U.S. Politics

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

Where do you get that?  I don't find it in the report I linked on Khan Shaykhoun.  Instead, I find

It was in the long report you linked, the one on the 9 incidents - it was around page 10, ish - I came across it did it by a search for "logs" I think (it may have been for "aircraft") as I sort of knew what it was I was looking for.

As an aside, the two shorter documents - the one with terms of ref and the one on methodology you linked - I mean reading them, I can't help but find that criticism of either the methods of impartiality, methodology, openness otrr anything absolutely has to be motivated by an agenda. It's all extremely fair and thorough and balanced.

Ditto the longer document - in each case of the 9 attacks the JIM Leadership assessment  is scrupulously fair minded, laying out the reasons and level of confidence and factors and so on.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, peterms said:

Perhaps best not to quote online gamer and former lingerie worker Eliot Higgins, then.

You've lost me there, Peter. 

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

You've lost me there, Peter. 

P486, you posted his tweets.

[peterms]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

It was in the long report you linked, the one on the 9 incidents - it was around page 10, ish - I came across it did it by a search for "logs" I think (it may have been for "aircraft") as I sort of knew what it was I was looking for.

So you're quoting the earlier report, I'm quoting the later one.  Between the two dates, they have clearly been supplied with the material they requested, since they say so in the later report.

[blandy]

57 minutes ago, peterms said:

So you're quoting the earlier report, I'm quoting the later one.  Between the two dates, they have clearly been supplied with the material they requested, since they say so in the later report.

Not so, in the quote you post above, it also says (re the flight logs etc) at point 54 that the Syrians had opened their own  investigation (how independent would that be?) and also not provided the JIM with the outcome. So they didn't provide the requested logs and then said they were opening their own investigation and didn't provide the outcome from that either.

[blandy]

Just to add something, specific to aviation terminology (as I understand it, working in military aviation)

"arrangements and movements at  an [Sha‘irat] airbase" are not the same thing as flight logs. Movements at an airfield is what came and went and when.

Flight logs are for a particular flight (for a military aircraft) and contain (typically) precise route flown (from GPS and IN sensors), fuel state, stores deployed, radio frequencies, IFF codes,  transmissions made, threats detected, all kinds of data including also engineering data. 

edit - thinking about it, "logs" could alternatively be referring to the Syrian equivalent of the RAF F700, which wouldn't detail onboard Aircraft data store logs (mission Data store etc. as I describe above), but would be a paper record (folder) kept on the ground covering the aircraft state, condition, flying hours, defects, stores fit and so on. Such flight folder data wouldn't detail where the aircraft went. If it was an older type of aircraft then that's maybe a more likely type of log being referred to, compared to computerised aircraft data store logs.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by blandy
afterthoughts added

[snowychap]

 

[Xann]

 

[peterms]

47 minutes ago, blandy said:

Not so, in the quote you post above, it also says (re the flight logs etc) at point 54 that the Syrians had opened their own  investigation (how independent would that be?) and also not provided the JIM with the outcome. So they didn't provide the requested logs and then said they were opening their own investigation and didn't provide the outcome from that either.

You specifically mentioned flight logs, which the quote I provided shows were supplied.

Like the badgers, you're changing the goalposts.

[peterms]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

Just to add something, specific to aviation terminology (as I understand it, working in military aviation)

"arrangements and movements at  an [Sha‘irat] airbase" are not the same thing as flight logs. Movements at an airfield is what came and went and when.

Flight logs are for a particular flight (for a military aircraft) and contain (typically) precise route flown (from GPS and IN sensors), fuel state, stores deployed, radio frequencies, IFF codes,  transmissions made, threats detected, all kinds of data including also engineering data. 

edit - thinking about it, "logs" could alternatively be referring to the Syrian equivalent of the RAF F700, which wouldn't detail onboard Aircraft data store logs (mission Data store etc. as I describe above), but would be a paper record (folder) kept on the ground covering the aircraft state, condition, flying hours, defects, stores fit and so on. Such flight folder data wouldn't detail where the aircraft went. If it was an older type of aircraft then that's maybe a more likely type of log being referred to, compared to computerised aircraft data store logs.

