MIT Professor Disputes Evidence of Sarin Attack

Spewing forth a series of disjointed assertions is not a rebuttal or even an argument for that matter. Nor is attacking the source.

And how does exercising skepticism of the US government's propaganda make me biased against my own country? Are you one of these people who does not make a distinction between a country and its government?

 

Now you just sound like a toddler.

 

Perhaps it is just my iPad, but the link was indistinguishable from the rest of the text, thanks for the link though. As far as the link to your source goes, what evidence do you have that Postol was the author? From what I see, a person named Osama Husseini claims that Postol sent him the data. Perhaps that is true, but perhaps it is not. I wish Postol had used a MIT server or perhaps makes a future public appearance to argue his claim.

 

Here is an interview with Postol where he discusses it:

 

Not the one's living in Israel. It's the ones firing rockets at Israeli children and hiding behind Arab women and children.

 

That's reassuring.

 

Thanks for the video and let me say that it is refreshing to meet one who is so civil when their source is challenged... a rare commodity on the forums. I accept the video as irrefutable evidence of Postol being the source and do I challenge his findings, thank you!

 

It's definitely got a pro-Russian slant to it, and again, the claims made by Postol, assuming he really wrote it, aren't that convincing.

As noted in the main body of my earlier report, the assumption in WHR that the site of the alleged sarin release had not been tampered with was totally unjustified and no competent intelligence analyst would have agreed that this assumption was valid. The implication of this observation is clear – the WHR was not reviewed and released by any competent intelligence expert unless they were motivated by factors other than concerns about the accuracy of the report.

The WHR also makes claims about “communications intercepts” which supposedly provide high confidence that the Syrian government was the source of the attack. There is no reason to believe that the veracity of this claim is any different from the now verified false claim that there was unambiguous evidence of a sarin release
at the cited crater.

...

In this case, the president, supported by his staff, made a decision to launch 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase. This action was accompanied by serious risks of creating a confrontation with Russia, and also undermining cooperative efforts to win the war against the Islamic State.

It could easily be genuine. The guy actually has a history of being pro-Russia in his claims. But, as I've said, what he presents here is basically nothing. He's attacking the evidence of the crater based on... YouTube videos. And then dismissing the signal intelligence without any reason beyond claiming we can't trust the source of the report.

 

As long as the challenge is done in good faith, it's not a problem for me.

 

You think everyone who questions neocon propaganda is "pro-Russian". In reality, they're just pro-reason.

 

Personally I would like to see a peer review of his claims.

 

Hey, Durandal, were you "pro-Russian" back when you were saying things like this...

Or this...

I suppose you were a paid agent of Putin back then? How else to explain your constant anti-American posting?

 

Back in the day, RT was Durandal's favorite source:

How much was Putin paying you to spread his propaganda? Why did you stop working for him?

 

Still can't address the facts, I see. Again, typical.

 

I suspect our motivations were similar. Perhaps one day you will understand.

 

You didn't post any facts. You just keep making the same empty assertions again and again with nothing to back them up except "the US government said so".

 

Why did you stop working for the Kremlin? Did the CIA make you a better offer or something? Explain to the forum why you did a complete reversal. It's hard to take you seriously otherwise.

 

Blinded by ideology. Poor guy.

You have fun being miserable online. I'm going to step out and enjoy life and mother nature for a while.

 

You cannot make your case using logic or evidence, so you resort to character assassination and logical fallacies.

Talk about being blind.

In any case, "the US government says so" is not an argument or a rebuttal. It's just a mindless appeal to authority.

 

Why does Durandal run away every time I bring up his dodgy past? What is he hiding?

I mean, it's only reasonable to wonder why someone who posted "pro-Russian" threads for months suddenly reversed himself and joined in with the rest of the anti-Russian extremists.

 

The State Dep't has been lying their faces off to the American people about Syria since the insurgency started.

The propaganda voice for Russia (RT.news) is a better source than those guys and the mainstream media.

 

Objectively how do you know that the State Department lies more than RT?

 

It is not about who lies more. They are both purveyors of Propaganda. In the case of Syria the State Dept has been lying way more. The Gov't has been telling the people that they are trying to get rid of ISIS. The Truth is that they want ISIS around to fight Assad.

The Syrian Rebels overwhelmingly radical Islamist Jihadists (Salafi, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, ISIS) and have been from the beginning. US, in conjunction with Saud, Qatar, Turkey and others armed and supported these Jihadists and things got out of hand so they had to create the "Moderate Rebel Lie", a completely false narrative to cover the fact that they were supporting groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The UN has accused the rebels of using chemical weapons such as Chlorine and Sarin Gas. Shortly after the Idleb gas attack, Gov't spokespersons clamed defacto "the rebels do not have Sarin" to try and bolster their case. This is a demonstrable lie and it is not some big secret (except to US citizens because the mainstream media is a controlled propaganda machine - just like Russia).

Russia has no reason to create propaganda in relation to the US supporting Al Qaeda - they just need to tell the truth.

You will find many articles on RT that are from the US (US sources) but, are not reported in the mainstream media - negative stuff of course but that does not make it any less true.

At the end of the day I really do not care about Russian Propaganda .. That is not my country. What bothers me is the US Gov't and the mainstream media are purveyors of lies, false narratives and propaganda in relation to foreign policy.

 

I'm trying to remember some instances of the State Department telling the truth. At this moment, I'm stumped. I keep thinking of Victoria Nuland's escapades.

Maybe by tomorrow I will remember a truthful statement coming from Department of State....

 

Can't really prove they're lying as it stands. But that's not really the point. They are the ones making the claim that Assad's forces were responsible for the chemical incident in Syria, therefore the onus is on them to prove their case. So far, they have failed to do so. Their case essentially boils down to "trust us".