Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

The Russian compromise plan to destroy Assad's chemical weapons is the reason military intervention hasn't happened

In other words, what I said.

cyberhog wrote: »

They just couldn't keep up the pretense any longer after Russia thwarted their plans to attack.

Look, if the West had conclusive proof of Assad's role in the chemical attacks they wouldn't have needed to agree to Russia's compromise. But both Cameron and Hollande failed to convince their own people of Assad's involvement and Cameron's motion to authorise military action was clearly rejected by the House of Commons.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

In other words, what I said.

Not really - you're suggesting that they gave up their claim that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack.

They just couldn't keep up the pretense any longer after Russia thwarted their plans to attack.

They didn't.

cyberhog wrote: »

Look, if the West had conclusive proof of Assad's role in the chemical attacks they wouldn't have needed to agree to Russia's compromise. But both Cameron and Hollande failed to convince their own people of Assad's involvement and Cameron's motion to authorise military action was clearly rejected by the House of Commons.

Well, they clearly didn't have to agree with the Russian plan, but that's quite a distance from equating agreement with the plan to any shakiness of their certainty that Assad was responsible. They remain quite clear that he was. The UN report only supports their position. Neither leader particularly relished the prospect of military engagement, so the Russian plan offered a convenient get-out-of-jail card for both.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Not really - you're suggesting that they gave up their claim

No that is not what I'm suggesting. My point was they are no longer insisting they are right even though they both warned the "crime must not be swept under the carpet".

alastair wrote: »

Neither leader particularly relished the prospect of military engagement

Your revisionism is getting absurd. Both leaders were pushing hard for action against Assad. Cameron even attacked MP's who voted against his motion.

David Cameron accused MPs who voted against British intervention in Syria of failing to take a "stand against the gassing of children" as he said the UK had fresh evidence of the Assad regime's chemical weapons use.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10290064/Syria-crisis-David-Cameron-attacks-MPs-who-opposed-intervention.html

And even though Britain had rejected intervention Hollande was still determined to attack.

(Reuters) - French President Francois Hollande said a British parliamentary vote against taking military action in Syria would not affect France's will to act to punish Bashar al-Assad's government for an apparent chemical weapons attack on civilians.

Hollande told the daily Le Monde in an interview that he still supported taking "firm" punitive action over an attack he said had caused "irreparable" harm to the Syrian people and said he would work closely with France's allies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-france-idUSBRE97T09P20130830

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

No that is not what I'm suggesting. My point was they are no longer insisting they are right even though they both warned the "crime must not be swept under the carpet".]

Again - they certainly are insisting that they're right. They haven't changed their position on that one iota. And your own word expose precisely what you're suggesting - otherwise why talk of 'pretence' of Assad's culpability?

cyberhog wrote: »

Your revisionism is getting absurd. Both leaders were pushing hard for action against Assad. Cameron even attacked MP's who voted against his motion.]

So? It was clear that military intervention would be electorally unpopular for both leaders - so the opportunity to hop on board an alternate sanction was extremely inviting for them.

KindOfIrish

alastair wrote: »

So? It was clear that military intervention would be electorally unpopular for both leaders - so the opportunity to hop on board an alternate sanction was extremely inviting for them.

It will become even more electorally unpopular, when terrorists with British and French passports come home from Syria and cut another few heads of British soldiers or bomb public transport.:mad:

alastair

KindOfIrish wrote: »

It will become even more electorally unpopular, when terrorists with British and French passports come home from Syria and cut another few heads of British soldiers or bomb public transport.:mad:

Just to be clear - are you suggesting military intervention would have reduced or exasperated this possibility?

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Again - they certainly are insisting that they're right.

Can you provide a source to back up that assertion? I haven't seen any reports in the media in recent weeks where either Cameron or Hollande are still insisting that Assad must be held responsible for "gassing his own people."

alastair wrote: »

So?

