Niin ne muurit murtuu.
The OPCW director general, Fernando Arias, defended the report, telling member countries: “the nature of any thorough inquiry for individuals in a team to express subjective views. While some of these diverse views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the independent, professional conclusion [of the investigation].”
www.theguardian.com
Chemical weapons watchdog defends Syria report after leaks
Whistleblower claims OPCW’s findings misrepresented some facts over 2018 chlorine attack
Soldierblue
Ylipäällikkö
Tässä lisää siitä
www.rt.com
OPCW report on Douma chemical incident omitted & misrepresented key facts, leaked email by dissenting inspector shows
An internal OPCW email indicates that the chemical weapons watchdog’s leadership doctored a report on the 2018 Douma incident to bring it in line with West-favored claim that it was an attack by the Syrian government.
D
Deleted member 266
Guest
RT.com 
CNN samaa fakenewsiä. Äärimmäisen asenteellista uutisointia. Eiköhän tuo ole ihan faktaa, että kaasuiskuja tekaistu myös hallituksen suorittamiksi.RT.com
arix
Respected Leader
Ketkäs niitä trolleja oikein olikaan?
Mutku Assad murhaa lapsia ja Venäjä ja....
Mikä helvetin pakko on aina samantien toimia eikä kerrankin tutkia asia läpikotaisin?
Mutku Assad syö syyrialaisten lasten sisäelimiä heidän omista kalloistaan. Sen on pakko olla syyllinen kaasuiskuihin. Ihme ettei Kyllikki Saaren murhaankin jollain lailla linkitetä.
Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts - bellingcat
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of...
www.bellingcat.com
"If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner. "
Teoria harhautuksen ajoituksesta:
Chemical weapons watchdog defends Syria report after leaks
Whistleblower claims OPCW’s findings misrepresented some facts over 2018 chlorine attack
"The leaks, probably designed to coincide with the start of the OPCW annual conference, were seized on by Russia to construct a claim that the OPCW is gradually being politicised by the west to put Assad on trial for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Last year, despite Russian objections, the OPCW for the first time was given powers not just to investigate whether an attack had occurred, but identify the parties responsible. "
Venäjä yrittää viedä OPCW:n arvovaltaa, koska tulevaisuudessa OPCW ei vain totea tapahtunutta, vaan osoittaa sormella tekijää.
notareal
Ylipäällikkö
OPCW raportit eivät ota kantaa siihen kuka teki, vaan siihen mitkä on havaitut faktat. Jos faktat osoittavat tekijään (esim jos tunnistetaan joku kemiallinen markkeri, joka tiedetään kuuluvan johonkin tunnistettuun kemialliseen aseeseen tai johonkin erityiseen valmistustapaan), niin sillehän ei OPCW raportti mitään voi.
Tässä Douman tapauksessa OPCW tutkijat eivät päässeet alueelle nopeasti tapahtuman jälkeen, vaan kesti kaksi viikkoa ennenkuin tutkimuksia päästiin tekemään (tästä viikko odottelua turvallisuussyiden takia) ja joitain kohteita jäi vielä tarkistamatta kun Syyrian joukot eivät sallineen pääsyä. Omasta mielestä nämä pääsyrajoitukset ovat hieman erikoisia, jos vaitetään että kyseessä lavastus
Soldierblue
Ylipäällikkö
No katso siitä wikileaks juttua sittenRT.com
https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/document/Internal-OPCW-E-Mail/Internal-OPCW-E-Mail.pdf
Miksi Syyrian & Venäjän hallitukset tekivät kaikkeinsa tutkimuksien viivyttämiseksi? Jos eivät tehneet iskuja niin silloinhan olisi ollut parempi päästää tutkijat vitkuttelematta tutkimaan tapaukset.
Saatat olla oikeassa mutta hatuttaa vaan se, että Assadia syytetään kaikesta. Kuitenkin maltillisemmasta päästä tuolla maailman persreijässä. Ja meidän kaikkien pitää muistaa, että noita villejä ei voi johtaa muuten kuin diktaattorin tyylillä. Olemme kaikki nähneet miten käy kun voimakas hallitsija on syrjäytetty. Ongelmat heijastuvat aina tänne pohjolaan asti.
