An apparent classified internal report from OPCW suggests that the Douma chemical attack – which allegedly took place in April 2018 – was in fact staged.
The report, signed by Ian Henderson (an investigative team leader for the OPCW), is an analysis of the two key locations which were used as evidence of the Syrian government launching a chemical attack using chlorine gas in Douma, last year.
These locations, referred to as Location 2 and Location 4 respectively, were made famous by these photographs:
The photographs, “analysed” in depth by Bellingcat and other establishment mouthpieces, were claimed as the “smoking gun”, proof of the Assad’s guilt. However, the OPCW fact-finding mission appears to see things rather differently.
The report is fifteen pages long, detailed and thorough, but the most important paragraph is saved for the end (emphasis ours):
In summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being dropped.”
So there you have it, an apparently genuine OPCW report (kept from the public for as yet unclear reasons), which appears to support the prevailing view of the alt-news community: Douma was staged.
People like Vanessa Beeley and Piers Robinson et al, who have been relentlessly smeared in the mainstream media, have been shown to be right. Again.
This is not the first hole that has been blown in the Douma chemical bomb story (pun very much intended).
Firstly, initial reports from US-backed NGOs were that sarin had been used, not chlorine. This was dropped from the narrative after a preliminary OPCW report found “no evidence” of sarin being deployed.
Also, within days of the alleged attack, noted war reporter Robert Fisk was on the ground in Douma, talking to doctors who claimed no chemical attack had taken place at all.
Later, other witnesses came forward – including a young boy prominently featured in the “shocking footage”. They testified, at the OPCW meeting in The Hague, that no such attack had ever happened.
So, this report is but the latest piece of evidence which seriously undermines the establishment narrative of the so-called, “Douma chemical attack”.
You can read the full report here, or see the embedded version below. We suggest you download it and share it widely. This is exactly the kind of document that could get memory-holed.
The Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) have released their detailed analysis of the report, we suggest you all read it here. They are an excellent group, and have done sterling work on this topic.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
[…] of articles include Caitlin Johnstone, Craig Murray, Jonathan Cook, Tony Cartalucci, Martin Jay, Kit Knightly, John McEvoy, Philip Roddis, Citizens Electoral Council (Australia), Martin Odoni, James […]
[…] (an investigative team leader for the OPCW” and is best summarized by Kit Knightly’s May 14th “Leaked Report: Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Likely Staged” at Off-Guardian.org (a terrific website of investigative journalism that exposes lies by mainstream […]
[…] by Kit Knightly’s May 14th “Leaked Report: Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Likely Staged” (https://off-guardian.org/2019/05/14/leaked-report-douma-chemical-attack-likely-staged/) at Off-Guardian.org (https://off-guardian.org/, a terrific website of investigative journalism […]
[…] (an investigative team leader for the OPCW” and is best summarized by Kit Knightly’s May 14th “Leaked Report: Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Likely Staged” at Off-Guardian.org (a terrific website of investigative journalism that exposes lies by […]
[…] Click here to read the full article entitled “Leaked Report: Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Likely Staged” written by Kit Knightly. […]
[…] (an investigative team leader for the OPCW” and is best summarized by Kit Knightly’s May 14th “Leaked Report: Douma ‘Chemical Attack’ Likely Staged” at Off-Guardian.org (a terrific website of investigative journalism that exposes lies by mainstream […]
[…] then it has gotten a lot of play all across the alternate media (you can read our original report here, but there were many others […]
Blackstone Intelligence presents an in depth analysis of the US march to war with Iran happening right now, for Israel.
There are no depths these scumags won’t sink to. We are ruled by criminals…….big fat criminals committing big fat crimes, lying all the time, using (often not so) sophisticated yet effective systems of control to keep the masses blind to their ways.
Now the US is marching to war with Iran, for Israel. Here we go again.
This report by Kit is STELLAR!!! It is so well-documented and yet stunningly brief (compared to the enormous size of its significance). America’s and UK’s and France’s 14 April 2018 missiles-invasion of Syria was ‘justified’ entirely on the basis of the lie (from the Western sponsors) of the entire fabricated ‘event’, that Syria’s Government had murderously sarin-attacked and thereby slaughtered lots of people in Douma.
