Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Abu Nur

Assad using Chemical Weapon

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

They lied about Saddam using chemical weapons. The West is an established liar with kangaroo courts, from Jim Crow lynchings and courts that upheld slavery to the show trial of Saddam.

They have 0 credibility in terms of accusing Assad.

 

Also, the US and Israel have used chemical weapons far more than Assad. Does that justify 911? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest In Allah we trust

I spent so much time and energy fighting against western as well as gulf propaganda propping up terrorist groups linked to Alqaeda such as Al Nusra and Ahead Asham, and questioned the ridiculously biased coverage and shady sources, all clearly motivated by a common geopolitical agenda , where various differing interests converged.

Having said this, the same critical thinking that allowed me to see past mainstream media bias has also allowed me to recognise that Assad, whose Wife is a Sunni and who is himself hardly any particular sect, given he prays like a Sunni and appears seculars, is also responsible for war crimes.

Many alleged chemical weapons attacks by Assad are highly controversial if not lies. Zahrsn Alloush, ex leader of terrorist group Ahrar Asham, who praised Osama Bin Laden and referred to Al Nusra as their brothers, promising to cleanse the region of “Najish Zoroastrians” was in the very place in Douma where a alleged attack here even secular, western scientists questioned the reliability of accounts of, including members of the UN.

However, to claim Assad has never used chemical weapons, committed war crimes, as well as had generals who committed war crimes, flies in the face or corroborated evidence, widespread Testimony, and common sense. He is no man we lay people should regard as a model leader, irrespective of his support for the Palestinian cause and fighting ISIS and Alqaeda.

He is the lesser of two evils, and we must be clear about that, and not white wash anyone who presents evidence for Assad’s war crimes. Sure, many accusations are propaganda,  but many are worthy of merit and credible.

How can we cry for Imam Hussain yet lose critical thinking and clarity, failing to look past our own biases? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MuhammadFreeman said:

They lied about Saddam using chemical weapons. The West is an established liar with kangaroo courts, from Jim Crow lynchings and courts that upheld slavery to the show trial of Saddam.

They have 0 credibility in terms of accusing Assad.

 

Also, the US and Israel have used chemical weapons far more than Assad. Does that justify 911? No.

I don't really care anything of this sort of nonsense argument, what I shared is  a valid document with proofs. This is not some lies of west lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest In Allah we trust
1 minute ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't really care anything of this sort of nonsense argument, what I shared is  a valid document with proofs. This is not some lies of west lol.

People who blindly white wash Assad’s crimes would also blindly support and white wsh whatever group they were naturally made to support by accident of birth. 

Such a shame we have so few who are brave enough to look at things for what they are and call a spade a spade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't really care anything of this sort of nonsense argument, what I shared is  a valid document with proofs. This is not some lies of west lol.

We on S.C followed these accusations years ago. The end result was that investigations -including OTAN- cleared the Syrian gov't from using CW; so now this is changed only show US pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can disagree with Western propaganda, and you can also disagree with Assad, as well as attempts to take him out of power and bring in ISIS instead.

Just because one opposes the false information being produced to manufacture consent to send troops to Syria, doesn't mean they're pro-Assad lol.

And the Saudi narrative is a sectarian one that falsely teaches Assad is Shia. The same militia fighting Assad glorified by CNN was fighting Gaddafi in 2011, lol.

 

Even the most "liberal" candidates like Sanders think they should put Saudi Arabia in charge, which is a disaster because Saudi is the most brutal colonial power in the region. It's an imperialist position to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall the chemical weapons attack in Douma. Western media laid our diagrams displaying Syrian Jet routes flying from military bases.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack

Assad denied using chemical weapons but rather suggested use of regular weapons that merely blew up a chemical weapons wearhouse, thereby killing however many innocent bystanders.

I simply pointed out that even using regular bombs to blow up a chemical weapons stockpile is really just as bad as dropping the chemical weapons and having them blow up anyway.

The point being that Assad has displayed a lack of care in the form of indiscriminate bombings, whether it's with barrel bombs or chemical bombs etc. And to suggest that the Assad regime was unaware of the alleged stockpile of chemical weapons is really just an absurd suggestion. Just as absurd as the denial of their use of chemical weapons.

Also, Saddam was a monster who bombed his own people, including with use of chemical weapons. Critique of Saddam is justified all the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Lastly, I recall people here on ShiaChat who insisted time and time again that Assad would step down, back when protests were peaceful and that there would be fair elections. Well, we see how that went.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't really care anything of this sort of nonsense argument, what I shared is  a valid document with proofs. This is not some lies of west lol.

