http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43806710

It was in fact Jeremy Corbyn who has raised this issue in the commons since at least last year. And lol at thinking the opposition can force resignations.

the card thing is a red herring, the issue is the hardline far right approach taken in the home office since 2010.

The "decision already taken" doesn't seem to match up with what the whistleblowers are saying. Quite likely there was some sort of general process started under the Labour government, but this specific decision will have been taken on May's watch.

Anyway as I suggested, Corbyn didn't do his homework and missed an open goal.

Historical Interpretation: Judgement Under Uncertainty. by Khanemann and Tversky 1974

Abstract: It's really hard to predict things and hard to explain things, but once one accepts an explanation they are absurdly confident about it.

It's the most convincing explanation yet which hasn't got an obvious contradiction. Fisk interviewed on radio 4 today, the guy is legit. The interviewer asked how he can be sure the people he spoke to weren't plants by the regime. He explained that how could they possibly do this when he was walking freely among thousands of people talking to whoever he wanted to. It isn't absolute proof of course, but this is so much more credible than anything else right now. Luckily no Russian personnel were hit in strikes (which was clearly worked out in advance between Washington and moscow) but imagine if they had been and Russia had to respond, fkn ww3 over this BS story.

Amazing how Fisk is wandering around while the OPCW still can't get to inspect the site...

I doubt foul play

At a meeting in The Hague, the OPCW said it could not confirm if the inspectors had reached Douma yet.

"This policy exists to preserve the integrity of the investigatory process and its results as well as to ensure the safety and security of OPCW experts and personnel involved. All parties are asked to respect the confidentiality parameters required for a rigorous and unimpeded investigation." OPCW said in a statement

https://news.sky.com/story/opcw-chem...douma-11334938

A delay yes but they will still beat the Salisbury door handle smear clean up by a fair margin.

And ever heard of journalists taking risks? The attempted Fisk smear is a fail btw.

I didn't read his article, but isn't seeing/hearing things that haven't been put there for him his job? He might actually be quite good at it.

You're behind the curve. Fisk still wandering happily around but the OPCW have to withdraw because of shooting... in an area fully under Russian control

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43792120

This is a very good read about Fisk. He's been running around embedded with Syrian troops. It explains the methods he uses to try to defend the regime and cast doubt on accusations made by 'the West'.

https://pulsemedia.org/2016/12/03/ro...st-journalism/

It's actually pretty remarkable when you look at the methods he uses, and then go back and read the article Tom posted from him and you can see them there.

As an example from the article I posted about Fisk:

"Back to the ambulance. Fisk is in Aleppo embedded with Syrian soldiers, but he begins his article with a (by now familiar) disclaimer: “The Syrian military had not touched it. No one told us it was there.” He sees no reason to doubt when his handlers describe one bombed building as “a Nusrah explosives factory, destroyed with a massive bomb”. The bomb also destroyed the ambulance, but Fisk wastes no time ruing its destruction. Instead he plants his allegation in the form of question (so that it absolves him of the need for evidence). “Was [the ambulance] used by the people of eastern Aleppo and the surrounding countryside and then later seized by Nusrah for its own use?”

Fisk wants you to take it for granted that Nusrah was using the ambulance. Then comes the denial heavy with suggestion. “There was no sign that it had been carrying weapons”, he writes. This is about as innocent as someone telling an ascetic: “I have no reason to believe you are a paedophile”. (Call it the B3 ruse.) But for good measure, Fisk adds: “and Nusrah, after all, has its own wounded”—just in case you missed who Fisk wants you to think was using the ambulance."

From the article Tom posted:

"The White Helmets – the medical first responders already legendary in the West but with some interesting corners to their own story – played a familiar role during the battles. They are partly funded by the Foreign Office and most of the local offices were staffed by Douma men. I found their wrecked offices not far from Dr Rahaibani’s clinic. A gas mask had been left outside a food container with one eye-piece pierced and a pile of dirty military camouflage uniforms lay inside one room. Planted, I asked myself? I doubt it. The place was heaped with capsules, broken medical equipment and files, bedding and mattresses.

Of course we must hear their side of the story, but it will not happen here: a woman told us that every member of the White Helmets in Douma abandoned their main headquarters and chose to take the government-organised and Russian-protected buses to the rebel province of Idlib with the armed groups when the final truce was agreed."