The case now for a prosecution against U.S., UK, and France, for violating the U.N. Charter and perpetrating a war-crime by that attack, seems extremely strong, if not open-and-shut conclusive.
However, I think that Kit should also have mentioned and linked to Tim Hayward of “The Working Group” for his having been the first person to make public — on May 13th at https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/evidence-that-douma-chemical-attack-was-staged-opcws-unpublished-engineers-report/ — this (suppressed) finding by the Engineer.
Sure it was staged … like so very many other events. So very, very many. This evening I commented to my housemate that I wish I knew someone who’d been at one of these staged events and she replied that I did – I’d mentioned to her a Balinese man I’d met in a cafe who’d told me his father worked in a hotel next to the one where the alleged 2002 “Bali Bombing” had occurred and his father told him that when he was called to go and help there was nothing really going on – no injured people to help. Can’t believe I’m so obsessed with fakery and that had completely slipped my mind. Bali Bombing and Sydney Siege – they love alliteration. I haven’t come round to the Sydney Siege being staged although it certainly shows a lot of the hallmarks. My stumbling block is Katrina Dawson – she was the mother of three children and the media tell us her children live with their father who has since remarried so I just can’t get my head around that one. Also, she strikes me as a genuine person (I wouldn’t say the same about at least one other family member though) and I just can’t see her as participating in this sort of thing. I can see how whole families involved in these events can all pack up and move away but how would a mother leave her three young children – or if she didn’t how do they manage that?
Well, er … maybe the Lindt Cafe siege was for real.
Maybe the building lockdown I was subjected to from 11am to 4pm was also real. I needed to buy lunch that day too 🙁 .
The “staged” aspect was certainly real – the siege took place just across the road from a television station.
When this happened I was clueless about staged events so I did not scrutinise but if I had been at the time I would have gone down to Martin Place to see if I could find anything out. I worked for the Transport Management Centre and I’m sure, if it was a staged event, at least one of my colleagues would have known what was going on – not that they would have told me I’m sure even if I’d asked.
I’m sorry you missed your lunch. That would have really pissed me off, real or not. I know a guy who worked in the Lindt cafe who was off that day and he’s been traumatised by the event (as is a little girl I know who was in the class of the boy who allegedly died in the Barcelona van rampage which I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever was staged). He left soon after. Despite not being able to get my head around Katrina Dawson I have to say I do think it was staged. I’ve just looked at the Wikipedia page and there’s a few red flags.
It’s written very badly with the usual stiltedness and so many aspects have very low plausibility. My comments in square brackets and italics.
Early on, hostages were seen holding an Islamic black flag against the window of the café, featuring the shahādah creed. Initially, some media organisations mistook it for the flag used by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); Monis later demanded that an ISIL flag be brought to him.
[Does not seem very credible]
The situation began at 9:44 am AEDT on 15 December (22:44 UTC, 14 December).
[Multiples of 11 are a favourite and by giving us the not obviously necessary UTC we get two multiples. Reminds me of the time of the bombing in Manchester 22:33]
A man believed to be Monis was seen wandering near the cafe at 8:30 am …
… who had entered the Lindt Chocolate Café at 53 Martin Place, Sydney, at 8:33
[believed to be near at 8.30 and entered at 8.33 (another 11). If times so close why “believed to be”?]
Monis used hostages as human shields. He had disabled the automatic sliding glass doors of the café.
[Note how the two sentences are completely unconnected. No indication how he disabled the doors and we have to wonder: wouldn’t he need a key or something?]
Monis demanded to speak to the Australian Prime Minister live on radio, but this demand was rejected. This was relayed by hostage Marcia Mikhael, who said that she “lost it” when told that the Prime Minister was too busy, saying, “I don’t care what [Abbott] is doing right now…I’m sure there’s nothing more important happening in Australia…than the lives of the people in this café…”
[Sounds implausible. Surely, in this situation the PM would speak to him.]
Belinda Neil, who was a negotiator for the NSW police, said that in negotiations, “[W]e want to try and talk to the hostage-taker. …[W]e want to find out why he’s there, why is he doing this, and we don’t just go into this situation hoping to resolve it in half an hour.” This approach would be consistent with the Behavioral Change Stairway Model. However, Mikhael stated that no such negotiation took place.Habib said that he called both the police and the Attorney General twice during the raid, but they did not return his calls. Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione confirmed during the siege that “we’re not dealing directly with him … we do not have direct contact with the offender.”