So you were wrong to suggest they didn't relish the prospect of military engagement. Both leaders were in fact quite eager to intervene.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Can you provide a source to back up that assertion? I haven't seen any reports in the media in recent weeks where either Cameron or Hollande are still insisting that Assad must be held responsible for "gassing his own people."

I'd suggest you haven't been looking very hard.

cyberhog wrote: »

So you were wrong to suggest they didn't relish the prospect of military engagement. Both leaders were in fact quite eager to intervene.

Both leaders were determined to sanction Assad for the attack - which the destruction of his chemical stockpiles did. You don't seriously think either of them was eager to commit themselves to a military engagement - with all the potential fall-out that would involve?

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

I'd suggest you haven't been looking very hard.

Since you are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof. So I'll just accept your failure to back up your assertion as an admission of talking crap.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Since you are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof. So I'll just accept your failure to back up your assertion as an admission of talking crap.

heh - knock yourself out. :rolleyes:

Sierra Oscar

The whole military intervention episode, or lack there of, feels to have occurred much longer ago than just last August. So much has changed on the battlefield since then.

Since September onwards the Syrian Arab Army, backed up by Hezbollah and militia movements, have been on the offensive throughout Syria.

A major assault on Aleppo has begun, with the SAA securing the main supply routes into the city. Aleppo international airport and the 80th brigade military complex have been secured. In Damascus the SAA have been storming rebel strongholds for the last number of weeks now. The army has also begun to move against rebel positions outside of Homs city.

Certainly at the moment it seems that the SAA and Assad are in a strong position. The government is trying to ensure that they are as strong as possible going into peace talks.

The involvement of religious fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda in this domestic conflict has severely damaged the FSA, and they were unwise to try and do business with them. The atrocities acted out by the radical rebels have resulted in civilians flocking to join pro-military militias. The National Defense Force, which was only founded last year, has played a major role in securing supply lines and battlefield flanks allowing the SAA to launch successful military operations.

The fact that the rebels are also fighting a war amongst themselves is most definitely not helping their cause. A top FSA commander stood down week in protest, while another was killed in an airstrike in Aleppo a couple of days ago. The next few weeks will be interesting.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

Since you are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide proof. So I'll just accept your failure to back up your assertion as an admission of talking crap.

Why is there even an assumption that if they stopped talking about it they have changed their position on it?

Eggy Baby!

SamHarris wrote: »

Why is there even an assumption that if they stopped talking about it they have changed their position on it?

Alastair didn't stop talking about it, he refused to supply a source for his claims and told a person who questioned his assertions to go find it himself.

If someone makes a claim, they should supply sources when requested. It's simple courtesy.

alastair

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Alastair didn't stop talking about it, he refused to supply a source for his claims and told a person who questioned his assertions to go find it himself.

If someone makes a claim, they should supply sources when requested. It's simple courtesy.

As I've already stated - both leaders have not changed their position as to the responsibility of Assad for the chemical attack - that's a matter of public record. I'm not the one who claimed they had - if the poster has any proof of their supposed change of mind, then they should be providing it, it's no-one else's job.

cyberhog

SamHarris wrote: »

Why is there even an assumption that if they stopped talking about it they have changed their position on it?

For the second time, I'm not suggesting or assuming they have changed their position. I accept they believe Assad is responsible.

However, both Cameron and Hollande warned the 'crime must not be swept under the carpet' and yet that seems to be what will happen now because for weeks they have not called for Assad to be held responsible.

alastair then claimed they are still insisting Assad must held responsible so I asked him to provide a source and he failed to do so.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

For the second time, I'm not suggesting or assuming they have changed their position. I accept they believe Assad is responsible.
...
alastair then claimed they are still insisting Assad must held responsible so I asked him to provide a source and he failed to do so.

Right - that's some back-pedalling you've got going on. Now let's see what I actually claimed:

1. "Both leaders are still quite clear that it was Assad's forces responsible for that chemical attack."
2. "You're suggesting that they gave up their claim that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. They didn't."
3. "Both leaders were determined to sanction Assad for the attack - which the destruction of his chemical weapons did."

