council informed of the progress;

4. Expresses its full support to the OPCW FFM, demands that all parties in the Syrian Arab Republic shall without any delay facilitate free and safe access for the FFM to relevant sites as well as provide any information and evidence, including, but not limited to, medical records, interview tapes and transcripts, and documentary material, in accordance with resolution 2118, in relation to the alleged incident in Douma and adjacent areas;

5. Recalls that in its resolutions 2118 and 2235 it decided that all parties in the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations;

6. Emphasises that this includes the obligation of all the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic of complying with their relevant provisions, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel and providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to the site of the alleged incident in Douma and adjacent areas;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Council on the implementation of this resolution, and on compliance by all relevant parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, within 15 days of adoption of this resolution and thereafter within the framework of its reporting on resolution 2118 (2013).

To me, that doesn’t accord with the reporting we’ve been receiving about supposed Russian obfuscation and belligerence.

This world we’ve made for ourselves – I guess we should all welcome one another in. So “welcome” to Orwell’s Eurasia/Eastasia/ Oceania. Do take a seat.

70 comments on “Compassion? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. francesca 1
    17 April 2018 at 12:32 pm

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

    Fisk is an Assad apologist? a Putinbot?
    or one of the best ME journalists we have

    Corroboration of his report by an American reporter on the ground in Douma

    • Carolyn_Nth 1.1
      17 April 2018 at 3:09 pm

      What a seriously sad clusterfuck!

      one American News Network is said to be a conservative network and Pro-Trump.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_America_News_Network

      • Bill 1.1.1
        17 April 2018 at 3:12 pm

        As I commented below (and not for the first time), it’s kind of bewildering (disheartening too) that most “on point” commentary about Syria is nad has been coming from right wing and conservative sources.

    • D'Esterre 1.2
      20 April 2018 at 11:52 am

      Francesca: “Corroboration of his report by an American reporter on the ground in Douma”

      I’ve also seen a report on RT corroborating Fisk’s observations. Haven’t got link at present. But of course Russia: so we can’t possibly take that as unimpeachable evidence now, can we?

  2. francesca 2
    17 April 2018 at 12:40 pm

    The new blockbluster news item to sweep all this off the front pages?
    Shock confession from Stormy Daniels!
    “I fucked Vladimir Putin while Lavrov pissed over a picture of Mother Theresa.We were all high on military grade cocaine”

    Dammit it I didnt mean to post here .This was for TDB

    • D'Esterre 2.1
      20 April 2018 at 12:15 pm

      Francesca: ““I fucked Vladimir Putin while Lavrov pissed over a picture of Mother Theresa.We were all high on military grade cocaine””

      Heh! Very good…

      A while back, and in the context of Hillary Clinton’s invective directed at Putin, I asked a relative whether the reason might be that she’d made a pass at him, and he’d politely turned her down. Said relative thought it unlikely, as she’s not his type. Maybe that would also apply to Stormy Daniels?

      An aside: what is it with these people, adopting names of meteorological or geological features? Bizarre: in this household, we compete with each other to come up with the most unlikely nomenclature.

      Good to see you back on The Standard, by the way!

  3. You_Fool 3
    17 April 2018 at 12:42 pm

    It looks like the txt you have copied and pasted is from the third resolution voted down ( the 2nd of two from Russia) concerning the OPCW fact-finding mission, not action or processes for actually dealing with the investigation on chemical weapons use.

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/04/1006991

    Reading the story (but not yet reading a further article detailing the meeting itself) https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm – it appears Russia put two resolutions up, one to agree that the FFM was ok and useful and one that acually competed with the US around how the OPCW would work, as the mandate for the OPCW has expired,so need renewing so it can actually have some teeth in this incident.

    I would say that the condemnation of Russia comes from the two resolutions, and although I have not seen either txt, which would likely add delay to the process; something which appears to be not useful when trying to investigate chemical attacks. It appears Russia’s resolution on the mechanism for the OPCW meant that any outcome needed to be sent back to the Security Council for judgement/verdict, which seems to also limit the OPCW’s independence.

