So im listening to radio 4 today program where the interviewer, John Humphries, cast doubt on the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn for not immediately falling in behind the current narrative surrounding the oil tanker incident in Iran. The MM narative suggests Iran attacked this Japanese tanker while simultaneously hosting a Japanese delegation. The tanker is leased by a firm which has previously been friendly to Iran in defying the embargo.
Why does this matter in this thread? Well, the 'fact' that Corbyn was 'wrong' regarding the Skripal and Douma incidents was specifically raised as evidence of his weaknesz of judgement on foreign policy matters. JC has repeatedly stated that further evidence on both issues is required to properly establish responsibility. I, obviously, wholeheartedly agree. Alongside Mike Pompeio's despicable comments regarding the US intervening to oppose JC becoming PM (errr.....Russiagate....pot vs kettle?) We see a concerted US/UK/MM bias clearly aligned in an undemocratic way. It must really grind their grissle that JC and other deluded 'doves' were right about Iraq, right about Libya and now right about Syria. Conflicts that neednt have started or dragged on, have done so, and to the tragic detriment of millions of innocent civilians.
The skripal/Douma incidents are both highly suspect at the very least. In my opinion the Douma attack is without doubt a textbook false flag while the Skripal affair is far more murky but nonetheless has added to the building cold war style narrative. A narrative that now leads us closer to the abyss of war with yet another nation. I have been saying this for months on this thread and hear we are. Nudging towards another unjustified conflict. Is the USA completely mad?! WTF is their problem. There appears to be no amount of violence at home are abroad that will sate the hunger of the hawks that have taken over at the top of American politics.
Here is an analysis from another interesting blog, mainly citing recent articles from The Guardian newspaper. Food for thought. The main conclusion seems logical, i.e. that Henderson not being in any way connected to the FFM is simply not credible. See what you make of their logic for arriving at that conclusion.
2.4 Discrepancies between versions of OPCW’s response
An established method in investigative journalism is to compare official versions and to infer from discrepancies what they are trying to hide. On 11 May OPCW Public Affairs stated that “The document you shared with us is not part of any of the material produced by the FFM. The individual mentioned in the document has never been a member of the FFM”. After we pointed out that these two statements were provably false – the external collaboration on the engineering assessment of the Douma cylinders must have been authorised by OPCW, and Henderson could hardly have been in Damascus on a tourist visa – they were not repeated on the record. By 16 May OPCW Public Affairs had formulated a new policy: “Per OPCW rules and regulations … the OPCW does not provide information about individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat.” A more subtle version of Henderson’s role was then channelled through Lucas and Whitaker: “minority opinion”, “on the sidelines” and elaborated by Higgins as “disgruntled OPCW employee”’. Between 16 May and 25 May the story channelled through Whitaker changed from “Henderson had wanted to join the FFM and got rebuffed but was then given permission to do some investigating on the sidelines of the FFM.” to admitting that “Henderson and others” were in Douma “to provide temporary support to the FFM”.
On 24 May Whitaker’s informed source admits that “Henderson’s assessment was reviewed” for the Final Report, no longer attempting to maintain that the Engineering Assessment was not part of the FFM’s process. If we strip away the flannel from this latest story, it appears to be accurate. The “informed source” tells us that the Engineering Assessment was excluded from the Final Report not because its technical analysis had been rebutted, but because the conclusion that the cylinders had been placed in position rather than dropped from the air would necessarily have attributed responsibility for the incident to the opposition.
The argument that the mandate of the FFM prevented it from endorsing the Engineering Assessment’s conclusion is easily refuted as a matter of logic. Announcing the release of the Final Report, OPCW stated that “The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria.” In Douma this could be reduced to deciding between two alternatives: (1) the gas cylinders were dropped from the air, implying that they were used as chemical weapons; (2) the cylinders were placed in position, implying that the incident was staged and that no chemical attack had occurred. Although to conclude that alternative (2) was correct would implicate the opposition, this would not be attribution of blame for a chemical attack but rather a determination that chemical weapons had not been used.
Clearly a verdict that the alleged chemical attack had been staged would have been unacceptable to the French government, which had joined in the US-led missile attack on 14 April 2018. We can surmise that the Chief of Cabinet of OPCW, Sébastien Braha, who (according to his Linkedin profile) is still in post as a French diplomat, would have been in a difficult position if he had allowed the FFM to release a report that reached this conclusion. He would be in an even more difficult position if he were to allow the newly-established Investigation and Identification Team (IIT), which also reports to him, to overturn the conclusions of the Final Report and report that the alleged chemical attack was staged. Even if Braha’s failure to update his online profile with the date of leaving his diplomatic post is an oversight, this would still be a conflict of interest based on the OECD definition of what “a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, would conclude”. As we have noted, OPCW appears to have no arrangements for managing conflicts of interest. Until the governance and working practices of OPCW are radically reformed, it is hard to see how neutral observers can have confidence in the impartiality of the FFM or the IIT.
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/05/comments-on-official-response-to-the-release-of-the-engineering-assessment-of-the-douma-cylinders-paul-mckeigue-david-mil.html