And again - both leaders position (unchanged) is a matter of public record. And you certainly did suggest they had changed their position:

Cameron and Hollande are no longer insisting that Assad "gassed his own people".

cyberhog

@alastair I think you need to check the definition of "insist"

in·sist

v.tr.

To assert or demand (something) vehemently and persistently:

The key word here is "persistently" which means:

per·sis·tent

adj.
1. Refusing to give up or let go;

So let's take that knowledge and look again at the use of the word "insist" in my quote.

Cameron and Hollande are no longer insisting that Assad "gassed his own people".

Do you see the difference now? When I say they are no longer insisting, it just means they have given up making the argument.

That is not the same as saying "Cameron and Hollande no longer believe that Assad "gassed his own people". which is what you continue to wrongly infer as the meaning.

So please stop trying to twist the meaning of my words. My argument is prefectly valid and you still haven't provided a single source to refute it.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Do you see the difference now? When I say they are no longer insisting, it just means they have given up making the argument.

That is not the same as saying "Cameron and Hollande no longer believe that Assad "gassed his own people". which is what you continue to wrongly infer as the meaning.

So please stop trying to twist the meaning of my words. My argument is prefectly valid and you still haven't provided a single source to refute it.

Except that Cameron and Hollande are still insistent that Assad gassed his own people. Their position hasn't changed. No need to twist your words, or entertain your backpedalling.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Except that Cameron and Hollande are still insistent that Assad gassed his own people.

This is called "argument by assertion" which is a form of logical fallacy. Unless you provide a source that claim is completely empty.

Since this is the second time you have made that asseration without citing your sources I see little point in continuing this discussion as you are clearly just taking the piss at this stage.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

This is called "argument by assertion" which is a form of logical fallacy. Unless you provide a source that claim is completely empty.

Since this is the second time you have made that asseration without citing your sources I see little point in continuing this discussion as you are clearly just taking the piss at this stage.

They've not changed their position - so I believe the onus would be on you to cite any source which claims otherwise. Since they haven't - I don't expect to hear back from you any time soon.

cyberhog

The US can't find a single country willing to dispose of Syria's chemical weapons.

BRUSSELS (AP) — Not a single European Union nation came forward on Monday offering to host the destruction of Syria's poison gas stockpile, with many instead calling for the arsenal to be eradicated close to Syria itself.

"There is no member state that has come forward in saying 'OK, give us the stuff'," said Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has adopted a plan to destroy Damascus' estimated 1,300-ton arsenal, which includes mustard gas and sarin, outside Syria, but has yet to find a country willing to host the risky operation.

"The remaining question is actually where we will be able to find a location," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

http://www.hsconnect.com/page/content.detail/id/410657/No-EU-nation-candidate-to-destroy-Syria-gas.html?isap=1&nav=5030

The US has plenty of expertise in destroying chemical weapons so it should stop pestering other countries and just do the job itself.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

The US has plenty of expertise in destroying chemical weapons so it should stop pestering other countries and just do the job itself.

The US isn't pestering anyone. The OPCW is a UN body.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

The OPCW is a UN body.

That is not the case afaik

The organisation is not an agency of the United Nations, but cooperates both on policy and practical issues. On 7 September 2000 the OPCW and the United Nations signed a cooperation agreement outlining how they were to coordinate their activities. The inspectors furthermore travel on United Nations Laissez-Passer in which a sticker is placed explaining their position, and privileges and immunities. The United Nations Regional Groups also operate at the OPCW to govern the rotations on the Executive Council and provide informal discussion platform

source wiki

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

The US isn't pestering anyone.

Haven't you made enough ill-informed comments for one day?

OSLO—Norway is considering a request from the United Nations and some UN member states, including the U.S., to handle the destruction of some of Syria's chemical-weapons stockpile, a government official said Monday.


