HRW report on Syrian chemical weapons: Speculation and conjecture.

Human Rights Watch lose any remaining credibility with unsubstantiated claims of Syrian crimes.

The HRW report begins with:

‘(New York) – New evidence supports the conclusion that Syrian government forces have used nerve agents on at least four occasions in recent months: on April 4, 2017, in a chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun that killed at least 92 people, and on three other occasions in December 2016 and March 2017, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.’

‘These attacks are part of a broader pattern of Syrian government forces’ use of chemical weapons. The attacks are widespread and systematic and in some cases have been directed against the civilian population.’

Shocking stuff and if you would like to read the full report go here.

‘In at least some of the attacks, the intention appears to have been to inflict severe suffering on the civilian population.’

‘Human Rights Watch interviewed 60 people with first-hand knowledge of the chemical attacks and their immediate aftermath, and reviewed dozens of photos and videos of impact sites and victims that were posted online and provided directly by local residents, but was unable to conduct ground investigations of the attack sites.’

Well, I’ve read quite a bit of this report now and I still don’t know what this new evidence is. Sixty people interviewed by HRW with first hand knowledge of the attacks ….but was unable to conduct ground investigations.

HRW have spoken to local residents, the report says. I would like to know the name and occupation of these witnesses to verify their credibility. I would also like a full list of the victims, along with their age and place of residence.

Certain chemical weapons can kill in a minute or two. An attack that was carried out so early in the morning would be expected to affect most people in their homes. Why are the victims being treated in what looks like an old quarry? Women would be expected to be a higher percentage of the victims if the region functions as many other societies, where the man of the house may have left to go to work. However, there was only one female victim in the clips of the aftermath and no one appeared to try and help her.

If the White Helmet ‘first responders’ were adherents to the more strict Islamic teachings, it would be forbidden for them to actually touch a female victim. Although it would seem that in an emergency, it is allowed. If, as many people believe, the White Helmet scenario’s are in fact pure drama then ‘helping a woman’ wouldn’t actually be an emergency, so it would be forbidden. How many women have been pulled from the rubble by White Helmet first responders?

I’ll take a bit of a guess and say ‘zero women’ have been rescued. Plenty of children, plenty of dusty men, but no women. This fact above anything else convinces me that the ‘rescues’ are all recorded drama.

Back to the HWR report. I noticed there were four times the term ‘consistent with’ were used. There are four ‘appears to’ and three ‘appear’. For such a short report, the element of doubt is apparent.

‘An opposition-affiliated activist and local residents provided the names of 64 people who died from chemical exposure in the December attacks.’

Surely, they have registers of newly born, deaths, marriages and such?

To summarise, the Human Rights Watch report is re-hashed accusations, full of claims by anti Assad activists and NO on site investigation. Kenneth Roth needs to get some writers in to provide new ideas and impetus for his increasingly unbelievable fairy tales.