General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRT: Intl experts have strong proof images of chemical victims fabricated
Intl experts have strong proof images of chemical victims fabricated Moscow
Published time: September 10, 2013 08:09
Edited time: September 10, 2013 10:00
Footage and photos of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, which the US cites as the reason for a planned military intervention, had been fabricated in advance, speakers told a UN human rights conference in Geneva.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Evidence for the Russian case, including numerous eyewitness reports and results of investigations of the chemical weapon incident by activists, was handed over to a UN commission of experts probing the Syrian crisis, the ministry said.
http://rt.com/news/experts-un-syria-chemical-649/
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its RT....sheesh
kpete
(71,959 posts)mho and peace,
kp
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)They are simply reporting what the testimony is. RT or no RT, I think that much can be trusted. Simply because what they are reporting would tend to make you wrong in your assumption that it's okay to attack Syria, doesn't make them less credible in their report.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they like this kinda thing over there...
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)with it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Brit I am guessing?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And by extreme, I mean communistic and socialistic, in terms of economic policies. We do exist.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)this makes no damn sense at all...
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Rightwingers are liars, spinners, and corrupt--all of them. I don't have time to bother with them. And I AM politically aware, but I don't allow TRASH to clutter up my life or my thought processes.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)One or ther other. That's how these insults go. And both camps are trash.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Years ago Drudge broke the Lewinsky scandal and since then the DC media read him over coffee in the morning.
The funny thing is that some of those idiots then go to Huffington Post in the name of being "fair and balanced".
Is it any wonder they think Liberalism is all about side boob shots?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think that there are exceptions to every rule, of course, and that each case needs to be taken on a case by case basis. But I don't think that you should have the right to have an abortion simply because you don't want another child and you are still in the first trimester.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=180181
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)Blech...
SunSeeker
(51,508 posts)greiner3
(5,214 posts)"I am an extreme leftwing Texan. And by extreme, I mean communistic and socialistic, in terms of economic policies. We do exist."
Besides, the link you provided shows the poster writing about 'partial birth' abortions.
WTF?
REP
(21,691 posts)She's not as liberal as she pretends.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)defacto7
(13,485 posts)But you are Texan, an economic socialist, you have almost 7000 posts on DU and you don't know what/who Drudge is? You are either extremely uninformed and have major blinders on, or you just made that up. Why would anyone with strong opinions on political and economic issues completely blind themselves to the opposition? That would be more than uninformed, it would be a religious conviction, like running from the devil with your ears and eyes covered.
Have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh? FOX News? Probably not I guess.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I AM aware of rightwing politics. In fact, they are pretty predictable--as long as a policy promotes corporatism, or fascism, they're for it. And I have heard of the Drudge Report, here on Democratic Underground, but I don't know if it's conspiracy or rightwing, and I don't care. I don't go to it for the same reason I don't watch Faux News or those paranormal shows.
William769
(55,142 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)sewer level low on a good day. Embarrassing to see this crap on DU.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Nobody is going to be convinced it never happened.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)maddezmom
(135,060 posts)I understand people not knowing or believing if it was Assad but the chemical attacks took place and people and many of them children died.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)But GD has much, much lower standards.
Sid
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)I wonder. Who should we believe?
Here's a link to the 22 page report documenting evidence for their conclusion that their was a large scale chemical attack and it was carried out by the government.
http://www.hrw.org/node/118725/
Here's the press release:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack
(New York) Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin.
The 22-page report, Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria, documents two alleged chemical weapons attacks on the opposition-controlled suburbs of Eastern and Western Ghouta, located 16 kilometers apart, in the early hours of August 21. Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims as documented by medical staff.
Rocket debris and symptoms of the victims from the August 21 attacks on Ghouta provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used, said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. This evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning.
The evidence concerning the type of rockets and launchers used in these attacks strongly suggests that these are weapon systems known and documented to be only in the possession of, and used by, Syrian government armed forces, Human Rights Watch said.
kpete
(71,959 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)The RT is funded by the Kremlin, which makes it propaganda, not news.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)SamReynolds
(170 posts)None of us were there, none of us witnesses.
How about we see what the UN has to say about the Russian info, eh?
John_Carter
(15 posts)... and sort through evidence presented in a logical and reasonable manner?