...President Barack Obama raised the issue of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles in a recent phone conversation with Norway's Prime Minister Erna Solberg, Ms. Imerslund said. And U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also addressed the subject in a conversation with his Norwegian counterpart, Børge Brende.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cache:SN7oDRNVx_MJ:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149310425082196%2Bkerry+asks+norway+chemical+weapons&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gbv=1&sei=_XyLUqnyJ-KR7AbWrIG4Bg&hl=en&ct=clnk

Norway later refused to host the destruction.

The next country the US pestered was Albania:

media reports surfaced that the United States had asked Albania to destroy the weapons on its soil, Prime Minister Rama confirmed that he had indeed discussed the issue with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

the U.S. ambassador to Tirana, Alexander Arvizu, said NATO-member Albania and "all the responsible international partners" must look for ways to contribute to disposing of Syria's chemical weapons.

http://www.rferl.org/content/albania-syria-chemical-weapons/25168165.html

Albania also refused to be used as a "dustbin" by the US.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Haven't you made enough ill-informed comments for one day?



https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cache:SN7oDRNVx_MJ:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149310425082196%2Bkerry+asks+norway+chemical+weapons&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gbv=1&sei=_XyLUqnyJ-KR7AbWrIG4Bg&hl=en&ct=clnk

Norway later refused to host the destruction.

The next country the US pestered was Albania:



http://www.rferl.org/content/albania-syria-chemical-weapons/25168165.html

Albania also refused to be used as a "dustbin" by the US.

+

First article:

U.N. Asks Norway to Help Destroy Syria Chemical-Weapons Components

Again - that's the UN, not the US.

This is a UN/OPCW initiative not a US one.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

+
Again - that's the UN, not the US.

I never said it wasn't a UN-OPCW mission.

You made a comment that "the US aren't pestering anyone"

So I provided links to show that Obama and Kerry made several phone calls to a number of countries about destroying the posion chemicals. Albania was clearly pissed off by the calls because they responded by saying they would not be used as a "dustbin"

So that qualifies as "pestering"

alastair wrote: »

This is a UN/OPCW initiative not a US one.

^That is a clear ad hominem fallacy. It is fallacious because I did not at any point claim it was a US initiative.

It seems you cannot respond to anything I write without using disingenuous debating tactics. So other than sarcasm, what does alastair add to the debate? The answer is Nothing.

AngryHippie

Return to sender
Whomever manufactured them should have the means to dispose of them. If not, tough titties. Bring them back where they came from.

(hoping they weren't made in the :pac: axis of evil)

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER FOR SOME POSTERS:
Don't get too personal in your replies. Please focus on contributing to the content of the thread, and not each other.

alastair

AngryHippie wrote: »

Return to sender
Whomever manufactured them should have the means to dispose of them. If not, tough titties. Bring them back where they came from.

(hoping they weren't made in the :pac: axis of evil)

They would have been manufactured in Syria itself. Not the ideal spot/administration to entrust their disposal to.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

They would have been manufactured in Syria itself. Not the ideal spot/administration to entrust their disposal to.

Obviously it's not the ideal spot but it may be the only option left. After Albanian's rejection the chances of finding another country that will host the destruction appears remote.

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Ian Brzezinski says Albania’s decision was a setback for the efforts to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.

“The next step for the United States together with Russia is to find another country that could host the facilities to destroy these weapons, these chemicals," he said. "There are basically two options out there - find another country that will do it or destroy them on site in Syria, which of course raises a whole set of security issues.”

http://www.voanews.com/content/Albanian-rejection-of-us-request-leaves-few-options-for-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction/1795825.html

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Obviously it's not the ideal spot but it may be the only option left. After Albanian's rejection the chances of finding another country that will host the destruction appears remote.



http://www.voanews.com/content/Albanian-rejection-of-us-request-leaves-few-options-for-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction/1795825.html

Looks like there's an opportunity for some:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-private-companies-making-a-killing-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons-8958207.html

cyberhog

Seymour Hersh has learned that the CIA had evidence beforehand that the terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra was capable of producing Sarin and so should also have been a suspect for the chemical attack.

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.
In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

...n recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening.