How do you know it's not a lie ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Salaam Aleikum,

Opcw confirm first time that Assad did use chemical weapon on 24, 25, AND 30 MARCH 2017:

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020/04/s-1867-2020(e).pdf

I almost laughed when I read this on their wikipedia page

Quote

Powers[edit]

The OPCW has the power to say whether chemical weapons were used in an attack it has investigated. In June 2018, it granted itself new powers to assign blame for attacks.[5][6]

I have the same power actually, and so do all of us. We can say whatever we want.

Sitting in the Hague, I don't think that we can assume that this organization isn't in the grips of the zionists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MuhammadFreeman said:

They lied about Saddam using chemical weapons

They tried to hide facts about Cursed Saddam also they tried to accuse Iran to using chemical weapons but using chemical weapons by cursed Saddam is undeniable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They tried to hide facts about Cursed Saddam also they tried to accuse Iran to using chemical weapons but using chemical weapons by cursed Saddam is undeniable.

They sold him chemical weapons after Ronald Reagan's election. However, no WMDs were ever found. Which means their justification of invading Iraq was baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

off topic.

how about you summarize the main killer arguments they have instead of expecting people to study a 80+ long boring document of a western hague-based organization. That's if you want people to actually discuss the document. I doubt any, if any, people will actually read that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

how about you summarize the main killer arguments they have instead of expecting people to study a 80+ long boring document of a western hague-based organization. That's if you want people to actually discuss the document. I doubt any, if any, people will actually read that thing.

If you have anything to say point to document and criticize its points by showing the proof, if not please keep out of this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Abu Nur said:

If you have anything to say point to document and criticize its points by showing the proof, if not please keep out of this topic.

I am just suggesting how you can make this topic more powerful. My suggestion was that you show us either via quotations, or paraphrasing, what the main points are that personally convinced you that this is real proof. Don't think this is off topic, or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MuhammadFreeman said:

They sold him chemical weapons after Ronald Reagan's election. However, no WMDs were ever found. Which means their justification of invading Iraq was baseless.

WMDs were "found" . . . after the 2003 invasion. Remember?

The Pentagon and OTAN keep track of every chemical and chemical shell delivered to murder lranians. They knew where some misfires were buried . . . whereever that was . . . then dug them up --4 l believe-- and then claimed Saddam did have WMD like the US claimed before the 05Feb2003 Powell-delivered-lie and subsequent invasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

In May 2019, an internal OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian Henderson, said the “dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders” in Douma “were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft,” adding that there is “a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft.”

After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, “The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged.” Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing “compromised reporting” and ignoring scientific evidence.

In November, a second OPCW whistleblower came forward and accused the organization’s leadership of suppressing countervailing evidence, under pressure by three US government officials.

WikiLeaks has published numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body’s management staff doctored the Douma report.

As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW’s first director-general, José Bustani, decided to speak out. “The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had,” Bustani stated.

“I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing,” the former OPCW head concluded.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

He is a dictator

Dictator: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Does not have "total power", like Saddam would and Assad does have support of most of the people. 
Did give fair share to Sunni's in important positions before the war started (more then they would have if we would divide it based on population %)
Edited by Mohammed-Mehdi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Russia has censured as “untrustworthy” a recent report by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) — tasked with probing a series of suspected “chemical attacks” on a Syrian town in 2017, saying the watchdog has violated the basic principle of its work by conducting a remote investigation without visiting the sites.
 

 “The experts, who accused Syria of incidents that took place in 2017, have depended on judgments released by the Fact-Finding committee which included rough violations of the basic principle of the OPCW work that stipulates the need for a logic succession of events while collecting and keeping material evidence,” the press office of Russia’s permanent mission at the OPCW said on Wednesday.

It described the IIT’s report as unreliable, saying it depends on investigations that were conducted remotely without visiting the places of incidents based on statements of terrorist groups and the so-called civil defense group White Helmets

The Western countries rushed to blame the incident on Damascus — an allegation rejected by the Syrian government — with the US launching several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, taking the lives of about 20 people including both Syrian soldiers and civilians.

The Syrian government surrendered its stockpiles of chemical weapons in 2014 to a joint mission led by the UN and the OPCW, which oversaw the destruction of the weaponry. However, Western governments and their allies have never stopped pointing the finger at Damascus whenever an apparent chemical attack has taken place.