    • Bill 3.1
      17 April 2018 at 1:04 pm

      The mandate for JIMs (Joint Investigative Mechanism)had expired – not the OPCW.

      It lapsed back in November or something.

      There’s been reporting on some of the politiking that’s been going on around the JIM, but to be honest, I haven’t followed it that closely – wood and trees and all of that.

      The cut and paste is headed S/2018/322 and dated 10th April. The US one is also dated 10th April and is S/2018/321

      • You_Fool 3.1.1
        17 April 2018 at 1:41 pm

        S/2018/322 was the third resolution (put forward by Russia) to support the FFM

        See the Russian response to the failure of their mechanism resolution (not ID’d)
        https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm

        Also text from the same link:
        “The Council then failed to adopt the second draft resolution submitted by the Russian Federation, contained in document S/2018/322, by a recorded vote of 5 in favour (Bolivia, China, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation) to 4 against (France, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), with 6 abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden).”
        (second in this case referring to Russia’s second resolution to be submitted)
        So, that text is the lesser resolution proposed by Russia that was an attempt to block military action by the US in response to the failure to pass their own resolution (which is what Russia thought would happen). It failed it seems because it was not put to the SC correctly, but just popped in after the other resolutions failed…

        And yes, sorry I was confusing myself… the mandate that has expired and that Russia has blocked from being renewed is the mandate for the OPCW to operate in Syria

        Reading the above link the issue is pure politics. The US and allies want to continue with the status quo, whilst Russia feels that has been too westernised and wants greater control on the process. It also appears from the speeches by the different delegates that the US had a more consultative approach, whilst Russia just wrote something themselves.

        I can’t find the text of either resolutions, so it is hard to see if either were useful, or if the American one was written to exclude Russia, and thus creating a villain (as the Russian accuse the US of doing) and if the Russian one was really just a process by which something could be said to be done, but that Russia got to decide the results (via veto in the SC) as the US says is the case.

        • Bill 3.1.1.1
          17 April 2018 at 2:20 pm

          I can’t see why you’re concluding that the Russian resolution was an attempt to block military action. As far as I’m aware there was no resolution seeking military action.

          As I said in the post, the US text was heavily politicised.

          In rejecting it (and I don’t think any country in the position of Syria, or of Russia in Syria would have accepted such a resolution) then Russia was going to be demonised.

          If I find my way back to the page that accesses the texts, I’ll post the links so you can read the entire documents for yourself.

          • You_Fool 3.1.1.1.1
            18 April 2018 at 8:46 am

            Whilst I feel we will have to agree to disagree (and I am only going off UN news article of the vote, and the written speeches), both sides were being political and purposefully blocking each other.

            I say the third resolution was to block military action because that it was trying to have a resolution that backed the FFM, which is fine (I am not saying that it is wrong), but was given in the atmosphere of Russia doing its best to block the US and UK from their plans, which Russia assumed was military action in Syria no matter what (and oh, they were right). However, the speeches show that they had no desire to do the right thing, but were just playing the “poor me, the west are ganging up on me” card. There was no consultation on either of their resolutions, or at least all the other members of the SC said as much; whilst the US resolution apparently tried to consult and compromise with everyone, including Russia, even if the final resolution did not take into account Russia’s position.

            It seems to me that both sides are not actually trying to come up with a solution, but trying to one-up each other, and push their own agendas. In this Russia is no better than the US/UK/France and trying to pretend otherwise is ignoring the facts of the situation.

  4. Ed 4
    17 April 2018 at 12:48 pm

    Thanks Bill for so clearly outlining the counter narrative to the propaganda we are being subjected to from the msm.
    Interesting and informative, as ever.

    Robert Fisk has just published a powerful article which exposes the lies.

    Craig Murray comments on Fisk’s observations too.