...In both its public and private briefings after 21 August, the administration disregarded the available intelligence about al-Nusra’s potential access to sarin and continued to claim that the Assad government was in sole possession of chemical weapons. This was the message conveyed in the various secret briefings that members of Congress received in the days after the attack, when Obama was seeking support for his planned missile offensive against Syrian military installations. One legislator with more than two decades of experience in military affairs told me that he came away from one such briefing persuaded that ‘only the Assad government had sarin and the rebels did not.’

The proposed American missile attack on Syria never won public support and Obama turned quickly to the UN and the Russian proposal for dismantling the Syrian chemical warfare complex.

...Obama’s retreat brought relief to many senior military officers. (One high-level special operations adviser told me that the ill-conceived American missile attack on Syrian military airfields and missile emplacements, as initially envisaged by the White House, would have been ‘like providing close air support for al-Nusra’.)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

I would say there is a strong possiblity terrorists carried out the chemical attack, they certainly had a more plausible motive for using chemical weapons.

So why didn't Obama mention they had evidence the al-Qaida affiliate could produce Sarin? I think it is deeply troubling that Obama withheld that vital informatiom from the public.

SamHarris

cyberhog wrote: »

I would say there is a strong possiblity terrorists carried out the chemical attack, they certainly had a more plausible motive for using chemical weapons.

So why didn't Obama mention they had evidence the al-Qaida affiliate could produce Sarin? I think it is deeply troubling that Obama withheld that vital informatiom from the public.

I seriously doubt you believe there is a strong possibility it was terrorists based on available evidence, given that your politics makes it entirely to easy for anyone on this forum to guess who you will hold responsible for almost any event before any evidence even comes to light one way or another. Given the available evidence, it really is very obvious what happened/ is happening.

Even the knee jerk anti-US brigade have to resort to complaining about how annoying the US is for "pestering" other places with requests to destroy weapons of enormous destructive potential. How inane and trite such a complaint is given the circumstances should make it too embarrassing to even use as some sort of "point". As though they are asking for a pencil.

And no doubt if he came forward with that information people of the very same CT positions as you would take it as a lie designed to create the atmosphere needed for a strike - "Remember the Iraq WMDs anyone?!".

So many Irish peoples positions on too many issues are created through the prism of petty politics and a pretty clear, and embarrassing, inferiority complex when it comes to the US that discussions quickly become incredibly predictable, childish caricatures of genuine positions.

I mean really how you can say "Why can they not stop PESTERING people with this "chemical weapons" issue?" qith anything other than a tongue firmly in cheek is laughable. It's like a bad comedy sketch.

Cork boy 55

cyberhog wrote: »

Seymour Hersh has learned that the CIA had evidence beforehand that the terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra was capable of producing Sarin and so should also have been a suspect for the chemical attack.



http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

I would say there is a strong possiblity terrorists carried out the chemical attack, they certainly had a more plausible motive for using chemical weapons.

So why didn't Obama mention they had evidence the al-Qaida affiliate could produce Sarin? I think it is deeply troubling that Obama withheld that vital informatiom from the public.

NO there is not a strong possibility that they carried it out nor has Sy Hersh produced any evidence at all of this,

Strong Rebuttals of his piece

ARGUMENT
Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire
What the legendary reporter gets wrong about Syria's sarin attacks.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/09/sy_hershs_chemical_misfire#sthash.3IC9bBL4.dpbs


syria special chemical weapons conspiracy wasnt seymour hershs exclusive dissected

http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/syria-special-chemical-weapons-conspiracy-wasnt-seymour-hershs-exclusive-dissected/


http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/12/other-questions-raised-seymour-hershs-latest-syria-scoop/355934/

PS BTW
Also still awaiting on this thread for you to acknowledge that the last regime massacres you spread misinformation about where indeed as I pointed out carried out by regime and not as you claimed the rebels
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82730779

Whats your end game here?