Soldierblue
Ylipäällikkö
Niin ???
Kaveri Joonas
Korpraali
Kun OPCWn tutkijat saapuivat Doumaan. Nuo surullisen kuuluisat kaasusylinterit olivat yhä siellä. Miksi Assad ei ollut vienyt todistusaineistoa pois.
Ennen sotaa Douma oli yli 100 000 asukkaan kaupunki. Samoissa olosuhteissa, kauanko suomalaisilta pioneereilta menisi kaupungin tarkastamiseen. Asunto asunnolta. Kerros kerrokselta. Kellari kellarilta ja tunneli tunnelilta. Ei se ole mitään lasten leikkiä. Sinä olet vastuussa YKn lähettämän delegaation turvallisuudesta, et voi luottaa siihen, ettei kaupungista poistuneet ääri-islamistit olisi jättäneet miinoituksia ja ansoituksia lähtiessään. Mitä sitten, jos yksikään OPCWn tutkija olisi astunut miinaan, tai laukaissut ansoituksen ?
On ihan luonnollista, ettei siviilitutkijoita päästetä tarkastamattomille alueille. Sotatoimi alueilla (Nato standard) tämä on jopa sotilaille kiellettyä niin kauan, kunnes pioneerit ovat alueen tarkastaneet. Eivät venäläiset sotapoliisitkaan partioineet tarkastamattomilla alueilla.
OPCWn tutkijat ovat ammattilaisia. He olisivat huomanneet hyvin nopeasti, mikäli paikkoja olisi puhdistettu, tai pyritty puhdistamaan. Ehkä meillä olisi tarkempaa tietoa tapahtumien kulusta, jos Syyrian lentotukikohtaa ei olisi pommitettu. Sieltä tutkijat olisivat saattaneet löytää merkkejä siitä, oliko helikoptereita käytetty kaasuiskuun, vai ei. Kiire oli meidän hertoilla Syyriaa pommittaa sanon minä, ja vielä ihmettelen miksi OPCWn tarkastama ja hyväksymä laboratoorikin oli tuhottava. Kauhea taitaa olla rikos, jos valmistaa lääkkeitä kansalaisilleen.
Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts
November 25, 2019
By Bellingcat Investigation Team
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of the OPCW’s conclusion about the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria.
However, a comparison of the points raised in the letter against the final Douma report makes it amply clear that the OPCW not only addressed these points, but even changed the conclusion of an earlier report to reflect the concerns of said employee.
Which Report?
Unusually, in the case of the Douma attack, the OPCW issued two reports. The first was an interim report of 26 pages published on 6 July 2018. The second was a final report of 106 pages, published on 1 March 2019.
The letter released by Wikileaks, dated 22 June 2018, raises concerns about a “redacted report”. The points raised in the letter are clearly not present in the interim report; however, they are present, or else are in modified form, in the final report. Therefore, it appears that the so-called “redacted report” provided a basis or early draft for the final report.
Points Raised By The Letter
Point 1
This wording used in the letter is not present in the final report. The paragraph that matches this most closely in the final report is paragraph 2.16, which states, “it is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine.”
The decision to use the word “possible” in the final report is a significant change from the word “likely”, as it represents the level of confidence of the OPCW. By changing this particular phrase, the OPCW have in fact downgraded their confidence in possible conclusions about this event, which is in line with the employee’s concerns.
Point 2.1
Aside from the absurdity of claiming that “singling out chlorine gas” after an alleged chlorine gas attack in a country where multiple chlorine attacks have taken place is “disingenuous”, these points appear to have been addressed by the final report.
Paragraphs 8.6 – 8.19 in the final report include a “Discussion of analysis results”, which addresses the points raised in this paragraph of the letter, including explaining why many of the chemicals listed in this part of the letter could be excluded. It should be noted that this section is chemistry-heavy.
Point 2.2
The final report does not use the phrase “reactive chlorine containing chemical.” Instead, the phrase “chemical containing reactive chlorine” is used, as suggested in the letter.
