[redcarpet]

Haaretz post in full on France's 'assessment' of Syria's alleged chemical weapons.

You be the judge; https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/full-text-french-declassified-intelligence-report-on-syria-gas-attack-1.5995544

[Heisenberg]

That document was Macron's "proof"?

The whole report is littered with conjecture and appeals to completely unsourced "reliable intelligence", and the only evidence it offers is publicly available video on the internet. From this, it concludes:

On the basis of this overall assessment and on the intelligence collected by our services, and in the absence to date of chemical samples analysed by our own laboratories, France therefore considers (i) that, beyond possible doubt, a chemical attack was carried out against civilians at Douma on 7 April 2018; and (ii) that there is no plausible scenario other than that of an attack by Syrian armed forces as part of a wider offensive in the Eastern Ghouta enclave.

Bolding mine.

This is an astonishingly flimsy case to base a war on.

[noemon]

This is an astonishingly flimsy case to base a war on.

It is still an upgrade from this:

[redcarpet]

To pick one example (my emphasis)

This attack,carried out in two phases, at Latamneh on 30 March, and then at Khan Sheikhoun with sarin gas on 4 April,led to the death of more than 80 civilians.

The French authorities considered at the time that it was very likely that the Syrian armed and security forces held responsibility for the attack.

Note not 'absolutely certain' or 'unquestionably' or 'beyond reasonable doubt'. There are more similar examples with similar qualifications. This is verrrrrrry familiar, only with the rhetoric about WMD in Iraq the qualifications from the intelligence was removed, etc, before Tony Blair & others presented their 'evidence'.

Correspondingly; why no depositing of the evidence to the ICC prosecutor? There is no list of names for suspects, if these are war criminals then what......isn't the evidence enough even for warrants? Apparently not!

[Atlantis]

Non-governmental medical organizations active in Ghouta (the Syrian American Medical Society and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations), whose information is generally reliable, publicly stated that strikes had targeted in particular local medical infrastructure on 6 and 7 April.

I stopped reading here. SAMS is a US-based organisation funded by USAID to support the US-sponsored Islamist head-choppers in Syria.

[Negotiator]

I am pretty shocked right now. Did Macron actually believe this paper ?

Because if he didnt, he would have tried to hide it, just like everybody else does try to hide their "evidence", for good reason.

But since he didnt blocked this piece of information from being released, that means he actually must believe this would constitute hard evidence.

If he actually believes THAT, that must mean that Macron is incredibly naive and stupid. Whow !

As I said, I'm very shocked right now.

What gives ? The value of the paper is even below that of the social media messages we already knew of from the very start.

We need an independent investigator.

[Atlantis]

If he actually believes THAT, that must mean that Macron is incredibly naive and stupid. Whow !

No, I'm afraid he is doing what French presidents have always done.

Faced with protests at home, the French president shows to La Grande Nation that it still is a great power. That has a number of advantages:

- it diverts attention from domestic problems (protests over labor reforms, etc.),

- it gives the illusion to the French that France is a global power,

- it makes the Saudis happy who are negotiating a multi-billion arms deal with the French,

- it demonstrates the performance of French missiles as an export promoting measure.

So no, it's not naive.

Even Hollande managed to improve his ratings in the polls by sending French troops to Mali. It's sad, but it always works in France.

[layman]

The crucial difference being that in Mali they were supporting the government and a large African coalition against islamists.

In Syria the French effectively doing the opposite.

[Zamuel]

:eek: I am pretty shocked right now. Did Macron actually believe this paper ?

Evidently he did ... by releasing it he's sort of owning it.

he actually must believe this would constitute hard evidence.

No, I thing he accepts it as "convincing evidence." Is it really necessary for you to tell us what he thinks?

that must mean that Macron is incredibly naive and stupid.

Obviously not smart enough to slip one past you ... You got him, the duly elected leader of France is your bitch! There is definitely some "naïve and stupid" happening here.

Zam

[Saeko]

I didn't find this report convincing when it came out a few years ago, and I don't find it convincing now.

[Albert]

The French services analysed the testimonies, photos and videos that spontaneously
appeared on specialized websites, in the press and on social media in the hours and
days following the attack. Testimonies obtained by the French services were also
analysed.After examining the videos and images of victims published online, they
were able to conclude with a high degree of confidence that the vast majority are
recent and not fabricated. The spontaneous circulation of these images across all
social networks confirms that they were not video montages or recycled images.
Lastly, some of the entities that published this information are generally considered
reliable.

This is a fucking joke.

On the basis of this overall assessment and on the intelligence collected by our
services, and in the absence to date of chemical samples analysed by our own
laboratories, France therefore considers (i) that, beyond possible doubt, a chemical
attack was carried out against civilians at Douma on 7 April 2018; and (ii) that there
is no plausible scenario other than that of an attack by Syrian armed forces as part
of a wider offensive in the Eastern Ghouta enclave. The Syrian armed and security
forces are also considered to be responsible for other actions in the region as part of
this same offensive in 2017 and 2018. Russia has undeniably provided active military
support to the operations to seize back Ghouta. It has, moreover, provided constant
political cover to the Syrian regime over the employment of chemical weapons, both
at the UN Security Council and at the OPCW, despite conclusions to the contrary by
the JIM.

Can you get more ridiculous then this.

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/count ... ma-eastern

[Rugoz]

...appeals to completely unsourced "reliable intelligence"

Well obviousy, what do you expect. Either you trust that particular agency or not.

