3 ms·

Russians had to beg for the OPCW to go collect samples from Douma. While they were there, UK, FR, US were having fun bombing the area. How can more Russian FUD

Russians had to beg for the OPCW to go collect samples from Douma. While they were there, UK, FR, US were having fun bombing the area. How can more Russian FUD be good for Russia? Because that is UK and US do everyday. They dont need Russia help. Also OPCW does analysis in more than one lab. Both Skripal and Syria chemical use theories are very weak.

megous 8y ago
Not really. Point me to the OPCW report that says evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria is weak. FUD is good, because it takes away/weakens popular support from any kind of western intervention, which is good for Putin's interests in the region. Less competition. Also you're rewriting history. I was actually watching the developments quite closely as it was happening and there were numerous reports of Russians delaying OPCW FFM on basis of security in the area, while at the same time parading around some journalists in the same area. And last, the US and friends bombing were during the night and in a different place. Certainly nothing that would prevent OPCW FFM from operating in the area.
- guilhas 8y ago
  I said theories. As in "Russia stands to gain from Skripal poisoning, only they had the method, it was a state operation, approved by Putin, during election campaign and FIFA2018" And "Assad gassing his people while wining the war". But you also have reports from UN/OPCW that the rebeles were the ones to chemical weapons, or that there were no chemical weapons used in Douma. I don't see how FUD of Russia damages western intervention. Also the disaster of previous western interventions, and the current in Syria supporting the terrorists speaks for itself. Russia vetoed a US UN resolution to determine responsibles without an FFM, just relying on the civil society and media reports. Other Russia delaying news were already almost 10 days in, including after US bombings. They say it was for security reasons, and there were shotings while the investigators were there. Also if there were journalists parading how could they interfere with the evidence? They bombed in Douma area also. Which was strange since investigators were on their way. Also taking action before the investigation does not sound very credible.
  - megous 8y ago
    All you said was that chemical use theories are weak. Yet they are not weak. Chemical weapons are used in Syria almost since the beginning of the uprising. For example, OPCW determined Sarin was used several times in 2017. So chemical weapons are used in Syria. There are almost no reports of other parties than ISIS and Assad using chemical weapons. Quantity matters. It's like 1:100. I can think of one incident near Aleppo, that's always used in these conversations. It's actually one of the ways Russian propaganda works. There's no proportionality involved. It's just Assad does this. Oh no, other people do it too, so... presumably it's ok? or it's messy, so presumably we should all give Putin free hand to do what he likes? Yes, corrupt rebels are no better in principle than Assad, but amount of damage they did and can do is very limited, compared to actual damage done by the regime to people who protested against it. And it's not just rebel groups vs Assad, there's also much larger civil society, that just dislikes all corrupt leaders and wants to have a peaceful life for once. And these people have much better chance organizing against local warlords, if Assad would not constantly attack them. > Which was strange since investigators were on their way. Also taking action before the investigation does not sound very credible. Perhaps, but it turned out to be right, according to preliminary report.
- antpls 8y ago
  I have been starting to read TASS news in parallel to Reuters' feed. From only reading news, I don't know which side to trust anymore. Putin's gov denies almost all accusations (cyberattacks, chimical attacks, nerve agents, etc) from Western countries, and instead accuses the West govs of creating a "russo-phobia" amongst people opinion. Example of news you can read on TASS, but not relayed by Reuters : http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/world/1021091 http://tass.com/world/1021091 And it goes on and on... If you only read TASS, you would quickly think Western govs are not much "cleaner" than Russia
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Reuters isn't a state-owned propaganda outlet; TASS has been since at least the early days of the Bolshevik regime (and maybe earlier; it was state-owned telegraph agency under the Tsarist regime, but I don't have any information of whether it acted as a state propaganda arm then; it's journalist came from a separate firm.)
    - guilhas 8y ago
      That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. And commentators with different opinions being shutdown.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. A simple explanation for that is that facts exist and impact the coverage presented by media outlets that make some effort to do what their overt role is. I mean, alternatively, you could suspect,as you imply, that all non-fringe media that aren't state run propaganda arms of US rivals are, in fact, US state propaganda outlets pushing CIA/NSA scripted narratives. Well, except when Paul Manafort isn't planting propaganda for Russian client regimes in them, at any rate.