    “Robert Fisk is one of the very few excellent investigative journalists still employed in the UK. He is twice winner of the British Press Awards‘ Journalist of the Year prize, and seven time winner of the British Press Awards’ Foreign Correspondent of the Year. He is extremely smart and knows the Middle East very well. He has just made his way – not accompanied by Russian or Syrian government officials – to Douma and this is what he reports.
    If you care to search for Robert Fisk on twitter, the attacks on his reputation and integrity at this very moment from achieve nothing neo-con trolls and media lackeys are astonishing. He is in Douma – they are at their desks.
    It also says a great deal about our media that one of the greatest living British journalists is employed only by The Independent, a newspaper which has become extremely marginal, while other genuine greats like Jon Pilger, with a fantastic pedigree, do not have access to UK mainstream media at all. 60,000 people on average are reading my journalism here every day, but no mainstream outlet will carry it.”

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/robert-fisk-reports-head-of-douma-clinic-denies-chemical-weapons-attack/

    • dukeofurl 4.1
      17 April 2018 at 3:39 pm

      Fits in with the OPCW who wrote in a report last month the Barzah complex outside Damascus was ‘clean’

  5. Kaya3 5
    17 April 2018 at 1:47 pm

    Here is the legal opinion commissioned by the UK Labour Party. The media including here in NZ are culpable for their failure to ask the most obvious questions. Instead repeating verbatim the utter garbage and ridiculous propaganda from the BBC. That organisation has been losing credibility for a number of years now but the decline this year has gathered pace. Don’t even mention The Guardian. It is a joke.

    Opinion of Professor Dapo Akande, Professor of Public International Law & Co-Director, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law & Armed Conflict, University of Oxford 16 April 2018

    https://off-guardian.org/2018/04/16/labours-commissioned-legal-opinion-on-legitimacy-of-uk-air-strikes-on-syria/

  6. Kaya3 6
    17 April 2018 at 1:50 pm

    And of course – WikiLeaks Secret Cable: “Overthrow The Syrian Regime, But Play Nice With Russia”

    The Saudi head choppers who National were so keen to trade with.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-14/wikileaks-secret-cable-overthrow-syrian-regime-play-nice-russia

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      17 April 2018 at 6:21 pm

      Notably, as Russia as well as some Western counter-terror experts continue to point the finger at Jaish al Islam (and the “White Helmets”) for staging the Douma “chemical attack” in order to provoke the US military response, it has emerged through past reporting that JAI itself had used chemical weapons against Kurdish militias in Aleppo’s Sheikh Maqsoud district in 2016 (and it appears that the Saudi-backed group openly admitted to carrying out prior chemical attacks according to The Daily Beast).

      Colour me surprised.

      Considering the money path I’d say that they probably used chemical weapons made in Saudi Arabia. Anybody know if Saudi Arabia is subject to the agreement that bans chemical weapons?

  7. adam 7
    17 April 2018 at 2:06 pm

    Just a question, if the chemical attack is in fact another lie, then will the leaders of the western nation stand down becasue they we duped and can not be trusted to make the right decisions? Or are we going to carry on trusting leaders who put politics before people?

    It’s frightening, how much wargasm there has been on this site of late. I was particularly shocked by some long time commentators talking about the people of Syria are pawns in a game of chess, rather than real human beings.

    Wargasim ref:

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/wargasm-lyrics-l7.html

    • Ed 7.1
      17 April 2018 at 2:12 pm

      “It’s frightening, how much wargasm there has been on this site of late.”

      Totally agree.

    • Kaya3 7.2
      17 April 2018 at 2:22 pm

      Our problem is not whether we trust our politicians or not. They seem to not care anymore. The problem appears to be that no matter who is put up for our choice of policy makes nary a difference. Certainly not in matters of importance.

    • Bill 7.3
      17 April 2018 at 2:29 pm

      Beyond “our” masters taking off to the wilderness, which, let’s face it, won’t happen, I’m far more interested in how political news sites of the “compassionate liberal” persuasion (those that like to wrap themselves in a cloak of “the left” – Democracy Now etc) are going to react when the whole sad story of these past years comes tumbling down.

      And sites of “the left” have a lot of soul searching to do to.