1:log onto internet
2:Spread mis-information about Syrian Regime army massacres
3:?????
4:profit

cyberhog

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Strong Rebuttals of his piece

ARGUMENT
Sy Hersh's Chemical Misfire
What the legendary reporter gets wrong about Syria's sarin attacks.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/12/09/sy_hershs_chemical_misfire#sthash.3IC9bBL4.dpbs

Your so-called strong rebuttal comes from a blogger with no journalistic training whose only source of information is the videos he finds on social media sites, and none of those videos have been independently verified. He spends hundreds of hours identifying weapons but he doesn't know the first thing about investigative journalism.

Hersh on the other hand is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who actually works in the real world with real people. He broke the My Lai massacre and the abuses at Abu Ghraib and is a far more credible source for information than your obsessive-compulsive blogger friend.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Your so-called strong rebuttal comes from a blogger with no journalistic training whose only source of information is the videos he finds on social media sites, and none of those videos have been independently verified. He spends hundreds of hours identifying weapons but he doesn't know the first thing about investigative journalism.

Hersh on the other hand is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who actually works in the real world with real people. He broke the My Lai massacre and the abuses at Abu Ghraib and is a far more credible source for information than your obsessive-compulsive blogger friend.

Seymour Hersh has no journalistic training either, if you want to be pedantic.

Seymour Hersh has been published widely, but this particular report was rejected by both the Washington Post and New York Times on the basis of it's falling short on standards of journalism. Everyone can have an off day.

Eliot Higgins has been far more widely published and referenced with regard to this conflict than Hersh - including on the New York Times (Hersh's old paper)

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Seymour Hersh has been published widely, but this particular report was rejected by both the Washington Post and New York Times on the basis of it's falling short on standards of journalism. Everyone can have an off day.

The LRB is a reliable publication. The editor told the Huffington Post that Hersh's work was thoroughly fact-checked by a former New Yorker fact checker. According to the HuffPost "The New Yorker is renowned for its fact-checking department."

As for the NYT and WaPo, HuffPost writes:

"Hersh didn't seem particularly bothered by having to shop the story to different outlets, telling HuffPost over email that “these things happen on tough stories presented by a non-staff writer ... the way it goes ... freelancing is not for the faint of heart.”"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/seymour-hersh-syria-report_n_4409674.html

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

The LRB is a reliable publication. The editor told the Huffington Post that Hersh's work was thoroughly fact-checked by a former New Yorker fact checker. According to the HuffPost "The New Yorker is renowned for its fact-checking department."

Indeed - the same New Yorker who said of Eliot Higgins:

he has become perhaps the foremost expert on the munitions used in the war

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Indeed - the same New Yorker who said of Eliot Higgins:

he has become perhaps the foremost expert on the munitions used in the war

He has become the "foremost expert" because he spends an inordinate amount of time online studying youtube videos, most journalists lead busy lives and simply don't have the time to be on the internet all day looking at youtube. Before Higgins became interested in the Middle East he used to spend hundreds of hours playing world of warcarft online so he is clearly someone with alot of time on his hands. That said, what he does with his time is his business but being able to identify munitions doesn't give him any journalistic credibility and it certainly doesn't make him a more credible source than Hersh.

Cork boy 55

cyberhog wrote: »

Your so-called strong rebuttal comes from a blogger with no journalistic training whose only source of information is the videos he finds on social media sites, and none of those videos have been independently verified. He spends hundreds of hours identifying weapons but he doesn't know the first thing about investigative journalism.

Hersh on the other hand is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist who actually works in the real world with real people. He broke the My Lai massacre and the abuses at Abu Ghraib and is a far more credible source for information than your obsessive-compulsive blogger friend.

I provided 3 links

The first article is from Elliot Higgins who runs the Brown Moses blog. He's done far more research on this subject than Hersh and his unnamed sources.
I could throw mud at Hersh as well but I won't . Eilot Higgins work on Syria has been very thorough and of a very high standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Higgins

The other two articles you edited out of my reply for some reason
against the forum rules.

