Syria watch...

[adam2]

No, chlorine bleach is NOT a chlorinated ORGANIC chemical.

"Organic" as used by a chemist refers to chemicals containing carbon, and is generally understood to mean relatively complex compounds.
For example, calcium carbonate is not normally considered an organic compound, despite containing carbon, neither is carbon dioxide, nor calcium carbide.

"Organic" as used by a chemist originally meant compounds made from or by living or once living organisms, but this is no longer true. Many organic compounds can be now made in the lab.

"Chlorinated organic compounds" are of course those containing chlorine, carbon, and other elements.
Many are highly toxic and are used for killing pests or vermin, or in war time as chemical weapons.

Chlorine is in itself toxic and has been used as a weapon, TONS of it are needed for a large scale attack, though small quantities can kill a few people in an enclosed space.
Chlorinated organic compounds are far more dangerous, a few bombs containing less than a ton in total could kill millions.
A few milligrams can kill a person.

[Catweazle]

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

Many organochlorine compounds have been isolated from natural sources ranging from bacteria to humans.[2][3] Chlorinated organic compounds are found in nearly every class of biomolecules including alkaloids, terpenes, amino acids, flavonoids, steroids, and fatty acids.[2][4] Organochlorides, including dioxins, are produced in the high temperature environment of forest fires, and dioxins have been found in the preserved ashes of lightning-ignited fires that predate synthetic dioxins.[5] In addition, a variety of simple chlorinated hydrocarbons including dichloromethane, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride have been isolated from marine algae.[6] A majority of the chloromethane in the environment is produced naturally by biological decomposition, forest fires, and volcanoes.[7]

[raspberry-blower]

Vanessa Beeley: False Flag Fail: How Syrian civilians derailed a White Helmets stunt in East Ghouta

A couple of eyewitness accounts:

32 year old Mohammed Al Khatib is also from Hamouriya. I interviewed him in April 2018. He told me:

“The chemical attack was going to be staged to the East of the town in the direction of the Syrian Arab Army. The day before, the White Helmets started to bring bodies to the area, to the hospital. The media groups working with the armed groups also came. They started to film and photograph the bodies. There were many children among the dead.

At this time all the medical centres were out of service. Only the White Helmets were bringing bodies from all over Hamouriya to this one centre so it would look as if they had been killed in this attack.

On the 6th March after we had marched and raised the flag, we were approached by some of the White Helmet members. They were very angry with us. They told us they wanted to force the West to intervene on their behalf but now their plan would not work and it was our fault.

This was the first time we saw them actually preparing a movie against our country. Usually they would make us go into the basement until they had finished filming an event.�

and

asked Toumeh why he thought they said it was ruined, he smiled and then replied:

“They told me – ‘how can an area get hit by chemical weapons by the Syrian government and then hours later residents in the same area, are raising the Syrian flag?’. They also told me we had ruined their communications with the UN and that there would be no intervention from Al Tanf after all. The main co-ordinator’s name was Abdulmueeh Hommus.

They wanted to present the “chemical attack� on the day the SAA entered Hamouriya, you see? The next day Failaq Al Rahman issued a Fatwa against all of us. All of us were sentenced to death. They brought one of their prisoners, they wrapped him in the Syrian flag and they shot him dead with three bullets to threaten us. We didnt care. We co-ordinated with the Army and they helped us to leave Hamouriya.�

[Mr. Fox]

Thanks for that, Adam. As you can tell, I'm not a chemist.

Regarding these 'various chlorinated organic chemicals'... When you say;

Many are highly toxic and are used for killing pests or vermin, or in war time as chemical weapons.

Do you mean to imply that this is their main usage, or would there be other potential sources of the chemicals found in the OPCW samples?

Is it not true that 'chlorinated organic chemicals' of varying types are used for a wide range of applications. ranging from electronics manufacture (as a cleaner) to furniture cushions?

What I'm getting at is: If OPCW inspectors took a range of samples from the average home, how likely is it that they would be able to detect a trace of 'various chlorinated organic chemicals'?

- Apologies, Raspberry-blower... I see that all this was covered in the MoA link you provided:

The "various chlorinated organic chemicals" are unsurprising. Chlorine is widely used for water purification and cleaning and "chlorinated organic chemicals" will be found in any household.

In the technical notes of the OPCW report note that one of its laboratory found "dichloroacetic acid", "trichloroacetic acid", "chloral hydrate", "trichlorophenol" and "chlorphenol" in some of the samples its fact finding mission took at the claimed incident sites. These are all substances that are no surprise in any upbuild environment and especially within any home. Dichloroacetic acid" is for example "a trace product of the chlorination of drinking water". Chloral hydrate is likewise "a minor side-product of the chlorination of water when organic residues such as humic acids are present". The other substances are also not uncommon and of various household uses.

The other OPCW laboratory found only "No CWC-scheduled chemicals" and "2,4,6-trinitrotoluene" residues in the samples. Trinitrotoluene, also known as TNT, is an explosive widely used in military ammunition. The second laboratory does not report the chlorinated organic chemicals the other laboratory found.

The preliminary OPCW report says nothing about the concentrations in which these substances were found. Without knowing the concentrations, which may may be extremely low, one can not come to further conclusion.

To return to the BBC story which categorically states that the OPCW 'found that chlorine gas was used'... The only mention in the OPCW report of 'gas' is in reference to an 'industrial gas cylinder' found at locations 2 & 4 (presumably the ones that starred in the Bellendcat 'analysis') - yet Table A 3.1 /3 tells us that neither of the OPCW labs found anything in the swabs taken from the cylinder, with one lab finding Dichloroacetic acid (as mentioned above) in a 'swab with water'.