      It’s been somewhat bewildering to find that the most “on point” commentary has been coming from conservative news sites and that people on the ground (Beeley, Bartlett et al, – subjected to character assassination by liberal and left sources) were compelled to use conservative and right wing and downright conspiratorial outlets to get their voices heard.

      Maybe this will occasion “compassionate liberals” and a goodly number of “leftists” waking the fuck up. Though I suspect the edge of the carpet is getting lifted even as I type.

      • Ed 7.3.1
        17 April 2018 at 2:33 pm

        Yes the liberal elite have very much been captured by the war party.
        Clinton x2 , Blair, Obama sold their souls.

  8. Kaya3 8
    17 April 2018 at 2:18 pm

    These days BBC and editorial freedom don’t belong on the same page let alone in the same sentence.
    They used to be a reliable source of information but not for a long time now. Like when they did the documentary on Operation Gladio which if you described to most people you’d be written off as being a foil wearing Trotskyite.

    “…This BBC series is about a far-right secret army, operated by the CIA and MI6 through NATO, which killed hundreds of innocent Europeans and attempted to blame the deaths on Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades and other left wing groups. Known as ‘stay-behinds’ these armies were given access to military equipment which was supposed to be used for sabotage after a Soviet invasion. Instead it was used in massacres across mainland Europe as part of a CIA Strategy of Tension. Gladio killing sprees in Belgium and Italy were carried out for the purpose of frightening the national political classes into adopting U.S. policies.…”

    https://off-guardian.org/2015/06/25/operation-gladio-bbc-documentary-from-1992/

    I doubt such a show would ever be made today. Instead we get malicious and obviously false propaganda like this:

    https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/14/even-more-evidence-of-fakery-in-bbc-saving-syrias-children-doc/

    • joe90 8.1
      17 April 2018 at 2:40 pm

      This BBC series

      It isn’t a BBC series. It’s a film made by American conspiracy theorist and film maker Allan Francovich and aired by the BBC.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Francovich#Gladio_(1992)

      • Bill 8.1.1
        17 April 2018 at 2:49 pm

        Well. The point being that they aired it, yes?

        Still waiting (with no expectation) for any airing anywhere of Andrei Nekrasov’s documentary “The Magnitsky Act”.

      • Ed 8.1.2
        17 April 2018 at 2:57 pm

        Do you label everything you disagree with a conspiracy theory?
        You do realise the term was invented by the CIA?

        [ 🙄 Okay Ed. I’ve had enough. Go away and have a cuppa or whatever it takes for you to submit worthwhile commentary. The next pointless, vacuous or generally “non contributory” comment will be the last one before the spam trap descends on your future comments] – Bill

      • Kaya3 8.1.3
        17 April 2018 at 3:02 pm

        Semantics much. It’s like saying MAFS is a TV One series. It doesn’t mean they physically made it. They are the media platform who chose to air it.

        As for the description “conspiracy theorist”, it has absolutely no meaning.
        Watch the documentary and if you disagree or feel you can disprove what is in it come back to me. As soon as I hear the words “conspiracy theory” I feel like puking. It is the last refuge of those with nothing to say and nothing to debate.

        Pardon my discrepancy, it was aired by the BBC. My point still stands, you will never see anything like that on BBC these day. They used to be an organisation that could be depended on to give a balanced view of things. Now they are a state propaganda organisation who make RT look like Gandhi on sodium pentothal.

        • Bill 8.1.3.1
          17 April 2018 at 3:07 pm

          The wiki page Joe90 linked to characterises Francovich as a conspiracy theorist. I guess that was the italic in the comment – kinda indicating a quote from the linked source.

          • Kaya3 8.1.3.1.1
            17 April 2018 at 5:33 pm

            Yes I understand, but Wikipedia isn’t really a definitive source of accurate information. It serves a purpose I suppose.
            As I stated, the point I made was not invalidated by the Wiki link. The BBC would never dream of playing such a documentary these days. I remember watching Panorama and other such programmes in the 70’s. They were decent and in the main, neutral. No longer.
            The Newsnight Jeremy Corbyn, Stalin cap with Red Square in the background has to be one of the most embarrassing bits of propaganda ever put on TV.
            The BBC is a full on propaganda tool. Independent it is not.

