Konflikten i Syrien

The reports conclusions are NOT by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or even endorsed by it. They were made by the "Joint Investigative Mechanism" which consists of a Guatemalan diplomat, an UN bureaucrat from Malaysia educated in the U.S. and a chemical expert who works for the Swiss government. It is a political board with a political judgement.

The reasons for that rather vague wording, which is not reflected in the news reports, can be found in the details.

In annex II, on page 36 (of 39) of the pdf, it notes:

Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of victims who died from exposure to chemical agent. The admission times of the records range between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario, or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.

At least 23% of the alleged casualties of the incident WERE ADMITTED TO HOSPITALS BEFORE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED.

The hospital 125 km away, a two hour drive, must have been a regular one in Turkey. It is highly unlikely that such a well organized hospital would mix up the arrival time. It is impossible that the casualties admitted at 0700 hours were those of an incident in Khan Sheikhoun that happened, according to the commission, at 0630. The commission did not investigate the discrepancies and it asserts that it does not determine if the incident was staged or not.

Foreign Ministry: Raqqa still occupied, can only be considered liberated when Syrian Army enters it

30 October، 2017

Damascus, SANA – Syria considers the claims of the United States and its so-called alliance about the liberation of Raqqa city from ISIS to be lies aiming to divert international public opinion from the crimes committed by this alliance in Raqqa province, an official source at the Foreign and Expatriates Ministry told SANA on Sunday.
…
The source concluded by saying that Syria calls on the international community to expose what the US and its pawns did in Raqqa, and demands that Security Council resolutions on respecting the unity of Syria be respected, in addition to demanding the dissolution of this suspicious and illegal alliance.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the rule of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was “coming to an end.” But with the rapid decline of both the Islamic State (or ISIS) and foreign support for the so-called rebels, this notion is wishful thinking for most of the international community. For years, news of Assad’s demise has been greatly exaggerated. So too have the negative consequences of his survival, not because of his record but because the most likely alternative to his rule has been even worse, at least as far as U.S. national security is concerned.

Few observers even know what they’ve been advocating, given the pro-rebel bias among Western media outlets. Although they have assiduously broadcast the blood on Assad’s hands, these outlets have also tended to whitewash the rebels to sell the case for regime change. Take, for instance, the Syrian refugee crisis. The conventional wisdom holds that the refugees are pro-rebel, even though detailed survey research finds that the reality is far more nuanced. Most refugees say they fled Assad. But they also say they fled the armed opposition. By far, the most common explanation was that refugees fled both. Honest reporting about all sides of the conflict is imperative for governments and citizens around the world to understand the nature of the regime and the opposition alike.

To appreciate the pro-rebel bias dominant in Western outlets, compare this past spring’s heavy media coverage of the April 4 chemical attack in the Idlib town of Khan Shaykhun to the comparatively little attention given to the suicide attack in the al-Rashideen neighborhood of western Aleppo that occurred on April 15. As a terrorism researcher, I received nonstop interview requests about the former but almost none about the latter.

One explanation for the disparity in media attention is that only the Khan Shaykhun massacre involved Sarin gas, a chemical weapon of mass destruction often seen as taboo in the international community for its indiscriminate effects. Yet the relatively underreported Rashideen attack was arguably even more gruesome. Whereas the Khan Shaykhun attack killed about 90 people, the Rashideen attack killed at least 126, including 80 children en route to Aleppo as part of an international agreement. The only crime of the victims was being Shiite; they were headed to safer ground because their towns of Fuaa and Kefraya were besieged by rebels. The high child death toll was no accident. The perpetrators lured the hungry children with potato chips moments before the suicide blast destroyed the convoy.