Here's A FOURTH Rebuttal in Now magazine


DAN KASZETA @DanKaszeta
December 10, 2013
Why Seymour Hersh has it wrong this time
The chemical strike on East Ghouta is not as mysterious as Seymour Hersh
suggests

Dan Kaszeta is a former US Army and US Secret Service specialist on chemical, biological, and radiological defense, now working as an independent consultant based in London.

As a specialist in chemical weapons, one of the things I have found most interesting are the close correlations in chemistry (such as hexamine, a possible sarin additive) between the trace evidence found in the field and the [regime] inventories disclosed by the OPCW.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/524969-524969-why-seymour-hersh-has-it-wrong-this-time

Hersh is months behind the dialogue and data.
Its a binary choice. The probability that a insurgent group carried out attack is almost zero The probability that the regime did is almost one. Any normal well adjusted human being who has read the data on attack extensively comes to the same conclusion.
Misinformation and disinformation continues from varying sources

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

He has become the "foremost expert" because he spends an inordinate amount of time online studying youtube videos, most journalists lead busy lives and simply don't have the time to be on the internet all day looking at youtube. Before Higgins became interested in the Middle East he used to spend hundreds of hours playing world of warcarft online so he is clearly someone with alot of time on his hands. That said, what he does with his time is his business but being able to identify munitions doesn't give him any journalistic credibility and it certainly doesn't make him a more credible source than Hersh.

Well, it does actually. Hersh isn't sought out as the expert in the area - that would be Higgins. A fact that's recognised by all sorts of highly regarded journalist tomes - the New York Times and New Yorker included.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Well, it does actually. Hersh isn't sought out as the expert in the area - that would be Higgins. A fact that's recognised by all sorts of highly regarded journalist tomes - the New York Times and New Yorker included.

You're comparing two completely different skill sets. Hersh is an investigative journalist and deals directly with people in the US intelligence community. Higgns identifies munitions, he has no contacts in that area. Granted, Higgins provides a useful service to the media but that doesn't make him an expert on whether or not Obama has been telling the whole truth about the evidence. So for you to suggest that Higgins has more credibility than Hersh on what the White House have been saying is just asinine.

cyberhog

Peaceful protest leader in Syria disappears; Islamist rebels suspected of role

BEIRUT — One of the most prominent figures in the peaceful protest movement that swept Syria early in the country’s uprising was reported missing Tuesday from a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus, prompting suspicions that she is among the scores of civilian activists and journalists who have been detained by Islamist extremists in recent months.

The apparent targeting of a woman so closely associated with the peaceful origins of the revolt ricocheted through the already demoralized activist community, drawing condemnations on Twitter and Facebook, as well as soul-searching.

“Razan’s kidnapping is like the slap in the face we need to wake up and acknowledge what this conflict has become,” said Rami Nakhla, an LCC co-founder who now lives in Istanbul. “It’s become a regional sectarian war using the cover of our legitimate demands for democracy — a giant, bloody monster.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/peaceful-protest-leader-in-syria-disappears-islamist-rebels-suspected-of-role/2013/12/10/8d1e3364-61d0-11e3-a7b4-4a75ebc432ab_story.html?tid=hpModule_04941f10-8a79-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e

The rebels are not fighting for freedom and democracy and those of you supporting them should take a hard look at yourselves. If they defeat Assad Syria will become an ungovernable jihadist state.

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

You're comparing two completely different skill sets. Hersh is an investigative journalist and deals directly with people in the US intelligence community. Higgns identifies munitions, he has no contacts in that area. Granted, Higgins provides a useful service to the media but that doesn't make him an expert on whether or not Obama has been telling the whole truth about the evidence. So for you to suggest that Higgins has more credibility than Hersh on what the White House have been saying is just asinine.

Well - the journos in the respected publications say he's the expert. Why would you dispute this expertise when they're happy to acknowledge it? And again - we've a situation here where respected publications turned down the Hersh piece on the basis of quality. Not really a compelling scenario for the merits of Hersh's case compared to Higgins'.

