Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,959 posts)
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:46 PM Sep 2013

RT: 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/

96 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RT: Intl experts have strong proof images of chemical victims fabricated (Original Post) kpete Sep 2013 OP
this crap again? VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #1
exactly kpete Sep 2013 #2
Riiiiight! Anybody who disagrees with you doesn't need to be listened to. Th1onein Sep 2013 #4
peddle this shit at Drudge Report... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #7
I don't even know what the Drudge Report is, but it seems as if you're pretty familiar Th1onein Sep 2013 #10
That figures... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #11
I am an extreme leftwing Texan. Th1onein Sep 2013 #12
Then how can you consider yourself politically aware and not know who the hell Drudge is... VanillaRhapsody Sep 2013 #14
I am a LIBERAL. I don't give a SHIT about non-leftwing politics. Th1onein Sep 2013 #17
Seriously, if you don't know Drudge then how do you know it's trash? JaneyVee Sep 2013 #24
She lobbed "Drudge Report" as an insult. It's either rightwing, or conspiracy. Th1onein Sep 2013 #26
Let me clue you in.... Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #46
This position on abortion does not make you extreme leftwing--- msanthrope Sep 2013 #19
didn't you hear? it's really socialist to want to control women Violet_Crumble Sep 2013 #28
That "extreme leftwinger" should be really happy with what Perry's done to Planned Parenthood. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #49
WTF does this have to do with anything to do with Th1onein's post;? greiner3 Sep 2013 #50
She calls women who have had abortions "murderers" REP Sep 2013 #56
But Th1onein's comment was on first trimester abortions. Read the bolded part. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #76
I am also way out in left field as well.... defacto7 Sep 2013 #29
I have never been to his site. Not even sure it's a "he" or even a person. Th1onein Sep 2013 #33
They are reporting what Putin tells them to report. nt William769 Sep 2013 #25
Exactly. Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #5
This is low even by RT standards, which are sufrommich Sep 2013 #3
+1 davidpdx Sep 2013 #63
It happened. treestar Sep 2013 #6
All of them? Seems unlikely. Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #8
This is some sick shit even for RT maddezmom Sep 2013 #9
So Russian propaganda is considered a legit news source here now? n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #13
Yes, you must worship Putin and his network davidpdx Sep 2013 #64
Not in LBN... SidDithers Sep 2013 #67
And yet the Human Rights Watch just reported that the Syrian govt. dropped the chemical bombs. pnwmom Sep 2013 #15
posted that too kpete Sep 2013 #20
Posting the HRW report doesn't justify posting this any more than it would justify posting Drudge. pnwmom Sep 2013 #22
It's called Russia Today in English. RT defacto7 Sep 2013 #32
Have you looked at Pravda? It makes "Weekly World News" look like journalism. Spitfire of ATJ Sep 2013 #47
I love how everyone clamors to dismiss what they don't want to hear completely out-of-hand. SamReynolds Sep 2013 #16
How about we use our critical thinking skills... John_Carter Sep 2013 #18
yes, I am sure that is what you are here for Skittles Sep 2013 #30
Thanks for the warm welcome.... John_Carter Sep 2013 #44
Thank You! HangOnKids Sep 2013 #58
And you're here for what, Binka?...nt SidDithers Sep 2013 #69
Which would include examining, or reading the expert examination SamReynolds Sep 2013 #65
RT is bankrolled by the Kremlin. It's not a news source -- it's propaganda and should be pnwmom Sep 2013 #21
And NPR is funded by the USA Th1onein Sep 2013 #23
That's true! defacto7 Sep 2013 #34
I don't have enough time in my day to listen to the Drudge Report. Th1onein Sep 2013 #36
Partially funded by the U.S. , which doesn't dictate its content. And are you saying pnwmom Sep 2013 #37
You are wrong. There is NO comparison between NPR and RT in terms of government funding. Tanuki Sep 2013 #41
This is a FALSE Reich wing accusation Turborama Sep 2013 #74
It receives funding from the government. Not ALL of it's funding. Th1onein Sep 2013 #77
You didn't qualify it, and it is a reich wing accusation Turborama Sep 2013 #78
It's all you needed to lob an accusation that someone is rightwing? Sad. Th1onein Sep 2013 #79
Did I say you were reich wing? Turborama Sep 2013 #86
Let me quote you: Th1onein Sep 2013 #88
Yes, I said you were using a false reich wing accusation, not that you are reich wing Turborama Sep 2013 #89
Sorry, but you're wrong. AND rude. Th1onein Sep 2013 #96
The USA funds it but does not control its content treestar Sep 2013 #91
I don't trust everything RT says dreamnightwind Sep 2013 #35
The US may fund part of NPR, but it doesn't dictate its content. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #39
That's all you can say? dreamnightwind Sep 2013 #54
You can just look at this one report to see how little credibility RT has. pnwmom Sep 2013 #59
I did, and I don't dreamnightwind Sep 2013 #60
A miniscule part, in fact... Turborama Sep 2013 #75
I watch RT once in a while Whisp Sep 2013 #40
I'm still not 100% convinced Assad had anyone to do with a Sarin attack Nevernose Sep 2013 #27
Have you watched the videos? There are a TON of them after all. FedUpWithIt All Sep 2013 #31
its exactly what the Bosnian Serbs MFM008 Sep 2013 #43
Using rockets from Assad to deliver the chemicals? FedUpWithIt All Sep 2013 #45
Thank you, FedUp, for bringing some reality to this sick thread. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #57
Holocaust denial didn't happen by accident. nt geek tragedy Sep 2013 #70
w.t.f. Whisp Sep 2013 #38
smh/nt DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #42
So Doctors without Borders didn't see the suffering and dying children. pnwmom Sep 2013 #48
Doctors Without Borders is 100% more credible than RT. I'm surprised at you, kpete. nt Hekate Sep 2013 #51
But, but... Those WMD... NealK Sep 2013 #52
It IS news that the Kremlin news source is still publishing this kind of thing. DeltaLitProf Sep 2013 #53
Well, RTV as a source, I think its just as legit as say, Fox news, or other corporate owned media quinnox Sep 2013 #55
kpete - Read down this thread. Do you notice how your op discussion has been sidetracked?... truth2power Sep 2013 #61
These woren't malaise Sep 2013 #62
RT. LOL...nt SidDithers Sep 2013 #66
This is like Holocaust denial. With the usual crowd geek tragedy Sep 2013 #68
this is such a stinking pile of dog shit. cali Sep 2013 #71
hmm? it is not denied there was a gas attack soundsgreat Sep 2013 #84
"fabricated in advance" ??!!! bunch of tabloid crazy BS. Sunlei Sep 2013 #72
"Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a ... false flag attack" Turborama Sep 2013 #73
Pretty much as self-serving as our side coming to the opposite conclusion n/t eridani Sep 2013 #80
Arent RT threads usually locked? n/t JesterCS Sep 2013 #81
And Pierre Piccinin and Domenico Quirico are Russian agents or what? soundsgreat Sep 2013 #83
Clarification from Quirico: “It is madness to say I knew it wasn’t Assad who used gas” soundsgreat Sep 2013 #85
Only in LBN n/t Turborama Sep 2013 #87
Why is this right wing BS allowed in DU? B Calm Sep 2013 #82
So the Russian government wants us to believe it never happened? treestar Sep 2013 #90
No soundsgreat Sep 2013 #92
Yeah, they believe all the videos are fakery maddezmom Sep 2013 #93
don't mix up two different statements in the article soundsgreat Sep 2013 #94
And you didn't answer my question. maddezmom Sep 2013 #95

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
4. Riiiiight! Anybody who disagrees with you doesn't need to be listened to.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
Sep 2013

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.

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
12. I am an extreme leftwing Texan.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:59 PM
Sep 2013

And by extreme, I mean communistic and socialistic, in terms of economic policies. We do exist.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
14. Then how can you consider yourself politically aware and not know who the hell Drudge is...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:01 PM
Sep 2013

this makes no damn sense at all...

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
17. I am a LIBERAL. I don't give a SHIT about non-leftwing politics.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:06 PM
Sep 2013

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.

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
26. She lobbed "Drudge Report" as an insult. It's either rightwing, or conspiracy.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:42 PM
Sep 2013

One or ther other. That's how these insults go. And both camps are trash.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
46. Let me clue you in....
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:29 AM
Sep 2013

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)
19. This position on abortion does not make you extreme leftwing---
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
Sep 2013

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



 

greiner3

(5,214 posts)
50. WTF does this have to do with anything to do with Th1onein's post;?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:45 AM
Sep 2013

"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?

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
29. I am also way out in left field as well....
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:58 PM
Sep 2013

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)
33. I have never been to his site. Not even sure it's a "he" or even a person.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:05 PM
Sep 2013

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.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
3. This is low even by RT standards, which are
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:50 PM
Sep 2013

sewer level low on a good day. Embarrassing to see this crap on DU.

maddezmom

(135,060 posts)
9. This is some sick shit even for RT
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:53 PM
Sep 2013

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)
15. And yet the Human Rights Watch just reported that the Syrian govt. dropped the chemical bombs.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:02 PM
Sep 2013

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.

pnwmom

(108,955 posts)
22. Posting the HRW report doesn't justify posting this any more than it would justify posting Drudge.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:17 PM
Sep 2013

The RT is funded by the Kremlin, which makes it propaganda, not news.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
16. I love how everyone clamors to dismiss what they don't want to hear completely out-of-hand.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:06 PM
Sep 2013

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)
18. How about we use our critical thinking skills...
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:09 PM
Sep 2013

... and sort through evidence presented in a logical and reasonable manner?

 

John_Carter

(15 posts)
44. Thanks for the warm welcome....
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:59 PM
Sep 2013

I can see you have nothing but time on your hands so I'll look to your vast ... vast... experience...

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
65. Which would include examining, or reading the expert examination
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:20 AM
Sep 2013

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)
21. RT is bankrolled by the Kremlin. It's not a news source -- it's propaganda and should be
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:13 PM
Sep 2013

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)
23. And NPR is funded by the USA
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
Sep 2013

But that doesn't mean that everything everyone reports on it is bullshit.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
34. That's true!
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:07 PM
Sep 2013

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)
36. I don't have enough time in my day to listen to the Drudge Report.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:17 PM
Sep 2013

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)
37. Partially funded by the U.S. , which doesn't dictate its content. And are you saying
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:19 PM
Sep 2013

that Russia is a democracy comparable to the U.S.?

Tanuki

(14,914 posts)
41. You are wrong. There is NO comparison between NPR and RT in terms of government funding.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:24 PM
Sep 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
..."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 NPR’s 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]
..."

Th1onein

(8,514 posts)
77. It receives funding from the government. Not ALL of it's funding.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 06:33 PM
Sep 2013

Geez. REALLY? Is that all you got? Everyone who disagrees with you is lobbing rightwing "accusations"?

Turborama

(22,109 posts)
78. You didn't qualify it, and it is a reich wing accusation
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 09:15 PM
Sep 2013

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)
79. It's all you needed to lob an accusation that someone is rightwing? Sad.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 05:49 AM
Sep 2013

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)
86. Did I say you were reich wing?
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 06:47 AM
Sep 2013

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...

Putin forbids funding cuts to state-run media outlets

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)
88. Let me quote you:
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 07:15 AM
Sep 2013

"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)
89. Yes, I said you were using a false reich wing accusation, not that you are reich wing
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 07:28 AM
Sep 2013

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)
96. Sorry, but you're wrong. AND rude.
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 07:38 PM
Sep 2013

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)
91. The USA funds it but does not control its content
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 08:03 AM
Sep 2013

It is not the same at all.