As I said: Shitweasles.

[Mr. Fox]

Oh, for F--k's sake...

I was just checking something regarding the BBC shitweaslery, and guess what?

Yesterday, they reported:

A chemical weapons watchdog has found that chlorine gas was used in April's attack on the Syrian city of Douma.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44746147

Today, the very same article reads:

A chemical weapons watchdog says chlorine may have been used in April's attack on the Syrian city of Douma.

What happened to the 'gas', then?

They've even changed the headline to read "'Possible chlorine' at Douma attack site".

Utterly shameless lying shitweasles - and this is the organisation that proudly boasts that it is 'seen as by far the most trusted and impartial news provider in the UK'. Jesus wept.

How many people will have read yesterdays misinformation and believed it? How many will ever read the 'corrected' article?

I can't imagine how angry this would make me if I were one of the suckers who actually pay for it.

[clv101]

Current state of BBC reporting:

First this:


Changed to this:

[raspberry-blower]

On BBC reporting:

Skwarkbox: BBC forced to correct Douma gas story after Skwarkbox exposes fake news

The article does not – as normal journalistic practice would require – inform readers that it has been amended from its original content. The news channel does not appear to have given viewers any correction on its false claims of last night. The BBC has been asked whether the channel will advise viewers they were misled.

[Mr. Fox]

Cheers, rb & clv - I hadn't realised the BBC had also broadcast this misinformation on TV news:

https://videopress.com/v/LyGu33TU

Other members of the lying shitweasle club (that still haven't amended their 'mistake') include:

The Independent

Aljazeera

ABC (Australia)

It appears that this particular nugget of untruth found it's way into the news-stream via Reuters - who have now (quietly) changed their headline slightly.

The missile/airstrike attacks launched by the US, UK and France as a 'response' to this fabricated chemical weapons attack were illegal even if it had occurred.

That they're now resorting to such outrageous falsehoods to convince us that it did is frankly disgusting.

- I'm heartened (slightly) by the fact that so many others seem to have noticed, though.

[vtsnowedin]

I think Mr. Fox you are making a mountain from a mole hill. Most reporters and editors would not know the difference between chlorine gas and liquid chlorine solutions or a solid compound containing chlorine and one editor leaving the word gas off the end of the sentence dose not mean the weapon used was not in gas form. It would be pointless to use any other form of chlorine as a weapon as it needs to get into the lungs to be deadly. So you are using two different edits to imply an error or cover up where probably none exists.

[woodburner]

I think the error that existed was that of claiming there was a chemical weapon used by the Syrians in the first place. But I would expect that to be lost on most people in the UK, and practically all of the people in the US.

[Mr. Fox]

one editor leaving the word gas off the end of the sentence dose not mean the weapon used was not in gas form.

Come again?

The OPCW report does not mention 'gas', other than as noted above.

The BBC report added the word 'gas' - which they later removed, while adding the word 'possible'.

So, to paraphrase you: one editor adding the word 'gas' to the end of the sentence does not mean the weapon used was in gas form - assuming that is even was a weapon.

If there was no 'error' (or attempt to cover it up), why have the BBC gone to the trouble of changing their story?

@ Woodburner: I don't think there was an 'error' on the part of those claiming it - it was totally deliberate. The 'error' lies with those who believe it.

[vtsnowedin]

I think the error that existed was that of claiming there was a chemical weapon used by the Syrians in the first place. But I would expect that to be lost on most people in the UK, and practically all of the people in the US.

Insult to my intelligence noted.

[raspberry-blower]

Apparently Trump is to remove US troops from Syria.
I will believe this when I see this actually happening.

MOA on what may transpire in the aftermath: Why Trump decided to remove US troops from Syria

The Kurds in Syria will have to make nice with Damascus. They have nowhere else to go. Their dream of an autonomous Rojava will turn out to be just that. Syria can only survive as a centrally controlled state. It will never be federalized. The local Arab tribes in the northeast will probably seek some revenge against the uppity Kurdish leadership that used the U.S. backing to draft their sons into the fight against ISIS. The YPK leadership will likely flee into north Iraq to hide out with their PKK brethren in in the Quandil mountains.

The Syrian army, which plans to dislodge al-Qaeda from Idleb governorate during the next spring, will now have to move a number of forces towards the northeast. Isolating the Islamic State at the Euphrates near the Iraqi border and eventually eliminating it, will be the new priority. Iraqi militia will probably help with that. Recovering the oil and gas fields and other economic assets will be another important issue.

[Little John]

From George Galloway:

On Christmas Day, under cover of civilian planes as human shields, Israel launched an air-attack on its neighbouring country, Syria,

It was a sacrilegious and utterly illegal sneak attack.

Nobody gives a toss.

If Russia launched a bombing raid against Ukraine it would be WW3

[BritDownUnder]

From George Galloway:

On Christmas Day, under cover of civilian planes as human shields, Israel launched an air-attack on its neighbouring country, Syria,

It was a sacrilegious and utterly illegal sneak attack.

Nobody gives a toss.

If Russia launched a bombing raid against Ukraine it would be WW3

A Sunni Muslim convert whining on about a Jewish state attacking a Shia Muslim militia on a day holy to a rapidly dwindling minority in the region where all these religions originated from.

It's officially true. I don't give a toss - I am not alone. I think I'll have another mince pie while it is still allowed.