Point 3
The final report does not include this mention of the gas being released from cylinders. As highlighted in Point 1, the final report concludes that it is “possible” the cylinders were the source of substances containing reactive chlorine.
Point 4
At no point does the final report describe the levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives as “high”. However, it does note in paragraph 7 of Annex 4 that these derivatives exist in the natural background, and that control samples were collected at locations not expected to have been exposed to chlorine gas for comparison.
Point 5
The final report includes a discussion of symptoms, along with an Epidemiological Analysis addressing these issues, on page 25.
It is also notable that the final report consulted “four toxicologists and one toxicologist and medical doctor” (paragraph 8.87) rather than the three toxicologists mentioned in the letter. It also notes in Annex 3 that further consultations with toxicologists took place in September and October 2018, months after this letter was written.
It should also be noted that the final report also states that the FFM redeployed to conduct further interviews between 14-22 October.
Point 6
Although it is not precisely clear what the letter is referring to here, the final report devotes extensive and detailed discussion to the modelling of the impact of the two cylinders in pages 53-64. Three independent analyses by experts in three different countries were carried out, and all reached complimentary conclusions: the damage at the impact sites is consistent with the cylinders having fallen from height (Annex 12).
It should also be noted that the engineering studies were only received by the FFM in December 2018, well after the date of this letter. As such, any discussion about the point of impact on the date of this letter would have been superseded by the studies which came later.
Point 7
The final report contains an extensive bibliography, including peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Conclusion
Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report.
The letter refers to a “redacted report” that was either not published or was heavily updated before it became the final version of the report. The issues raised in the letter appear to have either been addressed with further work and research, or changed to reflect the concerns of the employee who wrote the letter.
The fact that the redacted report stated it was “likely” the cylinders were the source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical, while the final report said it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine” is significant. It demonstrates that the OPCW in fact downgraded their confidence in their conclusions in order to include the doubts raised by the author of the letter.
Based on this analysis, it is clear that WikiLeaks, the Daily Mail, La Repubblica, and Stundin have failed to understand the context of this letter and the final Douma report.
If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner.
www.bellingcat.com
November 25, 2019
By Bellingcat Investigation Team
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of the OPCW’s conclusion about the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria.
However, a comparison of the points raised in the letter against the final Douma report makes it amply clear that the OPCW not only addressed these points, but even changed the conclusion of an earlier report to reflect the concerns of said employee.
Which Report?
Unusually, in the case of the Douma attack, the OPCW issued two reports. The first was an interim report of 26 pages published on 6 July 2018. The second was a final report of 106 pages, published on 1 March 2019.
The letter released by Wikileaks, dated 22 June 2018, raises concerns about a “redacted report”. The points raised in the letter are clearly not present in the interim report; however, they are present, or else are in modified form, in the final report. Therefore, it appears that the so-called “redacted report” provided a basis or early draft for the final report.
Points Raised By The Letter
Point 1
This wording used in the letter is not present in the final report. The paragraph that matches this most closely in the final report is paragraph 2.16, which states, “it is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine.”
The decision to use the word “possible” in the final report is a significant change from the word “likely”, as it represents the level of confidence of the OPCW. By changing this particular phrase, the OPCW have in fact downgraded their confidence in possible conclusions about this event, which is in line with the employee’s concerns.
Point 2.1
Aside from the absurdity of claiming that “singling out chlorine gas” after an alleged chlorine gas attack in a country where multiple chlorine attacks have taken place is “disingenuous”, these points appear to have been addressed by the final report.
Paragraphs 8.6 – 8.19 in the final report include a “Discussion of analysis results”, which addresses the points raised in this paragraph of the letter, including explaining why many of the chemicals listed in this part of the letter could be excluded. It should be noted that this section is chemistry-heavy.
Point 2.2
The final report does not use the phrase “reactive chlorine containing chemical.” Instead, the phrase “chemical containing reactive chlorine” is used, as suggested in the letter.
Point 3
The final report does not include this mention of the gas being released from cylinders. As highlighted in Point 1, the final report concludes that it is “possible” the cylinders were the source of substances containing reactive chlorine.