Tony EH

I don't see what has some people's knickers in a twist over Hersh's article.

As for it's rejection, he's faced that with nearly every contentious article he's ever written. Situation normal as far as he's concerned.

Considering his track record, I'd be more than willing to listen to what he has to say.

cyberhog

alastair wrote: »

Well - the journos in the respected publications say he's the expert. Why would you dispute this expertise when they're happy to acknowledge it?

Let's be clear alastair! They say he's an expert on munitions used in the war and that is all. Higgins is nowhere near as skilled as Hersh when it comes to investigative journalism. He knows about weapons and that's it!

Anyway this is all a pointless tangent, this debate is not about Higgins' expertise on munitions which I did NOT dispute btw. It's about whether or not Obama made a false case against Assad and the rebels are really to blame.

Jonny7

I like Seymour's piece - but crucially he provides no supporting evidence to any claim that it was a rebel attack. To pick holes and cast doubt is easy but right now the weight of evidence still lays with Assad's forces having carried out the attack.

There is arguably just as strong an agenda to paint Assad as innocent of the attack and the rebels as guilty - something I feel Seymour does not seem aware of. There is also a lack of objectivity/impartiality in the piece, which takes away from it's credibility somewhat.


Also with the below

The administration’s distortion of the facts surrounding the sarin attack raises an unavoidable question: do we have the whole story of Obama’s willingness to walk away from his ‘red line’ threat to bomb Syria? He had claimed to have an iron-clad case but suddenly agreed to take the issue to Congress, and later to accept Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical weapons. It appears possible that at some point he was directly confronted with contradictory information: evidence strong enough to persuade him to cancel his attack plan, and take the criticism sure to come from Republicans.

Well it was quite obvious really - politics (the Russians outplayed the US and UK) and of course the spectre of Iraq, coupled with public lack of knowledge re highly complex situation in Syria

alastair

cyberhog wrote: »

Let's be clear alastair! They say he's an expert on munitions used in the war and that is all.

And, conveniently, this is an issue which relates, centrally, to the use of specific munitions in Syria. His area of expertise.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

I like Seymour's piece - but crucially he provides no supporting evidence to any claim that it was a rebel attack. To pick holes and cast doubt is easy but right now the weight of evidence still lays with Assad's forces having carried out the attack.

I don't believe Hersh is making the claim that the rebels did carry out the attack. What he saying is that the US had other information that they withheld from the public because it damaged their narrative for a war that they wanted.

That's a perfectly valid point, given the thrust of his article.

The problem is, there is NO weight of evidence. There's still nothing concrete.

We only have repeated accusation and allegation.

That is not evidence.

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is arguably just as strong an agenda to paint Assad as innocent of the attack and the rebels as guilty - something I feel Seymour does not seem aware of. There is also a lack of objectivity/impartiality in the piece, which takes away from it's credibility somewhat.

There's a strong agenda with some, because the possibility is there. It isn't something that's being made up out of whole cloth. The reputations of some of the groups involved in the conflict certainly do not exclude them from such actions. It most certainly is not beyond their scope.

And without absolute, irrefutable evidence (which has yet to materialise), the possibility that it was as attack carried out by the rebels remains on the cards.

Jonny7

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't believe Hersh is making the claim that the rebels did carry out the attack. What he saying is that the US had other information that they withheld from the public because it damaged their narrative for a war that they wanted.

There is already all-out war. These US was contemplating several days of strikes on military only targets - like the types of limited strikes Clinton used against Saddam

The context of the situation and planned action should be taken into account.

The problem is, there is NO weight of evidence. There's still nothing concrete.

In that situation what would constitute as concrete - photo or video evidence could be seen as faked. Statements from captured Syrian soldiers would be seen as forced. Intercepted communications would also be seen as faked.

That is not evidence.

The current weight of evidence we have is that pro-Assad forces carried out the attack (mainly contained in the UN report)

the possibility that it was as attack carried out by the rebels remains on the cards.

I fully agree.