Skittles
(153,111 posts)John_Carter
(15 posts)I can see you have nothing but time on your hands so I'll look to your vast ... vast... experience...
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)I mean REALLY?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
SamReynolds
(170 posts)of this supposed evidence that Russia has before dismissing it out of hand.
Just ignoring shit because one does not wish to believe it, for whatever reason, is the opposite of 'critical thinking'.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)labeled as such.
This is what Skinner said in explaining why it's not cited in Late Breaking News:
"For the purposes of enforcing the LBN statement of purpose, I have no problem with hosts treating Russia Today as not a reputable mainstream news source. It's bankrolled by the Kremlin for a reason."
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)But that doesn't mean that everything everyone reports on it is bullshit.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)But with some things it's easier to see bullshit than with others. Spend some time with the opposition like Drudge Report and maybe it will get easier for you to comprehend the difference between bullshit and facts.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And I'm not going to, even if I did have time. Just like I don't watch Fox News.
I realize that it's important to know what your enemies are doing, but DU keeps me well informed. I venture over to FR every once in a while, when someone here posts a link to something specific, but I long ago tired of rightwing lies, and I simply won't waste my time with yet another broadcast, or website.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)that Russia is a democracy comparable to the U.S.?
Tanuki
(14,914 posts)..."In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants from foundations or business entities, contributions and sponsorships.[19] According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[19] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[19][29] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPRs overall revenues.[19]
During the 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of NPR funding came from the federal government. Steps were taken during the 1980s to completely wean NPR from government support, but the 1983 funding crisis forced the network to make immediate changes. Now more money to fund the NPR network is raised from listeners, charitable foundations and corporations instead.[citation needed] According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB.[30]
..."
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Geez. REALLY? Is that all you got? Everyone who disagrees with you is lobbing rightwing "accusations"?
Turborama
(22,109 posts)If you don't like that, you should be more specific when you do use it.
It's all I needed.
No, I do not think everyone who disagrees with me is "lobbing" reich wing accusations. When I see them I do call them out though, it's how we roll on DU.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)We were discussing two media organizations, both funded by the government, at least to some degree (I don't know how much RT is funded by the Russian government, maybe someone else does). To point that out is not rightwing. It's just the truth.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)No.
But you are protesting rather a lot about my highlighting of where that argument against NPR comes from, though.
Anyway, continuing with more evidence that likening NPR to Russia Today is an utterly false equivalence...
President Vladimir Putin has refused to allow the Finance Ministry to cut funding for several state-run media outlets including "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" and Russia Today. This was first reported by Novaya Gazeta newspaper who cited a letter from Alexei Gromov, the first deputy head of the presidential administration.
More: http://en.gazeta.ru/news/2012/10/29/a_4828917.shtml
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)"This is a FALSE Reich wing accusation."
And, by the way, your little blue box? Contents of it don't really make the point I think you're trying to make.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)I don't know why you can't comprehend that and are taking it so personally.
Here, let me try and spell it out for you:
A) It is a false accusation.
B) It has been used wrongly by the reich wing to besmirch NPR.
C) You have used the same false accusation to create a false equivalence between NPR and Russia Today.
B and C are mutually exclusive.
A remains a false accusation that has been used by both the reich wing and you, though.
The contents of the article do make the point I am making, that Russia Today is owned and run by the state. Do you need me to spell out what that means to you, as well?
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Please don't bother with any more "edifying" drivel. You know what you did, and denying it, or chopping it up into into tiny little pieces doesn't change that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It is not the same at all.
You see, in Russia, free speech is not a protected right.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and they do have a noticeable bias on issues such as Syria.
I have, however, learned plenty from watching RT and do so fairly regularly. If you're the type who is able to allow for the news source's point of view as a component of the information they present (pretty much a necessary skill for any news, RT or not), it can be an excellent news source, in many ways more honest than our own mainstream news.
Skinner's statement is interesting. I wonder how he feels about corporate bankrolling of our media? For me, it tarnishes anything corporate media says, to a large degree, the corporate sources have a very heavy bias, and it consistently leans towards war, any war.
I also wonder how that kind of thinking relates to organizations like PBS and NPR. They get money from individual donors, but they get a lot of their funding from a combination of corporations (including a lot of Koch money) and the U.S. government.
What I like about RT is they are willing to present views of the American left, which the U.S. media is not. For me that's worth having to allow for their bias.