megous 8y ago

Not really. Point me to the OPCW report that says evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria is weak. FUD is good, because it takes away/weakens popular support from any kind of western intervention, which is good for Putin's interests in the region. Less competition. Also you're rewriting history. I was actually watching the developments quite closely as it was happening and there were numerous reports of Russians delaying OPCW FFM on basis of security in the area, while at the same time parading around some journalists in the same area. And last, the US and friends bombing were during the night and in a different place. Certainly nothing that would prevent OPCW FFM from operating in the area.

guilhas 8y ago
I said theories. As in "Russia stands to gain from Skripal poisoning, only they had the method, it was a state operation, approved by Putin, during election campaign and FIFA2018" And "Assad gassing his people while wining the war". But you also have reports from UN/OPCW that the rebeles were the ones to chemical weapons, or that there were no chemical weapons used in Douma. I don't see how FUD of Russia damages western intervention. Also the disaster of previous western interventions, and the current in Syria supporting the terrorists speaks for itself. Russia vetoed a US UN resolution to determine responsibles without an FFM, just relying on the civil society and media reports. Other Russia delaying news were already almost 10 days in, including after US bombings. They say it was for security reasons, and there were shotings while the investigators were there. Also if there were journalists parading how could they interfere with the evidence? They bombed in Douma area also. Which was strange since investigators were on their way. Also taking action before the investigation does not sound very credible.
- megous 8y ago
  All you said was that chemical use theories are weak. Yet they are not weak. Chemical weapons are used in Syria almost since the beginning of the uprising. For example, OPCW determined Sarin was used several times in 2017. So chemical weapons are used in Syria. There are almost no reports of other parties than ISIS and Assad using chemical weapons. Quantity matters. It's like 1:100. I can think of one incident near Aleppo, that's always used in these conversations. It's actually one of the ways Russian propaganda works. There's no proportionality involved. It's just Assad does this. Oh no, other people do it too, so... presumably it's ok? or it's messy, so presumably we should all give Putin free hand to do what he likes? Yes, corrupt rebels are no better in principle than Assad, but amount of damage they did and can do is very limited, compared to actual damage done by the regime to people who protested against it. And it's not just rebel groups vs Assad, there's also much larger civil society, that just dislikes all corrupt leaders and wants to have a peaceful life for once. And these people have much better chance organizing against local warlords, if Assad would not constantly attack them. > Which was strange since investigators were on their way. Also taking action before the investigation does not sound very credible. Perhaps, but it turned out to be right, according to preliminary report.
antpls 8y ago
I have been starting to read TASS news in parallel to Reuters' feed. From only reading news, I don't know which side to trust anymore. Putin's gov denies almost all accusations (cyberattacks, chimical attacks, nerve agents, etc) from Western countries, and instead accuses the West govs of creating a "russo-phobia" amongst people opinion. Example of news you can read on TASS, but not relayed by Reuters : http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021365 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/politics/1021274 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/defense/1021107 http://tass.com/world/1021091 http://tass.com/world/1021091 And it goes on and on... If you only read TASS, you would quickly think Western govs are not much "cleaner" than Russia
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Reuters isn't a state-owned propaganda outlet; TASS has been since at least the early days of the Bolshevik regime (and maybe earlier; it was state-owned telegraph agency under the Tsarist regime, but I don't have any information of whether it acted as a state propaganda arm then; it's journalist came from a separate firm.)
  - guilhas 8y ago
    That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. And commentators with different opinions being shutdown.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > That doesn't mean CIA/NSA doesn't influence it. You can clearly see the same narrative across all mainstream media. A simple explanation for that is that facts exist and impact the coverage presented by media outlets that make some effort to do what their overt role is. I mean, alternatively, you could suspect,as you imply, that all non-fringe media that aren't state run propaganda arms of US rivals are, in fact, US state propaganda outlets pushing CIA/NSA scripted narratives. Well, except when Paul Manafort isn't planting propaganda for Russian client regimes in them, at any rate.