Point 4
At no point does the final report describe the levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives as “high”. However, it does note in paragraph 7 of Annex 4 that these derivatives exist in the natural background, and that control samples were collected at locations not expected to have been exposed to chlorine gas for comparison.
Point 5
The final report includes a discussion of symptoms, along with an Epidemiological Analysis addressing these issues, on page 25.
It is also notable that the final report consulted “four toxicologists and one toxicologist and medical doctor” (paragraph 8.87) rather than the three toxicologists mentioned in the letter. It also notes in Annex 3 that further consultations with toxicologists took place in September and October 2018, months after this letter was written.
It should also be noted that the final report also states that the FFM redeployed to conduct further interviews between 14-22 October.
Point 6
Although it is not precisely clear what the letter is referring to here, the final report devotes extensive and detailed discussion to the modelling of the impact of the two cylinders in pages 53-64. Three independent analyses by experts in three different countries were carried out, and all reached complimentary conclusions: the damage at the impact sites is consistent with the cylinders having fallen from height (Annex 12).
It should also be noted that the engineering studies were only received by the FFM in December 2018, well after the date of this letter. As such, any discussion about the point of impact on the date of this letter would have been superseded by the studies which came later.
Point 7
The final report contains an extensive bibliography, including peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Conclusion
Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report.
The letter refers to a “redacted report” that was either not published or was heavily updated before it became the final version of the report. The issues raised in the letter appear to have either been addressed with further work and research, or changed to reflect the concerns of the employee who wrote the letter.
The fact that the redacted report stated it was “likely” the cylinders were the source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical, while the final report said it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine” is significant. It demonstrates that the OPCW in fact downgraded their confidence in their conclusions in order to include the doubts raised by the author of the letter.
Based on this analysis, it is clear that WikiLeaks, the Daily Mail, La Repubblica, and Stundin have failed to understand the context of this letter and the final Douma report.
If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner.
Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts - bellingcat
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of...
www.bellingcat.com
Tuonko takia itänaapurissa on aina diktaattori vallassa?
Et vastannut kysymykseeni: Miksi Assad ja Venäjä estelivät tutkijoita tekemästä töitään jos siellä olisi saatu selville että kyseessä oli lavastus. Mitä siellä tehtiin sillä aikaa kun tutkijoita esteltiin tekemästä töitään?
Eikös tuossa juurikin vastattu. Alue piti raivata ennen tutkijoiden saapumista.
Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts
November 25, 2019
By Bellingcat Investigation Team
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of the OPCW’s conclusion about the alleged chemical weapon attack in Douma, Syria.
However, a comparison of the points raised in the letter against the final Douma report makes it amply clear that the OPCW not only addressed these points, but even changed the conclusion of an earlier report to reflect the concerns of said employee.
Which Report?
Unusually, in the case of the Douma attack, the OPCW issued two reports. The first was an interim report of 26 pages published on 6 July 2018. The second was a final report of 106 pages, published on 1 March 2019.
The letter released by Wikileaks, dated 22 June 2018, raises concerns about a “redacted report”. The points raised in the letter are clearly not present in the interim report; however, they are present, or else are in modified form, in the final report. Therefore, it appears that the so-called “redacted report” provided a basis or early draft for the final report.
Points Raised By The Letter
Point 1
This wording used in the letter is not present in the final report. The paragraph that matches this most closely in the final report is paragraph 2.16, which states, “it is possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine.”
The decision to use the word “possible” in the final report is a significant change from the word “likely”, as it represents the level of confidence of the OPCW. By changing this particular phrase, the OPCW have in fact downgraded their confidence in possible conclusions about this event, which is in line with the employee’s concerns.
Point 2.1
Aside from the absurdity of claiming that “singling out chlorine gas” after an alleged chlorine gas attack in a country where multiple chlorine attacks have taken place is “disingenuous”, these points appear to have been addressed by the final report.
Paragraphs 8.6 – 8.19 in the final report include a “Discussion of analysis results”, which addresses the points raised in this paragraph of the letter, including explaining why many of the chemicals listed in this part of the letter could be excluded. It should be noted that this section is chemistry-heavy.