[Very stilted. Why did the PC not deal directly? What was stopping him?]
22 shots were fired, 13 hit Monis.
[The good old 22 that we see so much of – Chelsea Manning and Manchester Bombing being notable examples. 13 is also a key Masonic number.]
At around 2:00 pm on 15 December, police contacted Rebecca Kay, a member of the Muslim community, and asked her to help source an ISIS flag for Monis. Kay contacted many people in the Muslim community but ultimately the police sourced their own flag. However, the flag was never given to Monis.
… Kay said she would help police in another crisis, but “with this incident they have not built trust at all. You don’t understand…the fear that [the AFP and ASIO] create, and how they stalk…members of our community…”Lawyer Zali Burrows questioned the purpose of the police contacting Kay in the first place, stating, “Why didn’t they just print [a flag]?”
[Does not sound plausible. Why didn’t they give Monis the flag? Reminds me of the police who went round to Adam Lanza’s house (alleged Sandy Hook shooter) to raid his house for guns and yet they didn’t end up doing it when they got there.]
Melbourne analyst, Peekay, did a lot of work on this event and you can watch a video here: https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=4MAUD4MM9KK6. I watched a bit of his stuff on it when I first started to wake up but wasn’t convinced. He obviously doesn’t realise that it’s common to have to press an exit button to leave a building out of hours, however, perhaps if I review the video I’ll be more convinced as I’m so much more familiar with these events now.
While the Lindt Cafe siege was real enough, and the various people you mention in your comment did things that seem either illogical or incomprehensible, at the same time it is perhaps possible that in some of its aspects the siege was “staged”.
Monis picked the cafe because (a) it is close to Channel 7 studios, and (b) it is just across the road from the Reserve Bank and (until recently) the Westpac Banking Corporation had its main office close by as well. State Parliament House is not far away either. The Commonwealth Bank and the ANZ Bank head offices are a few blocks away. The law courts are another short walk away in another direction. So Monis could have been making some sort of statement by his choice of cafe to hold up that as yet no-one has bothered to “read” and decipher.
Monis did have a history of mental instability and he had a rap sheet even before he came to Australia from Iran. The Iranian government had an arrest warrant for him and had requested his extradition. Canberra refused to extradite him on the grounds that his human rights would be violated if he returned to Iran. On top of that, Monis had committed various other offences including offences that involved false pretences, but for some reason was still a free man at the time he carried out the siege. One wonders if he was an intel asset.
That the Australian Prime Minister refused to speak with Monis, even though this refusal might have jeopardised the lives of all the hostages, was not out of character for Tony Abbott, who has always come across (to me anyway) as someone more concerned about burnishing his reputation as a tough guy who doesn’t negotiate, even when negotiation might be the only right thing to do.
There has been an inquiry into the police response during the siege and the inquiry did find that the police’s handling of the siege was not exactly competent. One sniper (there may have been others) complained he could have shot Monis and by doing that, Katrina Dawson and the Lindt cafe manager could have survived, if he’d been allowed to do his job.
The inconsistencies in the accounts of the hostages about the siege are to be expected; that’s why all their accounts matter. It is normal procedure that when a bank is robbed, all witnesses to the robbery are interviewed separately, because all their recollections of the incident will differ in significant ways. The only way in which they will all agree 100% is if they all talk to one another and agree on the same things. That is why witnesses have to be interviewed separately; any agreement between separate and independent accounts that have not influenced each other becomes significant.
Whatever they tell us about Monis needs to be taken with a grain of salt (unless we have clear evidence to support it) if the incident were staged, right? No doubt, at least some of it is true though and this could well be a situation where leniency was offered to him in exchange for acting in this event.
What I do when I consider whether an event is staged or real is take all the pieces of available evidence (that I can be bothered to look at) and check:
—Can all of it be accommodated under “staged”?
—Is there any that only fits “real” or tends to fit it much better than it fits “staged”?
—Is there any that only fits “staged” or tends to fit it much better than it fits “real”?