            • Bill 8.1.3.1.1.1
              17 April 2018 at 6:12 pm

              I don’t disagree with anything you’ve written there.

              (WIki can be good for non-political info, but is rubbish for anything bar bare facts – dates/ names etc – when it’s a political entry)

              My previous comment was flowing from Eds “go” at joe90, and I assumed you were also suggesting joe90 (and not wiki) was writing Allan Francovich off as a conspiracy theorist.

              And that said, Joe90 should have much more clear in their comment, seeing as how the italic was always going to be taken as Joe90s emphasis. And maybe it was. In which case, back to everything you say about wiki and why anyone with so much as half a brain would avoid using it as a source for anything beyond incontrovertible facts (ie – dates, times, names).

  9. SPC 9
    17 April 2018 at 2:36 pm

    Russia

    The cover up and reality.

    CLAIMS

    1. No evidence of any attack.
    2. Claim that a purported chemical attack in Syria was a fabrication staged by British intelligence agencies to pave the way for allied strikes.

    Alexander Shulgin, Russia’s envoy at the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, did not provide any evidence of the alleged British involvement, saying only that “there is no other plausible explanation” of the April 7 attack in Douma.

    REALITY ON THE GROUND

    3. Russians not getting access to dead bodies of victims.

    NIgor Kirillov, a Russian chemical weapons protection expert who visited Douma, said the rebels refused to show any bodies of the victims of the attack. He said Monday at a briefing at The Hague that the only patient who said he was poisoned by chemicals made statements that made it clear he was lying.

    4. Associated Press journalists (part of a group of journalists on a government-organized media trip to Douma on Monday) spoke to residents who described a terrifying gas attack on April 7.

    Residents say those most affected in the attack, near Douma’s Martyrs Square, were children and elderly people. The survivors blamed the attack on the Army of Islam, the powerful rebel group that controlled the town before it was taken over by Syrian government forces this week, although they did not offer evidence to back up their claims (Army of Islam is the group backed by Saudi Arabia). Refutes 1 and 2.

    5. One resident, Khaled Nuseir, says 47 people were killed, including his pregnant wife and two young daughters, in one underground shelter.

    Survivors recalled a strong chlorine smell that quickly spread through the neighborhood. Residents said they survived by putting vinegar and water cloths on their mouths and rushing to higher floors to get away from the smoke and smell. Refutes 1 and 2.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/103159678/russia-accuses-britain-of-fabricating-suspected-syria-chemical-attack

    • Bill 9.1
      17 April 2018 at 2:44 pm

      I’d encourage you read and view both the article by Fisk and the vid linked by Francesca at the top of the page.

      • francesca 9.1.1
        17 April 2018 at 3:34 pm

        Even the SOHR had nothing to say about CW attacks on two reports put out on the 7th April (Syrian Observatory of Human Rights)… and yeah I do know about him running a draper shop in Coventry and not been in Syria for something like 15 years, and Muslim Brotherhood etc…my point is, he wasn’t getting the news of a chemical attack on the 7th of April

        The first report: http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=88799
        “reliable sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory that some of the casualties and injured people had been subjected to suffocation due to the demolition of basements of houses as a result of the heavy and intense shelling of Douma city, and the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights published hours ago that 11 people at least including 5 children had suffocated, after bombardment by a warplane on an area near the old cemetery at the northern outskirts of Douma city in the Eastern Ghouta.”

        2.The second report http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=88805
        “The trusted sources confirmed to the Syrian Observatory of Rights that the number of injuries today has exceeds 500, including tens of children and tens of women, where more than 70 of them have suffered suffocation as a result of the demolition of home basements over them due to the heavy and intense shelling on the last area beyond the regime forces’ control in the Eastern Ghouta, which is the stronghold of Jaysh al-Islam, and the Syrian Observatory published hours ago that 11 people at least including 5 children had suffocated, after bombardment by a warplane on an area near the old cemetery at the northern outskirts of Douma city in the Eastern Ghouta.”