 

Thus there is no real reliable 100% proof/evidence in this report by the evil "OPCW". 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/12/28/614759/OPCW-removal-Syria-report



The findings of Henderson claimed that two cylinders, found in the alleged chemical attack site and thought to have probably contained chemicals, were likely manually placed in the area rather than dropped from a plane or helicopter.

Only terrorists controlling the area had land access to the area at the time.

Wikileaks claims the email was leaked from an exchange between senior OPCW officials and the body’s fact finding mission deployed to the Syrian city to investigate claims of an alleged chemical attack in the area April last year.

Another OPCW email exchange released by the whistleblower website on Friday showed that the body had ordered its eight inspectors in Douma - except one, a paramedic - be excluded from discussions on the probe in July 2018.

A third leaked document detailed discussions between the OPCW and four toxicologists with expertise in chemical weapons.

The experts claimed that “no correlation” had been found between symptoms observed among the alleged chemical attack victims and chemicals possibly used in such an attack, according to the leaked document.

The new documents along with previous leaks, however, show that the OPCW may have intentionally doctored its findings, notably avoiding revelations which may point to terrorist hands being behind the alleged chemical attack.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/21/616707/Syria-Duma-chemical-attack-UNSC-OPCW-Russia
 

A former inspector with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) — tasked with investigating a suspected “chemical attack” on Syria’s Douma in 2018 — says the final report that the watchdog issued on the incident ran contrary to the findings of its own fact-finding mission.
....
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/02/12/618455/Syria-OPCW-chemical-attack-Douma

Freshly leaked information has once again revealed that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) manipulated a report on an alleged chemical attack in Syria in 2018.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

show proof that they are liars,

See comment above. They have a nasty history and worked together with the mainstream media and the US goverment and its allies. We saw them lie on TV with no shame, the media. We saw how Takfiris staged the attacks. Media knew this all along. The UK and the US helped the terrorirsts. 
 
As for the report, it does not contain any real evidence
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brother Hassan said:

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

Executive Summary

  1. Henderson was an employee of the OPCW, but the organisation clearly did not consider him to be part of the FFM.
  2. Henderson delivered his report outside of protocol with less than a day before the final FFM report was published.
  3. Three independent engineering studies commissioned by the FFM contradict Henderson’s findings.
  4. Henderson’s report is fundamentally flawed by the assumption that these cylinders could not have fallen from an altitude of less than 500 meters.
  5. The methodology that Henderson employed for this report was not adequate for this task.

The OPCW has previously denied Henderson was in the FFM, explaining that he “was tasked with temporarily assisting the FFM with information collection at some sites in Douma”. WikiLeaks also leaked an internal email from the Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet of the Director General of the OPCW, questioning why Henderson had carried out this work “outside FFM authority… by someone who was not part of the FFM?”. This email was clearly never intended to be public, and Braha had no reason to obscure Henderson’s role.

However, we can look at the data and information that Henderson fed into this simulation and compare it against what we know about the Douma attack and previous examples of chemical weapons usage in Syria. Once we do this, it becomes clear that Henderson has based this entire simulation on one major assumption and several errors. Although his simulation may be accurate with the data provided, a simulation based on an assumption is unlikely to return reliable results. 

Ultimately, Henderson’s report is flawed from the outset by a major assumption which undermines the validity of his simulation. Trust in his report’s findings are not reinforced by the implication that it was written without proper authorisation, by someone the OPCW did not regard as being part of the FFM. Henderson then attempted to submit this report, which appears to have been unexpected, outside of protocol, and without time for anyone to reasonably review it. This document then appears to have been leaked shortly afterwards.

Henderson’s assumption that a helicopter could not have operated under 500m is a major assumption upon which he bases his simulation. There is no direct evidence about the height that these cylinders were dropped, yet Henderson arbitrarily decided it could not have been under 500m. 

Despite Henderson including a seemingly rational methodology, it is completely inadequate for this task. In this situation, the question of how the cylinders reached their locations cannot be rid of context — attempting to do so is misleading. At no point does Henderson consider in detail what it would mean for the cylinders to have been placed manually. Indeed he does not touch on that hypothesis until the conclusion, where he decides that it is in fact the most likely scenario.

Finally, there is the elephant in the room. The fact the FFM carried out three independent engineering analyses, by three independent teams, all of which contradict Henderson’s findings.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He may have used or may havent. What does that change?

