Oh Look! (What. a. surprise.)

20 comments on “Oh Look! (What. a. surprise.) ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bazza64 1

   8 February 2020 at 1:31 pm

   The Guardian article seems reasonable & genuine to me, especially the bit about the two individuals involved “They could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence” These people probably think the moon landing was a hoax & the earth is flat. Why let the facts get in the way of a good story ?
   • Brigid 1.1

     8 February 2020 at 1:59 pm

     The Guardian article is designed exactly to do that – "seem reasonable and genuine".

     'These people' are, were, OPCW scientists who examined the evidence and wrote their report, which did not fall into line with the the required propaganda.

     The report that one of these inspectors has written is discussed here:

     "In testimony before the United Nations Security Council, former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert Ian Henderson stated that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their findings were suppressed."

     https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/22/ian-henderson-opcw-whistleblower-un-no-chemical-attack-douma-syria/

     Read it
     • Brigid 1.1.1

       8 February 2020 at 2:01 pm

       Why let the facts get in the way of a good story indeed!
2. Andre 2

   8 February 2020 at 3:10 pm

   Bellingcat's posts looking at the claims:

   https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-1-we-need-to-talk-about-alex/

   https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/17/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-2-we-need-to-talk-about-henderson/

   https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/23/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-3-we-need-to-talk-about-a-false-flag-attack/
   • adam 2.1

     9 February 2020 at 12:47 am

     The first post – starts with the old chestnut – the russians did it.

     Then it goes on to claim wikileaks has not posted all the emails, so the 'alex' is lying.

     And last, but not least, it finishes with personal attacks. By which stage I'd had enough of the condescending emotive propaganda the authour was writing.

     What a waste of time reading that crap was. I'm not going to bother with the other two when the first one was so much bullshit.
     • Andre 2.1.1

       9 February 2020 at 5:33 am

       So you aren't interested in looking at the actual evidence? Documentation of likely chlorine induced rapid corrosion and the presence of unusual chlorinated organic compounds in close proximity to the cylinders? Damage to the cylinders and buildings consistent with dropping the cylinders aerially that would be extremely difficult to replicate any other way? Plus a whole lot more.

       None so blind as those who have already chosen what to believe.

       And no, it doesn't say the russians did the attack. It does suggest, and provides evidence why, that the russians may be involved in spreading disinformation. This is a tiny portion of the report, a mere two paragraphs.
       • Brigid 2.1.1.1

         9 February 2020 at 12:50 pm

         It is the facts that we're interested in Andre. The damage to the cylinders and buildings is not consistent with dropping the cylinders aerially.

         This report investigates that theory

         http://syriapropagandamedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Engineering-assessment-of-two-cylinders-observed-at-the-Douma-incident-27-February-2019-1.pdf

         An assessment of that report is here

         http://syriapropagandamedia.org/working-papers/assessment-by-the-engineering-sub-team-of-the-opcw-fact-finding-mission-investigating-the-alleged-chemical-attack-in-douma-in-april-2018

         Rather than swallowing Bellingcap unwholesome garbage perhaps you could also read the final OPCW report and see if it reasonably proves the UK/US/French claim of chemical exposure to Syrian citizens.

         Take note of how many articles of evidence were received by the OPCW from third parties and how the appropriate chain of custody procedures were applied to the collection of all evidence. Or not.
         • Andre 2.1.1.1.1

           9 February 2020 at 1:08 pm

           The first piece is fatally flawed by Henderson's assumption that any aerial delivery must have been from a height greater than 500m. This flaw is discussed in Bellingcat's review of Henderson's assertions.

           The second piece uncritically takes Henderson's fatally flawed assertions at face value, and is therefore fatally flawed in its conclusions.
       • adam 2.1.1.2

         9 February 2020 at 2:22 pm

         The style of the post was heavily condescending, and light of facts.

         I'm old fashioned, I don't take supposition to be fact.

         Edit: You lack of understanding on how propaganda works is a bit of a worry Andre. That is an opinion, which has no basis in the scientific method.
3. Brigid 3

   8 February 2020 at 3:42 pm

   The Courage Foundation convened a panel of concerned individuals from the fields of disarmament, international law, journalism, military operations, medicine and intelligence in Brussels on October 15th.

   Panel members:

   José Bustani, Ambassador of Brazil, first Director General of the OPCW and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom and France,

   Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University; Visiting Professor, Istinye University, Istanbul

   Kristinn Hrafnsson, editor-in-chief, Wikileaks

   John Holmes, Maj Gen (retd), DSO OBE MC

   Dr. Helmut Lohrer, MD, Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and International Councilor of its German Affiliate

   Prof. Dr. Guenter Meyer, Centre for Research on the Arab World (CERAW) at the University of Mainz

   Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence (retd); member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity and Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (http://www.samadamsaward.ch)

   "Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion."

   https://couragefound.org/2019/10/opcw-panel-statement/The Courage
   • Andre 3.1

     8 February 2020 at 4:05 pm

     Link that works:

     https://www.couragefound.org/2019/10/opcw-panel-statement/

     tl;dr October 2019 The undersigned think the OPCW should take another look at their report in light of the claims of the dissidents within OPCW.

