Konflikten i Syrien

Kanske därför Mattis är så "adament".

Nu ljuger du så klockorna stannar. Ryssland ville ha till stånd en djupare utredning på plats då man såg de uppenbara bristerna i FN-rapporten där bl.a. hypotesen att "rebellerna" iscensatt kemattacken inte fanns med.

Det är dynga som du sprider!

Vad du inte erkänner och det vi försöker få dig att förstå är att det finns problem i HRW:s, Amnestys och andra NGO:s metodik och objektivitet. Här är lite om Amnesty:

/.../Amnesty effectively had no-one ‘on the ground’ during the Syrian conflict, with one
exception. In late 2016, during the battle for Aleppo, media coordinator for Amnesty in
Australia Samuel Hendricks told this writer ‘we do not currently have staff on the ground in
Syria … it is simply not feasible … [however] our senior crisis response adviser Donatella
Rovera, has crossed the border into Syria 10 times … [and] we’ve been documenting
atrocities since the conflict began’ (Hendricks 2016). However Rovera only went (illegally)
into the jihadist held northern areas of Syria. She had prepared the group’s partisan and
misleading reports about Libya; the discredited claims that Amnesty France would later
retract (Cockburn 2011; Kuperman 2015). Yet she was contracted to prepare a set of similar
stories on Syria. On the basis of her visits and testimony from jihadist controlled areas,
Amnesty reported alleged ‘ongoing crimes against humanity’ by the Syrian Army (Amnesty
2012a).

Other than Rovera’s reports and some interviews outside Syria, Amnesty relied on those same
sources embedded in the ‘regime change’ project, including Rami Abdul Rahman’s ‘Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights’. Although the SOHR does not reveal its method, Amnesty
researcher Neil Sammonds claimed Abdul Rahman’s ‘information on the killings of civilians
is very good, definitely one of the best, including the details on the conditions in which people
were supposedly killed’ (MacFarquar 2013). Sammonds does not demonstrate any basis for
concluding that information from this openly partisan source was ‘very good’.

Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International, claimed that Amnesty investigates
‘in a very systematic, primary, way where we collect evidence with our own staff on the
ground … [with] corroboration and cross-checking from all parties … it’s very important to
get different points of view and constantly cross check and verify the facts’ (Shetty 2014).
Yet, contrary to these claims, the group relied on third party evidence from sources closely
linked to armed groups in Syria, in particular the SOHR and the SNHR. Scottish academic
Tim Hayward criticises Amnesty for its claims that its research has been ‘systematic’, from
‘primary sources’, verified by corroboration and cross checked with all parties concerned. He
concluded that Amnesty research on Syria does not qualify on any of those counts (Hayward
2017).

https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TA-hum-war-18-1.pdf

https://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1390226674736/syria-report-execution-tort.pdf - På plats och fastställd som genuin av välrespekterade jurister och sakexperter. Samt av internationella organisationer som HRW, Amnesty och FN.

http://activityreport2016.msf.org/country/syria/

https://web.archive.org/web/20120616231620/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/041/2012/en/30416985-883b-4e67-b386-0df14a79f694/mde240412012en.pdf

Alla rapporter från personer som varit på PLATS.

För Ryssland har ingen anledning att rentvå Assadregimen om bevisen pekat i den riktningen?

Vill fortfarande ha bevis på att kredibla människorättsorganisationer baserat sina slutsatser genom att förlita sig på muslimska brödraskapets propaganda.

Du bör också bemöta föreställningen om statligt agerande i krig och om hur jag ser irrationalitet som en naturlig del av deras krigföring.

Jag sa oberoende folk på plats:

/.../Second, there was the issue of Qatar’s morgue photos, released in January 2014. These
photos, presented by an anonymous defector code-named ‘Caesar’, purported to show
thousands of ‘opposition’ prisoners in Syria who had been tortured to death by ‘the regime’.
Many of the photos seemed to come from a morgue attached to a major hospital in Damascus.
‘Caesar’ was given asylum by the tiny oil-rich monarchy of Qatar, a major sponsor of the
jihadist groups (Shapiro 2013; Dickinson 2014). The story was thus sponsored by a
belligerent party and uncorroborated. Qatar hired some British lawyers to provide a
‘bootstraps’ seal of approval. Thus it was reported that ‘senior war crimes prosecutors say
photographs and documents provide ‘clear evidence’ of systematic killing of 11,000
detainees” (Black 2014). Forensic science experts were said to have examined and
authenticated samples of 55,000 digital images, comprising about 11,000 victims. ‘Overall
there was evidence that a significant number of the deceased were emaciated and a significant
minority had been bound and/or beaten with rod-like objects’, the Qatari financed report said
(Black 2014). Dozens of photos were widely publicised, but the full file was not made public.