—Which hypothesis overall is supported better by the evidence?
As the evidence clearly shows from any event I judge to be staged that they tell us what they’re up to with contradictions, smiling grievers, things that don’t add up, Masonic numbers and symbols, etc (as claimed by an insider via Ole Dammegard) this forms part of my hypothesis for “staged”.
Thus my hypothesis is “Event is staged and they tell us.”
So with the contradictions we can say:
Contradictory statements from witnesses are a common phenomenon so this can fit both real and staged, however, in this particular situation, the contradictions are very, very stark and the media presents them to us simply as is. Wouldn’t we expect some sort of comment to explain these stark contradictions which relate to a situation where you think everyone would be very focused on what was happening and not having such different perceptions?
Thus, my judgement on contradictions in the video is “supports staged better than real”.
I started to watch Peekay’s video which, despite appalling comments about one of the alleged victims, I have to say is quite hilarious. He shows two SWAT police stationed near the exit of the cafe, one in front of the other. Presumably, they’ve been stationed there for hours ready to help anyone who makes a run for it or for whatever eventuality. In the footage, the guy in front looks as if he’s occupied with something and when the hostages exit he barely raises his head. Instead, he lifts his arm and twinkles his fingers in lackadaisical acknowledgement, while the other guy takes the hostage by the arm. Yes, that’s what he very clearly does. Twinkles his fingers.
Does not fit “real” in any shape or form and they are clearly telling us.
This ABC clip shows John O’Brien, one of the hostages, making a statement. He shows zero emotion and manages to seem boring within a few seconds despite talking about an event which you’d imagine had a powerful impact on him. This is so very typical.
So, Jen, unless you can come up with something compelling supporting real, I’m plumping for staged. Katrina will remain a mystery. Perhaps she had a terminal illness and was going to die anyway. If anyone has any clues, do tell.
All I will say to your garbled reply is that you cannot expect people to behave and react to major events in ways that you believe you yourself would behave and react. Zero emotion in the face of a significant life-changing event is just as likely as extreme emotion. It can take a long time for the significance to sink in. People do not always behave according to a narrow range of expected stereotypes.
Also your attitude to events, on the basis of whether they are staged or not staged, seems to be a problem: it’s probably leading you to concentrate on particular details that would confirm your view that such-n-such an incident is staged, and to ignore other details that would contradict your view. You have to do more than look at only those pieces of evidence “that you can be bothered to look at” that answer “yes” or “no” to your questions: you have to look at all the available evidence first, and then ask where that evidence leads to.
Also are you prepared to stand by your suggestion about Katrina Dawson in case you are challenged on it? I would not like to be anywhere near you if someone takes exception to your suggestion – the result could be ugly. I don’t wish to be hit by a ricocheting bullet, figurative or literal.
If you come across a single piece of evidence that supports real over staged, please let me know what it is, Jen. Also, if you happen to catch the SWAT finger-twinkler in any research you happen to do, please let me know your explanation for it in the context of the event.
And just to add, I am rather lazy, it’s true, which makes these events perfect for me. As they tell us it’s them with their ludicrous contradictions, smiling grievers, etc and because they’re really very scrupulous in not giving us a single thing that can be brandished to favour real, they simply don’t require huge amounts of research.
… and I find them so nauseating. It’s not just laziness. It causes me pain to wade through their bullshit. I so admire other hoax analysts for their ability to plough through it all in minute detail.
Actually, I tell a lie, Jen, though not intentionally. The SWAT guy is not twinkling his fingers, he’s beckoning the escaping hostage but in a very unperturbed, lackadaisical manner completely inconsistent with expectations in such a situation. (It’s at 11 minutes in if you’re interested – https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=4MAUD4MM9KK6. Such a shame YouTube has banned all the hoax videos)
What prompted me to issue a $5,000 Occam’s Razor challenge was that friends, family and others responded exactly as you are in regard to these events – “People show grief in different ways”, “It could be this …”, “It could be that …”. Sure, especially if we’re talking about one instance. But when a whole event comprises all these things which don’t seem quite normal or are, in fact, completely at odds with normal, that’s a different matter. And the thing is there is absolutely NOTHING in any staged event – nada, niente, zilch – that can be brandished by a believer in the reality of that event that favours real over staged. Nothing. And I’ve proven it because not a single person has responded to my 5-exercise challenge with even a single point, let alone 10 – and I’ve certainly engaged with passionate believers.