It will be interesting to see if there is anything to this evidence RT speaks of. I doubt it, but won't discount it strictly because of the source.
I remain highly skeptical of this entire red-line B.S. and who is playing what part in it, and am decidedly against an attack.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I made no such claim. For the most part our propaganda machine operates with more subtlety and skill than to issue outright content directives, though they often report the words of unsourced "high-ranking government officials" verbatim as credible information.
And you're implying that RT dictates content. People I respect like Thom Hartmann have publicly said they don't dictate his content. I'm sure they influence the content of some of the programming, not saying otherwise, I'm just rejecting your one-sided dismissal.
Also you focus on government involvement. Corporate involvement is perhaps a larger problem, IMO. NPR and PBS are unfortunately up to their ears in corporate money.
You appear eager to dismiss RT's reporting because of its funding, but less worried about the funding of our domestic media. I encourage everyone to watch RT with an awareness of its point of view. I also encourage the same approach to our own media.
Anyone who has witnessed the contortions our media will go through to justify corporate and RW positions should have a great distrust of our own media. Basically they were complicit in selling us the Iraq war, not to mention a thousand limited military actions such as what we are being sold in Syria. I find our media to have very little credibility when discussing foreign policy.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)Sorry, but I'll believe Doctors Without Borders and Human Rights Watch over RT any day -- even if Thom Hartmann is happy to give them cover.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)If you have anything behind those statements, you should present it. I read the story, not much there really, either way.
Same thing with this story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57602150/human-rights-watch-says-evidence-strongly-suggests-assad-used-chemical-weapons/
Not much in the CBS story to hang your hat on. After the Iraq war bogus intel, I find it hard to put too much faith in an NGO's report that some rockets were found which might have carried warheads that could possibly contain chemical agents. Even if they did, there was no link established to the Syrian government, as far as I can tell.
I find the Saudi-Bandar-Qatar-Turkey pipeline CT to be the most compelling. RT has coveredd this, as has Democracy Now, which has a ton of credibility. Amy hasn't said that story is true, as far as I've seen, but she has given it airtime for consideration, which I think it deserves.
I have not read the entire 22-page HRW report.
The meat of the RT story appears in a back-story,
http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/
which discusses the story of 2 hostages who allegedly overheard a Skype discussion between rebel leaders. Inconclusive at best, but interesting.
I have never trusted RT on Syria, their bias on this issue is pretty apparent.
My problem with your post was that you don't show similar skepticism toward U.S. reports.
In the run-up to the Iraq war, along with the lies they had Colin Powell present to the U.N., they also ginned up a fake story about Iraqi babies being pulled off of incubators by Saddam's people and left to die. Amnesty International was the vehicle of choice for that fiction. Amnesty later retracted the story, admitting it was false and that they were duped. When asked why they had not been more vigilant in verifying the story, an Amnesty rep talked about how nobody had ever paid them much attention before, and suddenly they were the toast of the town, and rather than look too closely into the gift horse's mouth, they just ran with it, assuming it was true.
I don't have any reason to suspect HRW of doing this, except for the old fool me once mantra. So I'm not saying it's false, just that I don't know, and I have seen nothing from either side that would change that.
Regarding RT's cred, it is I who am sorry, I have probably never agreed with any posting of yours I have seen on DU, so in my view it is you who have no cred. Your posts here certainly do nothing to change that, though if you want to try, I'll listen.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and I don't mind it, generally.
I used to not mind CNN either way back in time, and they went along whole hog with the phoney Iraqi's killing babies in incubators crap.
They're all in it for something, take what you can get and have a bag of salt with you when you watch.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)But this story is clearly, almost painfully bullshit. No offense meant to the OP intended, but I'm actually kind of offended that RT thinks I'm that stupid.
Ten bucks RT tries to blame "The Jews" and/or Israel for faking the nerve has attacks within the next week. If I'm wrong and you take me up on the bet, I'll donate the ten bucks to DU.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Not easy to get an 18 month old baby to gasp for air and roll their eyes up into their head for dramatic effect. Intubating toddlers without a whimper from them? Or are we now assuming that the rebels had a budget which could support the production of special affects you'd only find in a well made feature film?
Warning, the following shows actual children dying. It does not depict actors or special affects.