I dont see anyone who claimed Assad is an infallible Imam. Hes a dictator and a tyrant that you unfortunately have to stick to for strategic geopolitical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2020 at 7:58 PM, iCenozoic said:

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

Executive Summary

  1. Henderson was an employee of the OPCW, but the organisation clearly did not consider him to be part of the FFM.
  2. Henderson delivered his report outside of protocol with less than a day before the final FFM report was published.
  3. Three independent engineering studies commissioned by the FFM contradict Henderson’s findings.
  4. Henderson’s report is fundamentally flawed by the assumption that these cylinders could not have fallen from an altitude of less than 500 meters.
  5. The methodology that Henderson employed for this report was not adequate for this task.

The OPCW has previously denied Henderson was in the FFM, explaining that he “was tasked with temporarily assisting the FFM with information collection at some sites in Douma”. WikiLeaks also leaked an internal email from the Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet of the Director General of the OPCW, questioning why Henderson had carried out this work “outside FFM authority… by someone who was not part of the FFM?”. This email was clearly never intended to be public, and Braha had no reason to obscure Henderson’s role.

However, we can look at the data and information that Henderson fed into this simulation and compare it against what we know about the Douma attack and previous examples of chemical weapons usage in Syria. Once we do this, it becomes clear that Henderson has based this entire simulation on one major assumption and several errors. Although his simulation may be accurate with the data provided, a simulation based on an assumption is unlikely to return reliable results. 

Ultimately, Henderson’s report is flawed from the outset by a major assumption which undermines the validity of his simulation. Trust in his report’s findings are not reinforced by the implication that it was written without proper authorisation, by someone the OPCW did not regard as being part of the FFM. Henderson then attempted to submit this report, which appears to have been unexpected, outside of protocol, and without time for anyone to reasonably review it. This document then appears to have been leaked shortly afterwards.

Henderson’s assumption that a helicopter could not have operated under 500m is a major assumption upon which he bases his simulation. There is no direct evidence about the height that these cylinders were dropped, yet Henderson arbitrarily decided it could not have been under 500m. 

Despite Henderson including a seemingly rational methodology, it is completely inadequate for this task. In this situation, the question of how the cylinders reached their locations cannot be rid of context — attempting to do so is misleading. At no point does Henderson consider in detail what it would mean for the cylinders to have been placed manually. Indeed he does not touch on that hypothesis until the conclusion, where he decides that it is in fact the most likely scenario.

Finally, there is the elephant in the room. The fact the FFM carried out three independent engineering analyses, by three independent teams, all of which contradict Henderson’s findings.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/01/a-response-to-bellingcat-form-sources-close-to-the-veteran-opcw-chemical-weapons-inspector-ian-hende.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 000 said:

Yes, let's trust Christopher Hitchens brother on the matter. The same men who regularly slander Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 000 said:

https://eaworldview.com/2019/11/syria-daily-opcw-knocks-back-propaganda-denying-chemical-attacks/

Scott Lucas rejects Hitchen's Response.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2019/11/25/emails-and-reading-comprehension-opcw-douma-coverage-misses-crucial-facts/comment-page-2/

1. That having copied-and-pasted the e-mail from “Alex”, you did nothing — beyond a letter to OPCW asking for comment — to establish Alex’s role in the Interim FFM Report, to verify Alex’s claims, or to establish the OPCW process in the interim and final reports.

2. So you know nothing of the 105-page “original report” that Alex claims. You misrepresent Alex’s “tiny trace” of chlorinated organic compounds as the findings of the FFM inspection team. In fact, analysts considered Alex’s assertion but found that the COCs were notably higher than in “normal” conditions.

3. Similarly, you show no knowledge of the process that BellingCat documents. For example, you do not recognize that further investigation and analysis continued after the July 2018, even though Alex was involved.

So you don’t comprehend that, although Alex was not outside the FFM process, his views were still considered by analysts as they prepared the final report, i which “likely” was changed to “possible” over the cylinder as the source of the chlorine.

4. Because you show no comprehension of the final report, you also do not recognize other evidence cited by the FFM for use of chlorine, such as the “frost” on the cylinder.

5. You try to cite “toxicologists” rejecting any symptoms of chlorine exposure, failing to corroborate Alex’s claim that he had support from three toxicologists.

In fact, toxicology and statements from medical witnesses continued after the July 2018 Interim Report, with the Final Report setting out this evidence.

6. Your citation of the Henderson memorandum as being “excluded” from the Final Report is a report, since that memorandum — considering attribution for the attack — is outside the Fact Finding Mission’s mandate. It is now part of submissions being considered by the Investigations and Identification Team, which can assign blame.

7. Since you did no verification or corroboration of the e-mail, your assertions of “internal mayhem at the OPCW” and “non-existent possibility” of chlorine are, at best, empty polemic. Beyond that, they are propaganda whose chief function is to carry water for the Assad regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...