They are scrupulous in staging their events so that you cannot legitimately mistake them for real if you scrutinise the evidence. You can choose to believe it if you wish. You can be completely invested in the tragic story of the wonderful woman and her now three motherless children (which is exactly what the power elite rely on, of course) or you can be ruthless and examine the evidence with a detached eye. Your choice. But just think – they not only stage the event – they tell us in such a way that you cannot find a piece of evidence to support your belief.
Actually, Jen, that video is probably very difficult to watch cos of poor bandwidth and it’s awfully long anyway. This YouTube video, Sydney siege hostages’ contradictory accounts of moments before execution, is only 1:31 and gives very contradictory accounts – exactly the kind of contradictions that Robert Stuart painstakingly documents in “Saving Syria’s Children”: Response to the HuffP.
Why are we not surprised by this. At all. Most people with even half a brain knew it was a staged false flag last year when Douma happened. Does anyone of us here need anymore proof at what the real role of the vile slime masquerading as ‘journalists’ is. I noted Francis Lee mentioned Udo Ulfkotte in his comment. I’ve done the same elsewhere. Call them out for who they are. If you’re discussing the media with anyone, refer to these creatures by their real names: stenographers, presstitutes, paid mouthpieces, propagandists. And if the person you’re talking to asks why you’re using those names, tell them exactly why. Again Kit, thanks for your work.
We all know Olivia Solon and Luke Harding and George monbiot and a whole host of other propagandists will not mention this report. EVER
The western media’s output consists of a combination of trivia and outright propaganda. In Orwellian terms it is minitru (The Ministry of Truth) in 1984, and it is not futuristic anymore – it is here. See below
Excerpts from the film ‘Network’ produced in 1976 by Sidney Lumet. Starring Peter Finch, Faye Dunaway, Robert Duvall, and William Holden
A magnificently pointed critique of the media in 1976 and a prescient anticipation of the MSM in our own benighted age.
Howard Beale: [calmly strolling toward the audience] So. A rich little man with white hair died. What has that got to do with the price of rice, right? And *why* is that woe to us? Because you people, and sixty-two million other Americans, are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers… This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, and that’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA – the Communication Corporation of America. There’s a new Chairman of the Board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy’s office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-damned propoganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network?
Howard Beale: [ascending the stage] So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.
Howard Beale: [laughing to himself] But, man, you’re never going to get any truth from us. We’ll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We’ll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker’s house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don’t worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he’s going to win. We’ll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds… We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God’s name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I’m speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF…
[collapses in a prophetic swoon as the audience erupts in thunderous applause]
Howard Beale: You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here, you’re beginning to believe that the tube is reality and your own lives are unreal. You do. Why, whatever the tube tells you: you dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even think like the tube. This is mass madness, you maniacs. In God’s name, you people are the real thing, WE are the illusion.
Howard Beale: Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation; this tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers; this tube is the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people, and that’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA, the Communications Corporation of America; there’s a new chairman of the board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy’s office on the twentieth floor. And when the 12th largest company in the world controls the most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network?
It seems pretty clear that the western security and intelligence agencies, MI6, CIA, Mossad, BND, and the rest, are merging into a global blob over which governments have long surrendered control. Moreover, the MSM mainstream media have also become willingly dragooned into being extensions of this global surveillance and propaganda apparatus. The liberal press in particular, is little more than an asset of the above organizations. Our own lovely Guardian is now just another PR firm working for the AZ empire. This has been pointed out by (the late) Udo Ulfkotte in his seminal work Journalisten Gekaufte (Bought Journalists) who p0inted that nearly all the German journalists were working for the CIA/NATO.
Extrodinary as it may seem, the Israeli publication ‘Haaretz’ seems to be the only dissenting voice in this choir of the MSM newspeakers.
See Gideon Levy – Haaretz ”The Two Step Zionist Tango” on youtube.