        This is not to say that these people are not suffering intolerably, but the chemical weapon charge is sheer opportunism designed to prolong and intensify the violence

        • SPC 9.1.1.1
          17 April 2018 at 3:58 pm

          The military action taken was so limited in scope it will have no impact on the future course (it in no way weakens the regimes real capability and any western focus remains on defeat of IS while the regime fights “rebels”).

      • SPC 9.1.2
        17 April 2018 at 3:42 pm

        If these accounts are right (ignoring other accounts of chlorine smell and those who died – a hospital doctor here claims no one died of “asthma symptoms” – which have witnessses according to AP journalists that neither Fisk or OAN talked to) then by their accounts there was no conspiracy to “stage a CW attack” but a presumption of one due to other factors.

        • Bill 9.1.2.1
          17 April 2018 at 6:17 pm

          Are those who give account of chlorine “placed” or “located” in any way? Or are they possible anybody’s from anywhere with any agenda?

          • SPC 9.1.2.1.1
            17 April 2018 at 6:19 pm

            No idea, nor do I know which AP journalists found these witnesses when in Douma.

    • SPC 9.2
      17 April 2018 at 2:50 pm

      ON THE GROUND

      Chemical weapons inspectors in Syria say they suspect the site of an alleged chemical attack has been tampered with.

      A team with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons arrived in Damascus on Saturday (local time) at the invitation of the government to investigate the alleged chemical attack, two days later, the fact-finding team said it has still not been granted permission by Syrian authorities to visit Douma.

      The US ambassador to the OPCW, Kenneth Ward, said there were suspicions that Russia, a longtime ally of the Syrian government, may have tampered with the evidence.

      “It is our understanding the Russians may have visited the attack site. We are concerned they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW FactFinding Mission to conduct an effective investigation,” Ward said in comments at a closed-door meeting of the OPCW in The Hague that were later made public.

      THE COVER UP

      “Pro-government media broadcast interviews with doctors from the area saying that no such assault had occurred and that the victims they treated were suffering from asthma.”

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/103159097/russia-accused-of-tampering-with-site-of-alleged-syria-chemical-attack

      Mass asthma attacks at two separate locations …

      • Ed 9.2.1
        17 April 2018 at 2:58 pm

        Have you read Fisk?

      • Kaya3 9.2.2
        17 April 2018 at 3:04 pm

        “The US ambassador to the OPCW, Kenneth Ward, said there were suspicions that Russia, a longtime ally of the Syrian government, may have tampered with the evidence.”
        Wow, slam dunk right there.

        • Bill 9.2.2.1
          17 April 2018 at 3:09 pm

          Maybe Fisk stuck some evidence in his pocket and made off with it .

          • McFlock 9.2.2.1.1
            17 April 2018 at 3:39 pm

            heh ISTR he did something similar before – some good work with missile fragments fired from an Israeli aircraft a few years back.

            Took them back to the manufacturers, but also the serial number exposed a channel that weapons orders nominally destined for the USMC had ended up in Israel unofficially.

            As to his article in this instance – he doesn’t slam-dunk it that gas didn’t happen, either. He’s pretty open about the issues of speaking to the only doctor who wasn’t on duty at the time (and wasn’t called in when a major medical incident occurred). He also mentions the OPCW inspectors were being denied entry (so much for invitations).

          • Ed 9.2.2.1.2
            17 April 2018 at 3:42 pm

            Have just read moderation comments.
            Point taken.

        • SPC 9.2.2.2
          17 April 2018 at 3:28 pm

          More credible, than the Russian claims that the British staged the whole thing.

          The Russians were dumb to make up such allegations while claiming to want everyone to wait for evidence.

          • Draco T Bastard 9.2.2.2.1
            17 April 2018 at 6:40 pm

            I suspect that the Russians were just showing up how stupid were the US/UK/French allegations when they don’t have any evidence either.