     It seems that is exactly what the OPCW have done. The conclusion the OPCW came to was that the dissidents "could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence".
     • Brigid 3.1.1

       9 February 2020 at 1:05 pm

       Actually it is not what the OPCW have done. They simply refused to reply to Ian Henderson for 6 months. Their latest report does nothing to address Ian's concerns but instead simply seeks to insult him and all other scientists who have expressed their concerns at the doctored report.

       For those interested

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjTEat7ESHs

       "The OPCW's director general finally issued a statement – attacking his staff and whistleblowers, saying that the official narrative is sacrosanct, and that any dissent from the organisation's experts and engineers will not be tolerated."
       • Andre 3.1.1.1

         10 February 2020 at 3:41 pm

         For those interested in finding out about who they're listening to before investing a lot of time into a video, here's a backgrounder on Piers Robinson:

         https://www.huffpost.com/entry/professor-piers-robinson-sheffield-university_n_5c0666a3e4b07aec5752630a
4. Adrian Thornton 4

   10 February 2020 at 3:07 pm

   Hi Bill here is a belated thumbs up for writing this piece

   Always interesting how the many defenders of status quo around these parts are always so quiet after the many obvious propaganda projects that they so vigorously defend finally get exposed for what they are..

   But you can be sure they will be out defending the next one just as hard..very strange behaviour when you think about it really.
   • McFlock 4.1

     10 February 2020 at 3:12 pm

     Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Andre did a pretty good job this time, though.

     Always interesting how many deluded individuals regard silence as some sort of consent for their warped assertions of reality..
   • Bill 4.2

     10 February 2020 at 9:29 pm

     Thanks Adrian.

     But I disagree when you say the behaviour's is strange – it's just some people will only see what they're told.

     And when that's a person's mentality, I guess there's a chosen higher authority that's a "go to". And anything seen as challenging that authority will be treated at a level of threat to personal security.

     The clearer cut examples probably exist around the likes of religious extremists who will, y'know, chop your head off for not going for what's in "the book". And that just exists on a continuum, so in a space like this blog, articles and opinions by expert after sound investigative reporter can be brought to bear on an argument or issue, and the tedious routine by those who see what they are told is to launch straight past any evidence and logic and zero in on the messenger.

     I mean, they'll engage with controversies that are within safe parameters, but beyond that, they are just simple noble defenders of a bullshit paradigm they need to believe in.

     Hmm. So whereas I can have a debate with a CV about 9/11 (he has a soft spot for conspiracies, yes?), it's not as though I either a) dismiss everything he has to say on every other topic or b) engage at a simple minded level of "that is wrong, therefore the opposite is true"…which, again, those who see what they are told don't tend to be capable of moving beyond official narratives, and so fall into simple minded black hat/white hat positions.

     And just for the record, no, I don't think people within some US agency planted explosives or such like.

     Maybe a more topical example would be the current Primary in the US. In the other thread the usual suspects have been doing the "nothing to see here" arm waving routine with regards Iowa with a little sly ad hom on the side. And that's in spite of the fact that Shadow and the parent company have deep ties to the establishment Dems and New Knowledge who, as Russiagate hucksters, did in Alabama in 2017 precisely what they kept claiming Russia had done vis a vis election interference (Actually, they went much further than some few facebook ads that no-one saw and created a fictitious candidate to bleed votes away from their target candidate….while claiming Russian bots were interfering on behalf the same candidate)

     But any suggestion things might be awry in Iowa and any suggestion there are questions deserving answers, well…that's not a conversation falling within safe parameters and so gets trashed by the usual suspects before it gets started.

     The green light only blinks for boring lowest common denominator debate. And the effect is an ongoing downward trajectory for this site.
5. Adrian Thornton 5

   10 February 2020 at 3:37 pm

   oh thats right Bill I forgot to say…except for the crazies of course…but then it has always been plainly obvious that that lot will believe and defend anything told to them by their chosen authority figure/organization.

   Well at least we don't have to get into any guessing games as to who the camp guards would be around here do we…nope it seems Mcflock and Andre are just waiting for their chance to show how faithful to power they can be..
   • McFlock 5.1

     10 February 2020 at 3:56 pm

     See? Damned if we don't (because some fool says something like you did in comment 4), but damned if we do (because some fool says what you did in comment 5).
6. RedLogix 6

   10 February 2020 at 3:58 pm

   I've not been following this story so I won't comment directly on it; but I'm happy to assure you I'm not one of those lining up to yell 'anti-American'.

   What does irks me is the usual lazy line of thinking that reflexively opposes anything and everything American with no regard for context or nuance. But in this case we can point to specific policies and individuals within the current US govt shitshow who are responsible for clear cut lies and deceptions to advance an ugly agenda; and with that I’ve no issue whatsoever.
   • adam 6.1

     10 February 2020 at 5:38 pm

     I agree redlogix, and I wish people would apply the same logic to russia and other places. I do wonder how people are handling the fact putin is giving up power – as it does not fit the narrative so many have spun.

     Let not forget that friends of mine are locked up in putin's prisons for political reasons. So I'm no fan of the muppet. But a bit of nuance in discussing russia and the usa would help us all.

     Would should not forget that both the usa and russia are on the cusp of falling into totalitarianism, and no matter what form totalitarianism takes – it's always, always bad for working people.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS