Syria watch...

[Mr. Fox]

RT appear to have managed to overcome the 'security issues' which are apparently still preventing OPCW from 'finding facts'... also interviewing one of the kids from the hosepipe video (and his Dad):

https://www.rt.com/news/424694-douma-boy-video-attack/

Meanwhile, in the jolly old UK, Emily Thornberry gets booed on 'BBC Question Time' for stating the obvious.

[woodburner]

For the believers of a Russian monster, some fake news

Or perhaps you would rather read the Grauniad, and get pur unadulterated facts.

[Mr. Fox]

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 21 April 2018 —The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) visited one of the sites in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic today to collect samples for analysis in connection with allegations of chemical weapons use on 7 April 2018. The OPCW will evaluate the situation and consider future steps including another possible visit to Douma.

The samples collected will be transported to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk and then dispatched for analysis to the OPCW’s designated labs. Based on the analysis of the sample results as well other information and materials collected by the team, the FFM will compile their report for submission to the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention for their consideration.

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw- ... uma-syria/

'one of the sites'.

[johnhemming2]

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-th ... a-11342067

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... pril-2018/

Open Source Survey of Alleged Chemical Attacks in Douma on 7th April 2018

I quite like the Sky article. I have not yet read the Belling Cat, but it is referred to in the Sky Article (although the link is broken and I have fixed it).

[raspberry-blower]

I quite like the Sky article. I have not yet read the Belling Cat, but it is referred to in the Sky Article (although the link is broken and I have fixed it).

Everything you need to know about Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat

[johnhemming2]

That, of course, is an ad hominem attack. The question to look at is that as to the truth of his assertions about the attack in Syria.

He might according to David Icke be a Lizard Man, but that is not the question that needs to concern us. What should concern us is whether his analysis is correct or not.

I accept that there can be unreliable sources, but truth is truth whoever says it. Hence if you are concerned to find the truth you should not indulge in ad hominem attacks.

[Mr. Fox]

Everything you need to know about Elliot Higgins of Bellingcat

That's quite a thorough article, cheers.

That, of course, is an ad hominem attack.

No, John, it quite clearly is not. It contains plenty of information and links that demonstrate the unreliability of what they do, not just what they are.

What should concern us is whether his analysis is correct or not.

I came across Higgins and Bellingcat a while ago when they claimed to have "Found The Buk Missile Launcher That Downed Flight MH17". Long story short, they didn't know how to use the forensic tools they were claiming to use properly... The author of the tool had this to say:

A few days ago, a group called "Bellingcat" published a report where they tried to do some digital photo forensics. They were trying to show that some satellite photos were digitally altered. They used FotoForensics to evaluate the picture, but unfortunately ended up misinterpreting the results.

here - scroll down to 'Bad Analysis'

This is also described in Robert Parry's [RIP] piece on Bellingcat.

I think 'Wikispooks' nail the problem with [the purpose of?] 'Bellingcat' with this comment:

His output has been nothing if not consistent, viz: Consistent with what one would expect from promoters of the Anglo-US-NATO Official Narratives of geo-politics and the War on Terror, but done in a slipshod and blatantly partisan fashion that those who quote him (the Commercially-controlled media) are wary of claiming their own; which is to say in a way which is quotable but can not be made attributable to those who ultimately control the narrative - ie the Spooks.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat

Why on earth are you, John Hemming, wibbling about 'David Icke' and 'Lizards'? What has that to do with the information that RB posted? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. If you want to make sneering smears against the author of a piece, try to put at least a little effort in.

It comes as absolutely no surprise that you post links to and support such an entity as 'bellingcat'.

If you wish to defend them further, take it to 'meta'.

[johnhemming2]

It comes as absolutely no surprise that you post links to and support such an entity as 'bellingcat'.

If you wish to defend them further, take it to 'meta'.

That is an ad hominem attack. Nuff sed.

[johnhemming2]

Here is an Al Jazeera take

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/ ... 14025.html

[raspberry-blower]

The question to look at is that as to the truth of his assertions about the attack in Syria.

Considering that the normal go-to source for Western MSM, the SOHR DID NOT REPORT A CHEMICAL ATTACK then Bellingcat's assertions are flimsy at best. In fact, even the ex-chief of the SAS says that Nobody believes Assad's forces used chemical weapons

Meanwhile it has emerged that a boy filmed in the video did it for food and had no idea what was going on. Neither did his parents, or, indeed, the medical staff and no-one suffered any symptoms relating to a chemical attack.

[johnhemming2]

So here's a Daily Mail story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-gas.html

[johnhemming2]

Considering that the normal go-to source for Western MSM, the SOHR DID NOT REPORT A CHEMICAL ATTACK then Bellingcat's assertions are flimsy at best.

There is no reason why it is necessary that the SOHR reports a chemical attack.

It is not a question of opinion. It is a question of evidence.

If the White Hats can manufacture evidence so can the Ba'ath.

[raspberry-blower]

Considering that the normal go-to source for Western MSM, the SOHR DID NOT REPORT A CHEMICAL ATTACK then Bellingcat's assertions are flimsy at best.

There is no reason why it is necessary that the SOHR reports a chemical attack.

This is the case of the dog that didn't bark.
It undermines the pretence that there was a chemical attack. There is no consistency in the reporting by Western MSM which is why I don't buy it.

See also:

MoA: Syria - Who is stalling the OPCW investigation in Douma

[woodburner]

It comes as absolutely no surprise that you post links to and support such an entity as 'bellingcat'.

If you wish to defend them further, take it to 'meta'.

That is an ad hominem attack. Nuff sed.

No it isn’t. Please look up the definition of “ ad hominem attack.�

[johnhemming2]

It comes as absolutely no surprise that you post links to and support such an entity as 'bellingcat'.

If you wish to defend them further, take it to 'meta'.

That is an ad hominem attack. Nuff sed.

No it isn’t. Please look up the definition of “ ad hominem attack.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

No, John, it quite clearly is not. It contains plenty of information and links that demonstrate the unreliability of what they do, not just what they are.

This is not dealing with the substance of the argument, but instead arguing that the proponents are unreliable regardless of what they say. That is ad hominem.

I came across Higgins and Bellingcat a while ago when they claimed to have "Found The Buk Missile Launcher That Downed Flight MH17". Long story short, they didn't know how to use the forensic tools they were claiming to use properly... The author of the tool had this to say:

...

This is saying they are unreliable rather than looking at the substance of the argument. Ad hominem.

I think 'Wikispooks' nail the problem with [the purpose of?] 'Bellingcat' with this comment:

His output has been nothing if not consistent, viz: Consistent with what one would expect from promoters of the Anglo-US-NATO Official Narratives of geo-politics and the War on Terror, but done in a slipshod and blatantly partisan fashion that those who quote him (the Commercially-controlled media) are wary of claiming their own; which is to say in a way which is quotable but can not be made attributable to those who ultimately control the narrative - ie the Spooks.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bellingcat

This is about motives and is very obviously ad homimen.

It comes as absolutely no surprise that you post links to and support such an entity as 'bellingcat'.

If you wish to defend them further, take it to 'meta'.

Archetypally ad homimen talking about "them" rather than their arguments.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.