      • Kaya3 9.2.3
        17 April 2018 at 3:08 pm

        “Mass asthma attacks at two separate locations …”

        Wow, yet another slam dunk. Are you related to Perry Mason by any chance? Ironside? Columbo maybe?

        Have you ever been near the scene of a real explosion? I have, several times. One very close indeed. what symptoms do you think people will display when their is choking smoke and probably cement dust thick in the air?

        Let’s wait for the evidence before bombing people.

        • SPC 9.2.3.1
          17 April 2018 at 4:04 pm

          We can agree it is wrong to conclude (and take action) without evidence.

          But then even the French, Americans and British would agree, … they claim to have evidence … .

          It is more here a case of agreeing to a process to determining the veracity of evidence.

          The issue is trust in the process, there is the UN component, the expert body concerned with investigating etc.

          And as important acceptance of the result and agreement on some sort of consequence – again difficult if the UNSC has veto powers that protect Syria/Israel as a matter of patronage.

    • Ed 9.3
      17 April 2018 at 3:13 pm

      You approve of bombing countries without evidence it would seem.
      Shameful.

  10. Tony Veitch (not etc) 10
    17 April 2018 at 3:33 pm

    A plausible explanation?

    “I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

    From The Independent, posted by No Right Turn:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

  11. dukeofurl 11
    17 April 2018 at 4:39 pm

    The UN head of Safety And Security is a Australian Federal Police deputy Commissioner ( for national security !!!) on secondment
    https://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sga1460.doc.htm

    While the OPCW is an entirely separate body with its own staff they seem to rely on the UN security in these circumstances

    Whats the bet the UNSS is not entirely independent of the major western powers ?

  12. Stuart Munro 12
    17 April 2018 at 8:22 pm

    It’s a sad fact that these Syriana add little to the progressive debate beyond establishing the camps to which the commenters belong. I feel you’re a little hard on May Bill – she’s just following Blair’s lead – this was a US led attack, and, having had the Skripal attack, the UK was never going to do anything different.

    The Syrian conflict is misrepresented as a conflict between two powers – there are at least six regional state players each with their own barrows to push, and considerably more minority local or ethnic or religious interest groups – Kurds, Yazidis, Turkmen, at least half a dozen Islamic groups of various characters.

    Buying into the Russian game of chemical warfare and lies does nothing to get to the roots of the real issues that have displaced over two million people, whose welfare ought to be a leading consideration but that is sidelined by this pathetic propaganda surge.

    Where is the analysis of competing interests that ought to lead this debate? We know for instance that Israel has been quite aggressively involved – but are they the US’s aggressive pawn, or are they skirmishing over the lines of engagement their allies have defined? I’ve seen a certain amount of scorn for Saudi, but little analysis of their role beyond speculation about their funding of amorphous Islamist groups – which ISIS largely did not receive, having secured the bulk of their funding from bank reserves when the seized Mosul. And, it needs to be said, the fact that enormous numbers of “Assad’s” citizens want to leave their country ought to raise pretty significant governance and representation critiques – which the chemical soap opera conveniently obscures.

    • You_Fool 12.1
      18 April 2018 at 8:50 am

      The problem is that although there are many different things happening, both Russia and the US/UK/France blocks are more interested in it all being a binary issue, with either Russia/Syria’s side or the US/UK/France. Both sides have benefit for pushing the either/or narrative, so they both do and we do not have a proper discussion on it

      • Stuart Munro 12.1.1
        18 April 2018 at 8:57 am

        Agreed – but we are not intellectually dependent on these blocks surely? In fact NZ’s historical role has at its best been to produce analysis divorced from these sterile interest blocks.

        • You_Fool 12.1.1.1
          18 April 2018 at 8:59 am

          Not according to national and the far right (there we should just back our allies come hell or high water) and it appears some on the far left, where the US is wrong and Russia is right…

          Jacinda does appear to be trying to get actual information before making absolute statements, so yay her!