Leaked report or not the sad reality is repeat a lie often enough and the masses will take it as gospel
Carla Del Ponte statements when the first lies of chemical weapon use by The SAA and the Syrian Arab Republic were floated around. Her words, “The more we investigate the allegations of chemical weapons use in Ghouta the more it appears likely that the rebels the opposition are to blame”‘
To this day western MSM all still repeat the lies that Assad has used chemical weapons in Syria.
The barbarity of the west and the war crimes NATO and all its member states have committed is beyond belief, just like The Iraq fiasco WMDs lies no one in the west will be held accountable while the western shills have proceeded in filing charges of War crimes against Assad. What a dystopian world we live in .
Long Live Suria Long Live the SAA and long live a free and liberated Palestine
Is there something wrong with my browser? I am struggling to find any content on the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media website. Most of the navigable links on the Home page just lead to the same heading on an empty page with a search function. Unless I already know what I’m searching for (which I don’t) that’s not much use. I’ve accessed the detailed analysis on the Douma incident from your link above, but I cannot for the life of me work out where it is on the Group’s actual website, or how I’m supposed to navigate my way there.
Try going to the website homepage, click on the drop-down triangle next to “Research Areas” and then click on “Chemical and Biological Events” when it appears. You get a blank page with the search function, so type “Douma” or “2018” or any other significant word that might be a keyword into the search field and you get these results:
Assessment by the engineering sub-team of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission investigating the alleged chemical attack in Douma in April 2018
Briefing note on the final report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission on the alleged chemical attack in Douma in April 2018
Failing that, you can try checking Tim Hayward’s own blog.
Thanks. But the Working Group knows what reports etc they have published and I don’t. It would still make more sense to me that they offer a drop-down menu with the names of their reports. They might have published other stuff that I would be interested in, that I know nothing about. How am I supposed to find such material?
This commentary from the Working Group on Syria very important to reflect on:
4. The hijacking of OPCW
The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder.
That’s right, collusion in mass murder. Any people in the corridors of power, journalists or OPCW need to now step forward and divulge details of what they know about any aspect of the war in Syria, support for terrorism which we pay through income taxes and warmongering.
The whole thing is collapsing bit by bit. I would be interested in knowing if anyone associated with Bellingcat has the courage to come forward with any examples of their possible collusion with warmongering, lying, terrorism and covering up mass murder. Perhaps we should leave that for them to search for any decency and do something positive for the people of Syria and humanity in general.
Great credit to Piers Robinson. I don’t know him but what I have seen he is highly respectful in debates, open minded and certainly does not put his name to anything unless its credible.
Has the OPCW been asked to comment on this document? Seems an elementary task for a reporter to perform. It would be almost unthinkable that they wouldn’t want to respond.
Just because most of us here, including me, are prepared to accept it as genuine, it should be second nature for a responsible journalist to contact the press office at OPCW…_
Section 2 of the last link in Kit’s analysis and commentary describes the OPCW’s reaction to being asked about the ‘leaked’ report.
Section 2? Got me…_
Yes, Section 2 entitled ‘Commentary on the Engineering Assessment’: sentences beginning “In response to an enquiry on 11 May 2019, the OPCW press office stated…” and “The OPCW also attempted to suggest that the report…”.
That shows the OPCW do not claim ownership of the document alleged to have been leaked to this articles author. This, I believe is the relevant section you refer to that includes the OPCW position.
“In response to an enquiry on 11 May 2019, the OPCW press office stated that “the individual mentioned in the document has never been a member of the FFM”. This statement is false. The engineering sub-team could not have been carrying out studies in Douma at Locations 2 and 4 unless they had been notified by OPCW to the Syrian National Authority (the body that oversees compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention) as FFM inspectors: it is unlikely that Henderson arrived on a tourist visa.
The OPCW press office also attempted to suggest that the report of the engineering sub-team was not part of the FFM’s investigation. This statement also is false. The sub-team report refers to external collaborators and consultants: we understand that this included two European universities. This external collaboration on such a sensitive matter could not have gone ahead unless it had been authorised: otherwise Henderson would have been dismissed instantly for breach of confidentiality. We can therefore be confident that the preparation of the report had received the necessary authorisation within OPCW. What happened after the report was written is another matter.”