You see, in Russia, free speech is not a protected right.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
35. I don't trust everything RT says
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:09 PM
Sep 2013

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.

dreamnightwind

(4,775 posts)
54. That's all you can say?
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:09 AM
Sep 2013

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)
59. You can just look at this one report to see how little credibility RT has.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:50 AM
Sep 2013

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)
60. I did, and I don't
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:40 AM
Sep 2013

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.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
40. I watch RT once in a while
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:22 PM
Sep 2013

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)
27. I'm still not 100% convinced Assad had anyone to do with a Sarin attack
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:53 PM
Sep 2013

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)
31. Have you watched the videos? There are a TON of them after all.
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:00 PM
Sep 2013

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

&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)
43. its exactly what the Bosnian Serbs
Tue Sep 10, 2013, 11:35 PM
Sep 2013

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.

SunSeeker

(51,508 posts)
57. Thank you, FedUp, for bringing some reality to this sick thread.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:28 AM
Sep 2013

Anyone who is still peddling RT's propaganda should be embarrassed.

pnwmom

(108,955 posts)
48. So Doctors without Borders didn't see the suffering and dying children.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 12:40 AM
Sep 2013

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.

NealK

(1,851 posts)
52. But, but... Those WMD...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:00 AM
Sep 2013

We know where they are. They're in the area around Damascus and Palmyra and east, west, south and north somewhat.

DeltaLitProf

(767 posts)
53. It IS news that the Kremlin news source is still publishing this kind of thing.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:02 AM
Sep 2013

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)
55. Well, RTV as a source, I think its just as legit as say, Fox news, or other corporate owned media
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 01:09 AM
Sep 2013

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)
61. kpete - Read down this thread. Do you notice how your op discussion has been sidetracked?...
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 05:49 AM
Sep 2013

Do you see how that's done?

You'd think we'd be onto that by now. Meh!

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
68. This is like Holocaust denial. With the usual crowd
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:29 AM
Sep 2013

wallowing in that filth for political reasons--to cover for a brutal dictator.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
71. this is such a stinking pile of dog shit.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:35 AM
Sep 2013

it really makes me sick. the evidence that there was a gas attack of some kind is overwhelming.

 

soundsgreat

(125 posts)
84. hmm? it is not denied there was a gas attack
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 06:10 AM
Sep 2013

The article just says it was a false flag attack. Claims the rebels did it.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
72. "fabricated in advance" ??!!! bunch of tabloid crazy BS.
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:52 AM
Sep 2013

the several clinics over run with thousands! of sick people in a couple hour period was a 'fabricated' story

Turborama

(22,109 posts)
73. "Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a ... false flag attack"
Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:03 AM
Sep 2013

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a provocation by rebel forces, which staged a false flag attack


Members of the conference were presented accounts of international experts, Syrian public figures and Russian news reporters covering the Syrian conflict, which back Russia’s opposition to the US plans, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.


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...

 

soundsgreat

(125 posts)
85. Clarification from Quirico: “It is madness to say I knew it wasn’t Assad who used gas”
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 06:25 AM
Sep 2013

Quirico distances himself von Piccinin - he sticks to overhearing the said conversation, however:

“We heard some people we didn’t know talking through a half-closed door. It’s impossible to know whether what was said was based on real fact or just hearsay,” says La Stampa’s veteran war correspondent Domenico Quirico, who was released Sunday after being kidnapped in Syria in early April.

“It’s madness to say I knew it wasn’t 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 Piccinin’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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 don’t 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

 

soundsgreat

(125 posts)
94. don't mix up two different statements in the article
Thu Sep 12, 2013, 09:00 AM
Sep 2013

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.




Latest Discussions»General Discussion»RT: Intl experts have str...