 

Hadn't seen this when I responded just now, but the report does say they provided all materials requested.

[blandy]

26 minutes ago, peterms said:

You specifically mentioned flight logs, which the quote I provided shows were supplied.

Like the badgers, you're changing the goalposts.

You've lost me again, a bit - I mentioned flight logs because the OPCW document from 24 Aug 2016 says they were requested (for multiple attacks) and none were provided. Your quote above is for one particular attack only, anyway. But if the flight logs or "all materials" were provided at some point, then surely that strengthens the set of data available to help OPCW/JIM reach their conclusions - removing an area of doubt (assuming genuine logs) and giving better quality verdict..... But we're surely going down a bit of a side alley (badgers or not).

The OPCW/JIM determined that for this particular attack, they were confident, after assessing all the evidence available that Syria did it. They outlined in great detail how and why they reached their conclusions, where they were presented with conflicting evidence or accounts, where people were not interviewed , and how the lack of evidence or conflicting accounts and so on influenced their "verdict".

In one of the other documents, it mentions definitions for "confident" and other terms used (without going back to work, I can't recall them, but there were grades of certainty).

So anyway the independent OPCW/JIM investigation, details at great length what they did what they found and who they hold responsible and on occasions where they have not been able to determine who was responsible. I can't see from what I've read any rational reason for Russia to veto their continuing work at the end of last year. Us discussing whether particular documents were provided is neither here nor there, ultimately. The OPCW/JIM team spent a painstaking effort and time examining and determining and found Syria (and for other attacks, rebels) used CWs. The methods were sound and not in need of change and certainly not to such an extent that Russia could justifiably veto their continued work. I can't see that there's anything the US has done wrong coming out of this whole OPCW/JIM thing.

There was an independent OPCW/JIM body, the Russians canned it and then there was an other attack and the Russians called for an independent OPCW investigation.   That's just international trolling by another name.

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

So anyway the independent OPCW/JIM investigation, details at great length what they did what they found and who they hold responsible and on occasions where they have not been able to determine who was responsible. 

And this is where the strength of their argument needs to be assessed.  The piece by McKeigue which I quoted earlier explains where their methods are weak, where their selection of hypotheses to investigate is questionable, amd where their conclusions are challengeable.

You discount that on the basis that he is not a chemical weapons expert, regardless that his argument does not rest on being one.  It's the "appeal to authority" argument again.  Other examples that have come up on this site recently include the Belgrano (watching the discussion with Diana Gould again, having been proven wrong on facts, Thatcher resorts to "I have information you don't because of my position.  When it is released in 30 years, you will see I'm right.  Until then, you must accept what I say because I am who I am", and in the Skripal thread, that chemist who tweeted multiple bullshit about chemistry while utterly failing to answer the question "How can you tell where it was made", which oddly seemed to have convinced many of his followers, who were perhaps impressed by a qualification and a diagram, despite the lack of logic or ability to understand and reply to a question.

It's a poor substitute for rational and critical thought, and I suggest it is better to examine the strength of arguments put forward rather than appeal to the authority of the person making them.

But we are beyond that point.  Russia has asked OPCW to attend the site, immediately.  I expect that invitation won't be accepted, and we will plunge into some reckless demonstration of might, prolonging the conflict further and condemning even more people to a pointless death.  Our discussions won't change this foolishness.

[peterms]

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

And this is where the strength of their argument needs to be assessed.  The piece by McKeigue which I quoted earlier explains where their methods are weak, where their selection of hypotheses to investigate is questionable, amd where their conclusions are challengeable.

You discount that on the basis that he is not a chemical weapons expert, regardless that his argument does not rest on being one.  It's the "appeal to authority" argument again.  Other examples that have come up on this site recently include the Belgrano (watching the discussion with Diana Gould again, having been proven wrong on facts, Thatcher resorts to "I have information you don't because of my position.  When it is released in 30 years, you will see I'm right.  Until then, you must accept what I say because I am who I am", and in the Skripal thread, that chemist who tweeted multiple bullshit about chemistry while utterly failing to answer the question "How can you tell where it was made", which oddly seemed to have convinced many of his followers, who were perhaps impressed by a qualification and a diagram, despite the lack of logic or ability to understand and reply to a question.