It seems that this group are claiming Henderson was in Douma on OPCW business, and the OPCW are denying it. Unless there is evidence Henderson was there, then we have no alternative other than to leave the matter with the OPCW denial of the document. Without that proof this article should not have been published, it’s a he says, she says. That is sensationalism, not journalism.
Three other items.
The first is the unnecessary “tourist visa” comment. As I recall, the Independents Robert Fisk was given a lift in by the Syrian Military with others of the press pack whilst the OPCW team was powdering their noses waiting for the area being declared safe to visit for them. Why they were afraid of Mr. Fisk is beyond me 🙂 The list of those on the OPCW squad needs tracking down. Then maybe we have a story.
The second is to find out which two european universities were involved.
Finally, it’s not what happened after the final report was written that’s germane to the authors enquiries……were is it,if, as the OPCW claim, this ain’t it.
I’ve got the strongest feeling somebodies gone off half cock…
I do not disagree with your desire to rely on irrefutable evidence before jumping to conclusions (indeed, it is absence of this that is sadly absent from our own Western Governments’ and MSM’s narrative of events) but there are a couple of points that lead me to believe that the OPCW are evading the truth about this report.
Nowhere does the OPCW deny that the report is genuine. Nor does the OPCW go so far as to say that the report isn’t correct in its conclusions. If you read the OPCW’s responses literally, their ‘rejection’ of ownership of the report seems to revolve around the logistical technicality of whether a sub-group effectively sub-contracted by the FFM can be classified as being employed by the OPCW. If we assume that they are not technically OPCW employees then what they say is not lies but is disingenuous with the truth. It would appear that they are distancing themselves from the report – and by doing so trying to downplay its significance – presumably because it doesn’t include sufficient ambiguity of interpretation as seen in previous OPCW reports.
I would argue that whether or not the OPCW wishes to claim ‘ownership’ of this report is irrelevant. The fact is the report exists and the contents have not been disputed by the OPCW or anyone else. That is sufficient evidence for me that this report should be taken seriously and should legitimately be publicised as widely as possible.
Absence of evidence is just that.
Facts are facts, opinions are ten a penny…_
You seem selective over the facts you consider worth emphasising. Henderson has thus far not denied the authenticity of the report. The OPCW has thus far not denied the authenticity of the report. Until they do their silence on the matter carries an obvious implication.
Yes, it does carry an “implication”, but without further investigation and evidence, no proof.
All facts must be conclusive and completely supportive of the claims. That is not the case here.
Obfuscation seasoned with silence are the best ingredients when playing the plausible deniability gambit.
I do suspect the truth is very close to this document, but that’s all it leads to, a strengthening of my opinion.
It’s journalism Jim, but not as we know it…_
You seem to be concern trolling here. Hope that’s a false impression. The only obfuscation thus far is from the OPCW, whose failure to repudiate the report has only one interpretation. Until they claim it’s false the ethical and legal presumption must be it’s true. All else is smoke-blowing.
“concern trolling” must be the most sophisticated ad hominem I have ever received. I have to give you a thumbs up for that…_
I sympathise with DiggerUK’s position on this. The OPCW has stated that Henderson was “never part of the FFM”.
Responding with “The engineering sub-team could not have been carrying out studies in Douma at Locations 2 and 4 unless they had been notified by OPCW to the Syrian National Authority…” does not in any way refute the OPCW statement. To be honest it’s a rather weak non sequitur.
The questions that needed (need) to be asked are:
1. Was Henderson in Syria?
2. Was he there on behalf of the OPCW?
3. If he wasn’t there as part of the FFM what was his role?
4. Is the report genuine?
5. Did Henderson write it?
6. For what audience did he write it if not for the OPCW/FFM?
I think it is very unfair to accuse DiggerUK of “concern trolling” when his concerns are justified.
Henderson has proven connections with the OPCW. The OPCW has not so far claimed the report is fabricated or does not originate with them, which they surely would, if either of these things was true.
Under these circumstances it’s reasonable to infer that their claims about Henderson are technicalities or nitpicks designed to blow smoke.
We await developments. But unless the OPCW repudiates the report we have only one conclusion to draw – that it’s genuine and reflects genuine conclusions drawn by its people on the ground.
I don’t wish to be a total pedant but lots of people have proven connections with the OPCW. That does not mean that any of them were in Syria on the FFM team.
