BBC documentary about 'Syrian chemical weapons attack' had serious inaccuracies

[Lemoentjie]

Finally one of the biggest hoaxes of all time is being revealed. The anti-Assad, anti-Russia Western elites have been exposed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chens.html

Last week – nearly ten months after the broadcast – the ECU delivered its finding that the BBC was wrong to insinuate that 'Alex' was motivated to go public about his doubts over the attack by the prospect of a $100,000 (£72,000) reward from the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

No such reward was ever paid, according to WikiLeaks.

The BBC also accepted it had no evidence to back up its claim that 'Alex', a highly qualified and apolitical scientist, believed the attack in Douma, which prompted retaliatory missile strikes by Britain, the US and France, had been staged.

In its ruling, the Corporation withdrew the imputation that Mr Hitchens, who has reported on despotic regimes for more than 40 years, shared 'the Russian and Syrian state views on the war'.

OPCW whistleblowers are heroes.

At least the yanks and poms got to fire their shiny new toys at Syrian families though, that's what really matters

[Raggs]

Finally one of the biggest hoaxes of all time is being revealed. The anti-Assad, anti-Russia Western elites have been exposed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chens.html

Last week – nearly ten months after the broadcast – the ECU delivered its finding that the BBC was wrong to insinuate that 'Alex' was motivated to go public about his doubts over the attack by the prospect of a $100,000 (£72,000) reward from the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

No such reward was ever paid, according to WikiLeaks.

The BBC also accepted it had no evidence to back up its claim that 'Alex', a highly qualified and apolitical scientist, believed the attack in Douma, which prompted retaliatory missile strikes by Britain, the US and France, had been staged.

In its ruling, the Corporation withdrew the imputation that Mr Hitchens, who has reported on despotic regimes for more than 40 years, shared 'the Russian and Syrian state views on the war'.

OPCW whistleblowers are heroes.

At least the yanks and poms got to fire their shiny new toys at Syrian families though, that's what really matters

Can you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused.

It seems to state that the BBC were wrong to suggest Alex said that the attack was staged. Meaning Alex doesn't think it was staged. Whereas the Syrians and Russians claimed that it was.

The USA and UK attacked the Syrian government, at least in part, because of these chemical attacks.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, surely this just helps the USA/UK etc justification, rather than harms it?

[Lemoentjie]

Finally one of the biggest hoaxes of all time is being revealed. The anti-Assad, anti-Russia Western elites have been exposed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chens.html

Last week – nearly ten months after the broadcast – the ECU delivered its finding that the BBC was wrong to insinuate that 'Alex' was motivated to go public about his doubts over the attack by the prospect of a $100,000 (£72,000) reward from the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

No such reward was ever paid, according to WikiLeaks.

The BBC also accepted it had no evidence to back up its claim that 'Alex', a highly qualified and apolitical scientist, believed the attack in Douma, which prompted retaliatory missile strikes by Britain, the US and France, had been staged.

In its ruling, the Corporation withdrew the imputation that Mr Hitchens, who has reported on despotic regimes for more than 40 years, shared 'the Russian and Syrian state views on the war'.

OPCW whistleblowers are heroes.

At least the yanks and poms got to fire their shiny new toys at Syrian families though, that's what really matters

Can you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused.

It seems to state that the BBC were wrong to suggest Alex said that the attack was staged. Meaning Alex doesn't think it was staged. Whereas the Syrians and Russians claimed that it was.

The USA and UK attacked the Syrian government, at least in part, because of these chemical attacks.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, surely this just helps the USA/UK etc justification, rather than harms it?

I think it's an error. If you look at the source BBC statement, it says:

The journalist Peter Hitchens complained that the programme had been inaccurate in insinuating that Alex’s disclosures had been motivated by a reward of $100,000 offered by WikiLeaks, that he believed the attack had been staged, and that he had made his views known only through “a select few journalists who share the Russian and Syrian state views on the war”

Staged isn't the same as didn't happen. And even if he believes it was staged, you can't state that without providing evidence.

[Raggs]

Finally one of the biggest hoaxes of all time is being revealed. The anti-Assad, anti-Russia Western elites have been exposed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... chens.html





OPCW whistleblowers are heroes.

At least the yanks and poms got to fire their shiny new toys at Syrian families though, that's what really matters

Can you clarify something for me? I'm a bit confused.

It seems to state that the BBC were wrong to suggest Alex said that the attack was staged. Meaning Alex doesn't think it was staged. Whereas the Syrians and Russians claimed that it was.

The USA and UK attacked the Syrian government, at least in part, because of these chemical attacks.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, surely this just helps the USA/UK etc justification, rather than harms it?

I think it's an error. If you look at the source BBC statement, it says:

The journalist Peter Hitchens complained that the programme had been inaccurate in insinuating that Alex’s disclosures had been motivated by a reward of $100,000 offered by WikiLeaks, that he believed the attack had been staged, and that he had made his views known only through “a select few journalists who share the Russian and Syrian state views on the war”

Staged isn't the same as didn't happen. And even if he believes it was staged, you can't state that without providing evidence.

It happened. The Russians and Syrians claimed it was staged by the rebels (or someone) to get the Syrian government in trouble. The UK/USA etc, said the Syrian government did it

The BBC said Alex thought it was staged.

What exactly has been exposed if the BBC aren't saying they're wrong about that? Surely it's still then old news?

[Lemoentjie]

Alex was an apolitical scientist, meaning he there to purely report the facts (which by the way, were that no sarin or chlorine were found). Claiming that he said the attack was staged is a way of trying to undermine his apolitical-ness. That would be a pretty clear motivation.

In any case, even if you believe the 'attacks' happened, the UK/US/France fired missiles before even waiting for the OPCW report, and without UNSC authorisation. Literal war criminals.

Assad has used chemical weapons at some points. They were not used in the Douma attack, and it is very worrying that an international organisation 'found' that they had, in order to post-justify the Western slaughter of civilians. It should not matter in this case that Assad regime used chemical weapons in other cases, it is irrelevant.

[Ymx]

I think you would enjoy PR alongside Dozy.

[Margin__Walker]

I think you would enjoy PR alongside Dozy.

Yep. He's wasted on here.

[Raggs]

They were not used in the Douma attack

You're going to need to back that up, because that's definitely not covered in the article, the apology etc.

[robmatic]

It should not matter in this case that Assad regime used chemical weapons in other cases, it is irrelevant.

I dunno, I'd generally prefer my favourite anti-imperialist freedom fighters not to be wantonly committing war crimes against civilians to be honest.

[Lobby]

Watch out Lemoentjie, I think they are on to you.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58441662

[Slick]

Alex was an apolitical scientist, meaning he there to purely report the facts (which by the way, were that no sarin or chlorine were found). Claiming that he said the attack was staged is a way of trying to undermine his apolitical-ness. That would be a pretty clear motivation.

In any case, even if you believe the 'attacks' happened, the UK/US/France fired missiles before even waiting for the OPCW report, and without UNSC authorisation. Literal war criminals.

Assad has used chemical weapons at some points. They were not used in the Douma attack, and it is very worrying that an international organisation 'found' that they had, in order to post-justify the Western slaughter of civilians. It should not matter in this case that Assad regime used chemical weapons in other cases, it is irrelevant.

That last paragraph is quite something