Almost two years later HRW got the full file, and ran much the same story, except for one
important extra detail. Almost half the photos, HRW admitted, were those of ‘dead army
soldiers or members of the security forces’, or the victims of ‘explosions, assassinations …
fires and car bombs’ (HRW 2015: 2-3). This had never been mentioned before and, for the
rest of the HRW report, was not mentioned again. Without making public the full file, HRW
said that ‘the largest category of photographs, 28,707 images, are photographs of people
Human Rights Watch understands to have died in government custody’. Those photos had a
consistent numbering pattern to them and there were ‘multiple photographs of each body’,
sometimes as many as twenty. These photos were estimated to ‘correspond to at least 6,786
separate dead individuals’ (HRW 2015). However HRW, while admitting that at least 27,000
photos of dead bodies did not depict prisoners of ‘the regime’, proceeded to ignore them.
HRW simply said ‘this report focuses on analyzing the first category of photographs in
greater detail’ (HRW 2015: 3). The casual reader of the HRW report might not even have
noticed the admission that almost half these secret photos had nothing to do with ‘industrial
scale’ killing of ‘opposition’ people (Black 2014). It was a particularly brazen deceit by HRW
to maintain the original story, when they knew better. Rick Sterling (2016) pointed out that
partisan publicity over these photos came on the eve of peace negotiations.

https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TA-hum-war-18-1.pdf

Tim Anderson

De är oberoende din jävla idiot.

Referenser finns i originaldokumentet:

https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TA-hum-war-18-1.pdf

Referenser finns i originaldokumentet:

https://counter-hegemonic-studies.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TA-hum-war-18-1.pdf

Och som jag förutsåg, ad hominem är det enda du kan uppbringa tydligen.

God natt din stolle!

Du bemöter inte ett skit man framför och hänvisar till hjärndöda pajaser utan nångon kredibilitet över huvud taget. De är välkända som lakejer utan någon prominens. Det är faktafel vid första sidorna av "rapporten" du hänvisade till.

Lite mer overifierade twitterinlägg att presentera?

HRW can therefore be said to represent a corporatised, US based lobby on rights issues,
catering to the wealthy and closely aligned to US foreign policy (Anderson 2010). Despite its
refusal of government funds, conflicts of interest are apparent. For example, HRW director
Ken Roth regularly attacks US foreign policy enemies, but has been criticised for saying little
about President Obama’s killer drone program (Bhatt 2014b). The main objects of HRW in
Latin America, for many years, were Cuba and Venezuela; mostly ignoring Colombia, key
US ally and the biggest killer of journalists, trade unionists and lawyers (Anderson 2010). At
times the political motivation has been explicit. The 2008 HRW report on Venezuela under
the late President Hugo Chavez mainly focused on issues of political discrimination in
employment and the judiciary (HRW 2008). It was criticised by more than 100 academics
(including this writer) for not meeting ‘even the most minimal standards of scholarship,
impartiality, accuracy or credibility’ (Acuña et al 2008). HRW responded: the report was
written, according to HRW Director for the Americas, José Miguel Vivanco, ‘because we
wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone’ (Roth 2008).
The political agenda was clear.


https://www.hrw.org/report/1996/11/01/colombias-killer-networks/military-paramilitary-partnership-and-united-states

https://www.hrw.org/report/2001/10/04/sixth-division/military-paramilitary-ties-and-us-policy-colombia

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/colombia#73fccc

Motbevisat med en googlesökning.

Tim Anderson bör inte tas på allvar av någon med genuint intresse av händelseförloppen i Syrien.

Fortfarande ad hominem? Annars heter det kognitiv dissonans. Jag vet mycket väl vem Tim Andersson är men jag finner honom minst lika trovärdig till de du refererar till som helt och hållet förlitar sig på ena parten i konflikten. Det finns liksom inget vetenskapligt att några högt uppsatta advokater helt köper någons historia och överser med uppenbara problem i materialet framför dem. För att inte tala om det ologiska i att torterare skulle medvetet dokumentera sina brott systematiskt.

Som sagt, Tim Andersson må vara partisk men han pekar dock på besvärande omständigheter kring dessa organisationer och som du verkar ha stora problem att bemöta. Istället blir det personangrepp och hyperboliska argument för hur förträffliga alla dessa NGO:s är. Märkligt med tanke på din motvilja mot "imperialister" att du förbiser sådana saker. Det gör att jag verkligen tror att din din humanism är spelad för att ge tyngd till ditt dyngspridande.