They haven’t been asked if the report is genuine and originates with them, so they have wriggle room there.
I agree with your sentiments and your inferences. But the OPCW should have been asked specific questions. Since it appears the WG now has a mole (Moles?) inside the OPCW, I don’t think the OPCW would dare to lie in answer. So they would have had to say nothing.
Refusing to answer questions to which it would be perfectly easy to answer ‘No’ would considerably strengthen the inference.
It bemuses me that some people seem to fire comments off the cuff without even bothering to read (or maybe they just don’t understand?) comments already made by other posters. It’s not that difficult.
I am sure O-G admin have enough to do without having to repeat the same perfectly valid reply over and over again.
Sorry if I have offended anyone, but it had to be said.
Your comments are not so much offensive as condescending. I’ve read and understood the WG report, and the article, and all the other comments, but they don’t deal with the point at issue, which you don’t seem to have understood.
So allow me to reiterate. The WG says the FFM team couldn’t have been in Syria without the express permission of the Syrian authorities. That may be a fact. But it is a fact that has no bearing whatsoever on the salient questions:
1. Was Henderson in Syria – yes or no?
2. Was he there on behalf of the OPCW – yes or no?
3. Did he write the report – yes or no?
4. Is the report genuine – yes or no?
If the WG had put these questions to the OPCW, then the OPCW would have had two options:
1. Refuse to answer – tantamount to admitting the answers are yes.
2. Lie – with the real risk of being exposed.
It just seems to me that the WG had the OPCW on the ropes, and instead of delivering a knockout blow they’ve taken a swing and a miss.
So a comprehensive technical report, the content and conclusions of which are not disputed by a body which opposes (nb: doesn’t dispute) the findings is just ‘opinion’. Hmmm. In that case no scientific or technical report in the world is credible in its own right according to your philosophy. Perhaps you might care to tell us what ‘evidence’ you would like to see.
That is called muddying the water, and it is usually very revealing.
The evidence is in the report.
If the OPCW are to claim it a fake, then they must do so now.
Evidence is evidence, opinion is opinion, silence is a way of saying a thousand words.
Answers to your questions can be found at the link provided in the article.
Now that the long delayed liberation of Idlib has begun, we must shortly expect a Douma Mark II from those fine folks in the MSM, together with Assad maniacally searching for hospitals to bomb, and Bana being resurrected to provide a running commentary from a hidey hole in Turkey. The old favourites are always the best.
You will see from the first two items in this link (dated 9 May) that the BBC are already preparing the ground for a resumption in more allegations of Assad/Russian ‘atrocities’. They still fully endorse the legitimacy of the White Helmets as a force for good and a reliable source of information.
OMG, we’re already down to the “last toddler in Idlib.”
Jesus wept Judy. Don’t the bastards ever give up? They’re like the fecken Duracell Bunny. On and on and on…. Lie after lie ad nauseaum. Oh well, got an Empire to uphold….
As the wonderful MediaLens say ‘UK corporate media are under a curious kind of military occupation’.
How else to explain the unseemly rush by the usual suspects at the Guardian; Tisdall, Freedland, Monbiot, et al, to embrace what from the very outset had ‘false-flag’ written all over it (because the use of chemical weapons could only ever harm Assads effort to overcome western backed jihadis running amok in Syria).
Rudimentary journalistic qualities like curiosity, or proper fact checking have given way to a crude form of stenography compromising what is left of their already diminished credibility, because biased intelligence data, and obviously biased at that, is bound to be found out in the long run (as illustrated by evidence that came to light following previous flag flags, from WMDs to Kuwaiti babies killed in the incubator).
Yet these hacks still plough exactly the same furrow when it comes to Venezuela and Iran presumably because like the BBC it seems they no longer even have to pretend that providing balanced, or serious news is part of the job spec?
Like many others I am heartily sick of how the Washington consensus contaminates everything it comes into contact with and I just wish the likes of Tisdall, Freedland and Monbiot had even a smidgeon of the courage real journalists such as Julian Assange posses, although all of them would probably run a mile if asked to take a difficult stand on a point of principle that did not fit with the kind of groupthink that now defines almost all western MSM output.