Point 2.2
The final report does not use the phrase “reactive chlorine containing chemical.” Instead, the phrase “chemical containing reactive chlorine” is used, as suggested in the letter.
Point 3
The final report does not include this mention of the gas being released from cylinders. As highlighted in Point 1, the final report concludes that it is “possible” the cylinders were the source of substances containing reactive chlorine.
Point 4
At no point does the final report describe the levels of various chlorinated organic derivatives as “high”. However, it does note in paragraph 7 of Annex 4 that these derivatives exist in the natural background, and that control samples were collected at locations not expected to have been exposed to chlorine gas for comparison.
Point 5
The final report includes a discussion of symptoms, along with an Epidemiological Analysis addressing these issues, on page 25.
It is also notable that the final report consulted “four toxicologists and one toxicologist and medical doctor” (paragraph 8.87) rather than the three toxicologists mentioned in the letter. It also notes in Annex 3 that further consultations with toxicologists took place in September and October 2018, months after this letter was written.
It should also be noted that the final report also states that the FFM redeployed to conduct further interviews between 14-22 October.
Point 6
Although it is not precisely clear what the letter is referring to here, the final report devotes extensive and detailed discussion to the modelling of the impact of the two cylinders in pages 53-64. Three independent analyses by experts in three different countries were carried out, and all reached complimentary conclusions: the damage at the impact sites is consistent with the cylinders having fallen from height (Annex 12).
It should also be noted that the engineering studies were only received by the FFM in December 2018, well after the date of this letter. As such, any discussion about the point of impact on the date of this letter would have been superseded by the studies which came later.
Point 7
The final report contains an extensive bibliography, including peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Conclusion
Although this letter appears to be at least superficially damaging to the OPCW, after reading the actual reports published by the OPCW it is clear that this letter is outdated and inapplicable to the final Douma report.
The letter refers to a “redacted report” that was either not published or was heavily updated before it became the final version of the report. The issues raised in the letter appear to have either been addressed with further work and research, or changed to reflect the concerns of the employee who wrote the letter.
The fact that the redacted report stated it was “likely” the cylinders were the source of the chlorine or reactive chlorine-containing chemical, while the final report said it was “possible that the cylinders were the source of the substances containing reactive chlorine” is significant. It demonstrates that the OPCW in fact downgraded their confidence in their conclusions in order to include the doubts raised by the author of the letter.
Based on this analysis, it is clear that WikiLeaks, the Daily Mail, La Repubblica, and Stundin have failed to understand the context of this letter and the final Douma report.
If the people covering this story had actually taken the time to read the letter and the FFM reports, they may well have chosen to publicize it in a very different manner.
Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts - bellingcat
Over the weekend, WikiLeaks released an email from an employee within the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) indicating that the OPCW “misrepresents the facts he and his colleagues discovered on the ground”. This email has since been used to call into question the impartiality and effectiveness of...
En oikein ymmärrä mitä Bellingcat tässä tavoittelee.
OPCW:tä kritisoiva kirje viittaa "reducted report" käsitteellä raporttiin, josta puuttuu laajoja osia ja jossa on tehty (kirjoittajan mielestä) liian pitkälle meneviä johtopäätöksiä. Ok.
Itse näen, että käsitteellä "reducted report" kirjeen kirjoittaja viittaa OPCW:n alustavaan, lyhyeen raporttiin, joka tuli ulos pari viikkoa kirjoittajan mailin jälkeen. Ei suinkaan lopulliseen raporttiin joka tuli ulos yli puoli vuotta alustavan raportin jälkeen. Kaikki kirjoittajan kuvaamat ongelmat koskevat selvästi alustavaa raporttia.
Jos toisaalta näin ei ole, vaan kirjoittaja viittaa johonkin lopullisen raportin versioon (kuten Bellingcat olettaa), herää kysymys, miksi OPCW julkaisi alustavan raportin vajavaisin tiedoin muutamaa viikkoa tämän kriitikon kirjeen jälkeen vaikka sillä oli enemmän tietoa käytössään ja ongelmakohtia jotka tulivat mukaan lopulliseen raporttiin oli jo esitetty?
Kovin sekavaa touhua.