&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4NORTjYmPoNCHn2vCByvYG&bpctr=1378869665
&list=PLPC0Udeof3T4NORTjYmPoNCHn2vCByvYG
Really, fuck anyone who would go to such lengths to ignore, justify or mislead about the attack. I am disgusted by it.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)Serbs and Russians tried to do in the Bosnian war. EVERY time there was a bombing or a massacre it was the Bosnians that did it to themselves... all the same crap.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)SunSeeker
(51,508 posts)Anyone who is still peddling RT's propaganda should be embarrassed.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)pnwmom
(108,955 posts)All the images were faked.
Right. That's why Russia has now asked Syria to give up its chemical weapons. Because Assad never used them.
Hekate
(90,540 posts)NealK
(1,851 posts)We know where they are. They're in the area around Damascus and Palmyra and east, west, south and north somewhat.
DeltaLitProf
(767 posts)And it certainly suggests we should all pretend like we're Missourans regarding the Russians' pledge to help destroy the Syrians' chem weapons.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I'm not sure about this particular story, hell, maybe it is a mistaken story or false. It happens, even in American media.
But RT is popular here in the USA, and getting more popular all the time!
truth2power
(8,219 posts)Do you see how that's done?
You'd think we'd be onto that by now. Meh!
malaise
(268,677 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)wallowing in that filth for political reasons--to cover for a brutal dictator.
cali
(114,904 posts)it really makes me sick. the evidence that there was a gas attack of some kind is overwhelming.
soundsgreat
(125 posts)The article just says it was a false flag attack. Claims the rebels did it.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)the several clinics over run with thousands! of sick people in a couple hour period was a 'fabricated' story
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)
Russia is already convinced, which discounts the latter 2 as objective accounts. So, who are these so called "international experts"?
BTW Russia Today also says 9/11 was a false flag attack...
eridani
(51,907 posts)JesterCS
(1,827 posts)soundsgreat
(125 posts)http://rt.com/news/chemical-weapons-rebels-captives-632/
The "shoot the messenger" game what's going on here is silly.
soundsgreat
(125 posts)Quirico distances himself von Piccinin - he sticks to overhearing the said conversation, however:
We heard some people we didnt know talking through a half-closed door. Its impossible to know whether what was said was based on real fact or just hearsay, says La Stampas veteran war correspondent Domenico Quirico, who was released Sunday after being kidnapped in Syria in early April.
Its madness to say I knew it wasnt Assad who used gas, Quirico said after hearing about a statement made by Pierre Piccinin - the Belgian teacher who was also kidnapped in Syria - and the interpretations that are being given.
Quirico was eager to give his version of what happened during his and Piccinins kidnapping, in order to specify what information he has at his disposal.
During our kidnapping, we were kept completely in the dark about what was going on in Syria, including the gas attacks in Damascus, Quirico said. But one day, we heard a Skype conversation in English between three people whose names I do not know. We heard the conversation from the room in which we were being held captive, through a half-closed door. One of them had previously presented himself to us as a general of the Syrian Liberation Army. The other two we had never seen and knew nothing about.
During the Skype conversation, they said that the gas attack on the two neighbourhoods in Damascus had been carried out by rebels as a provocation, to push the West towards a military intervention. They also said they believed the death toll had been exaggerated, Quirico said in his statement.
I dont know if any of this is true and I cannot say for sure that it is true because I have no means of confirming the truth of what was said. I dont know how reliable this information is and cannot confirm the identity of these people. I am in no position to say for sure whether this conversation is based on real fact or just hearsay and I dont usually call conversations I have heard through a door, true, Quirico said.
http://www.lastampa.it/2013/09/09/esteri/quirico-it-is-madness-to-say-i-knew-it-wasnt-assad-who-used-gas-FjJDJ8oeEI19AZbyKIVBHJ/pagina.html
Turborama
(22,109 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Wow, what a surprise!
read the article.
It happened, the Russians say. It just wasn't Assad, they say.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Do you agree?
soundsgreat
(125 posts)1) Footage and photos of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, which the US cites as the reason for a planned military intervention, had been fabricated in advance, speakers told a UN human rights conference in Geneva.
2) The speakers argued that the suspected sarin gas attack near Damascus on August 21 was likely a provocation of the rebel forces and that a military action against the President Bashar Assad government will likely result in civilian casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe affecting the entire region.
The article nowhere claims the sarin attack didn't happen.