This is an astonishingly flimsy case to base a war on.

A limited attack with apparently zero casualties is not a war.

It is still an upgrade from this:

By 2003 a 3-year long UN investigation had found no chemical weapons in Iraq. The last investigation (2017) by the UN and OPCW incriminated the Syrian regime. Meanwhile the OPCW is still waiting for Russia / Syria to grant access to the site.

But hey, why not believe a guy who slaughters his own population because of Powell's obvious farce 15 years ago.

[Heisenberg]

Well obviousy, what do you expect.

I expect that the supposedly brilliant intelligence agencies we pay so much money to maintain, to use a little more than YouTube when claiming they have proven something "beyond possible doubt".

A limited attack with apparently zero casualties is not a war.

This is a somewhat pointless thing to say given that my post was made a couple of hours after the conclusion of the strikes, and while the BBC was still reporting it as "live".

And besides, just the other day, Macron was on TV gloating about how he persuaded Trump to keep US soldiers on the ground in Syria.

The last investigation (2017) by the UN and OPCW incriminated the Syrian regime.

Have you actually read that report? It's a very strange document that doesn't really justify the conclusions made by the authors.

But hey, why not believe a guy who slaughters his own population because of Powell's obvious farce 15 years ago.

Actually, I think treating western intelligence agencies and governments with a sceptical eye is a perfectly rational response to the abject disaster of the Iraq war, particularly when it is so plainly obvious that they have ulterior motives for wanting to get involved in Syria.

[Albert]

We should too conduct an investigation on PoFo here by looking at online images.

After conducting my analysis of the current events arising. I here conclusively conclude beyond any whatsoever reasonable doubt that this attack was stages by alien reptilian personal to bring humanity closer to self-destruction.

[Rugoz]

Have you actually read that report? It's a very strange document that doesn't really justify the conclusions made by the authors.

This one? Have you read it? They analyze a number of scenarios and find one most likely. I don't expect 100% certainty and they don't claim it ("confidant" is the word).

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/at ... 17_904.pdf

[skinster]

^

[Atlantis]

Meanwhile the OPCW is still waiting for Russia / Syria to grant access to the site.

It's really amazing how the incessant drip feeding of Western propaganda has turned you all into bleating sheep.

1. The OPCW are in Syria at the urgent invitation of Russia and Syria and despite the opposition of the UK/US, who vetoed an investigation at the UN security council.

2. The OPCW is supposed to be a neutral organisation, yet the British delegation of the OPCW uses the mission as a propaganda tool against Russia and Syria.

3. Despite false reporting by the Western media, the OPCW has already arrived Douma where British journalists are apparently free to wonder about.

4. The UK/US members of the OPCW claim that the Russians are manipulating the site of the alleged chemical attack. Yet, not only do they have no evidence, but the mere accusation is so stupid that only a the bleating sheep would believe such a thing. How do you remove all traces of a chemical weapons attack? Remove all buildings? Excavate the soil? Remove all objects? Remove the blood, hair and all other body cells from the alleged 500 poisoned victims without leaving a trace? And that in the chaos of a war zone in ruin just liberated from the terrorists?

5. While it is impossible to remove all environmental and biometric traces of a chemical attack, it is very easy to contaminate a site with chemical toxins to simulate a chemical attack in a false flag operation. That is particularly easy for the British authorities in peacetime Salisbury, where they have full control of the site and the victims and where the OPCW mission has been delayed by nearly 3 weeks by the British. That's more than enough time for the British to contaminate the site and/or the samples.

6. Just like the Russians have been excluded from the Salisbury investigation as the accused party, the British should be excluded from the Douma investigation as the accused party. Yet they use the OPCW as a propaganda tool against the Russian. The Anglo imperialists are undermining the role of the UN, the WTO, the OPCW and international law.

[skinster]

[Rugoz]

@Atlantis
Your hatred of the UK/US is pathological at this point. This is a thread about French intelligence, your beloved Merkel of Germany said the strikes were "necessary and appropriate". The UN-OPCW report I cited was signed by 3 individuals on the leadership panel, none of them British/American. Clear your head.

[Heisenberg]

This one? Have you read it?

Yeah, that's the one. I remember reading it when it was first leaked. The report is littered with very strange discrepancies, and doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny. For example:

-The investigators note in the report that they never visited the site of the alleged attack.
-The people who first "identified the presence of sarin" did so using a device, the "Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor" that "was not known to be able to detect sarin"
-That hospitals began admitting patients with "sarin poisoning" before the attack even allegedly occurred, including in a hospital 125km away from the site.
-That the samples on which the conclusion was based had no reliable custody chain, and in some cases contained wild inconsistencies, such as sarin being present in the urine but not the bloodstream - something medical investigators stated is biologically impossible.
-That victims at Khan Sheikhoun were treated with oxygen and cortisone therapy, which are not treatments for sarin poisoning
-That the response by "rescue workers" was inconsistent with a large scale sarin attack
-That the aircraft that allegedly carried out the attack was never any closer than 3 miles away from the site of the attack.
-That the pilot's claims to have been involved in a conventional weapons strike on another site were consistent with the flight logs, and with the flight data provided by the USA.
-As always, the claims of "non-State actors" including Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusra Front, are treated with significantly less scepticism than they should be.

From this, they conclude that they are "confident" that the aircraft in question dropped bombs containing sarin on Khan Sheikhoun. So like I said, it is a very strange document that doesn't support the conclusions of its authors.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't find that, or the phoned-in French "intelligence" report, very convincing.