The Ahmad piece is problematic:

Firstly he sets 'the context' by evidencing that it is the sovereign government that is responsible for the bulk of the violence. The true context is, as we know, far more complicated with human rights abuses on all sides in a multi faceted proxy war. Turks, Syrians, Americans, British, French, Russians and the myriad of Jihadist groups are at large. To ignore this for the sake of attacking Fisk isn't particularly honest.

Re the comment on the bombing of the Scottish ambulance Ahmad says

he heavily implies that the bombing was merited... Fisk’s allies are not facts but suggestion, insinuation and innuendo. His method is insidious and part of a pattern. It merits closer scrutiny.

Unfortunately we cannot scrutinise this at all because there is no link to the original.

Next he argues with regard to the perpetrators of Daraya massacre that Fisk spoke to 'a few frightened survivors' but misses out a key statement from Fisk

we could talk to civilians out of earshot of Syrian officials – in two cases in the security of their own homes

a very different emphasis to Ahmad's interpretation. Fisk's authenticity is precisely the occasional vagueness, Ahmad's firm insistence on the Syrian regime being largely to blame is much more suspect.

He puts much faith in a journalist Janine Di Giovanni claiming she had 'sneaked into Daraya disguised as a local and interviewed survivors without the intimidating presence of regime forces' and that 'human rights watch corroborated her report'. However in the Guardian article linked there is no such claim that she sneaked in disguised, and

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has interviewed Daraya residents and analysed satellite images of the battle, evidence points towards government responsibility for the killings, although it is not clear whether uniformed men or the shabiha militia carried out the killings after the town was bombed by helicopters and shelled.

So who is corroborating who and who did the interviews? I cannot find anything about the Daraya massacre on the HRW website. There is nothing in the piece which shows regime forces responsible for the massacre. This is not to say they weren't, but it certainly does not 'quickly set the record straight' as Ahmad claims. In the other Guardian links there are lots of interviews done by Skype. make of that what you will.
Re the rest of it, havent got time now but I can safely say this guy is looking rather suspect.

I'd suggest there's nothing controversial at all about saying the sovereign government is responsible for the bulk of the violence. I don't even think there's any point going further into this though given how deep you've gone into foil hat wearing territory. Others on the thread can read the article and take what they will from it, it's a pretty good critique of Fisk. Obviously a true believer such as yourself will prefer to ignore the evidence (a common theme lately)

How is exposing very obvious flaws in his argument tin foil hat?
It's very weird to be called a true believer (in what?) when my only principle on the matter is to question and expose lies being told by this government to take the country to war.

Fine to end this discussion but just square this one if you can:

Ahmad says

The record was quickly set straight by the American journalist Janine di Giovanni who sneaked into Daraya disguised as a local and interviewed survivors without the intimidating presence of regime forces.

Di Giovanni says

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), which has interviewed Daraya residents and analysed satellite images of the battle

The guy is supposed to be an academic

Emily Thornberry on QT last night jfc

Thornberry I might find more obnoxious that C****n, McDonnell or Abbott. The latter three I think are just clueless wingnuts, Thornberry seems like a legit piece of ****.

Ooh I'll watch it then, i thought she was useless on foreign policy but if she gets the jingos riled it's got to be good right?

Wow you guys got angry over that. Still useless on foreign policy BTW.

We'll see who is riled when she's anointed the next Labour leader.

That will end the labour party for 10 years. She's totally horrible.

Here's Dan Kaszeta, late of the United States Secret Service, on Putin's use of the UNSC veto over Syria, which indicates exactly what Corbyn means by saying he'd never allow British military action without UNSC (i.e. Putin's) approval.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-an...curity-council

Here's Dan again, not really liking Thornberry's treasonous toeing of the Moscow Line.

She's about ten years older than I thought so kudos for that. But she's pretty awful.

I don't think she'll become the next leader unless ... Labour decide to go for an all female leadership contest which has been mooted (I think by Harriet Harman). Abbott I presume is just an absolute no go even for the Labour membership which leaves Thornberry as the highest profile C****nista. I think Rebecca Long-Bailey or Angela Rayner would do better but who knows?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...inal-zrls7p058