It's a poor substitute for rational and critical thought, and I suggest it is better to examine the strength of arguments put forward rather than appeal to the authority of the person making them.

But we are beyond that point.  Russia has asked OPCW to attend the site, immediately.  I expect that invitation won't be accepted, and we will plunge into some reckless demonstration of might, prolonging the conflict further and condemning even more people to a pointless death.  Our discussions won't change this foolishness.

I don’t “discount” bloggers opinions based on the not being CW experts, but I do give more weight to the report from an independently established expert body’s detailed, thorough and painstaking investigative report, complete with published terms of reference, constraints, definitions, detailed methodology etc etc (excuse me I’m doing this from a phone) than to the non expert opinion piece of a blogger on the Internet. I’m not one of these Michael Gove “we’ve all had enough of experts” types. I like scientific method and process. Of course, particularly when investigating in a war zone it won’t be perfect and people can comment as they wish, but for me why should I credit an unqualified bloggers views with the same weight as for a neutral team  of genuine independent experts?

i don’t reference or care whether the government did or didn’t do whatever re the Belgrano  it’s a red herring in respect of Syrian CW usage or otherwise . The best available info we have is from the OPCW/ JIM reports  they’re not perfect, but they have rigour, neutrality and value .

on the opinion side, Russia’s motives and actions and interests in canning the OPCW UN team then calling for an OPCW investigation... whist having declined to accept any OPCW verdict that goes against their interests.... we can each make up our own minds

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by blandy
Belgrano Auto correct phone bobbins

[peterms]

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

the non expert opinion piece of a blogger on the Internet. I’m not one of these Michael Gove “we’ve all had enough of experts” types. I like scientific method and process. Of course, particularly when investigating in a war zone it won’t be perfect and people can comment as they wish, but for me why should I credit an unqualified bloggers views with the same weight as for a neutral team  of genuine independent experts?

 

Oh Pete, really, that's overstated.

He's a science professor with a lot of experience in examining claims against available evidence.  He has used these skills to look at the story told, and found it wanting, for the reasons he explains.  They may be experts in chemical weapons,  but if (for example) they have formed a view about the distance from which a bomb could be launched which appears underinformed as to the basic physics involved, then let's not defer to their narrow expertise and assume that everything in their report is correct.

Sometimes in this thread you seem to allude to personal characteristics or connections of people quoted, real or perceived, and jump to dismissing what is said on the basis of who they are, where they are published, or what their other interests may be, rather than addressing the argument.

It seems out of character with what you've been posting for the last decade, which is pretty much always well argued, reflective, and considered.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, peterms said:

Oh Pete, really, that's overstated.

He's a science professor with a lot of experience in examining claims against available evidence.  He has used these skills to look at the story told, and found it wanting, for the reasons he explains.  They may be experts in chemical weapons,  but if (for example) they have formed a view about the distance from which a bomb could be launched which appears underinformed as to the basic physics involved, then let's not defer to their narrow expertise and assume that everything in their report is correct.

Sometimes in this thread you seem to allude to personal characteristics or connections of people quoted, real or perceived, and jump to dismissing what is said on the basis of who they are, where they are published, or what their other interests may be, rather than addressing the argument.

It seems out of character with what you've been posting for the last decade, which is pretty much always well argued, reflective, and considered.

As I said, it’s fine for people to comment or question or pass opinion on what the OPCW/JIM findings were.

The difficulty I have with the argument you make above (and with you various bloggers lines, too) is that the standards or principles your talking about seem to  have a complete blind spot when it comes to (in this case) the Russians and the Syrians. This obvious blind spot leads me to think “hold on, there’s a particular slant to the points being made here”.

take the issue here, the uncontested use of chemical weapons in Syria. The UN and OPCW investigate over 120  reported instances, found around 40 to be potentially of genuine concern, looked into those further, investigated, publishing their methods, their remit, and huge amounts of detailed evidence and so forth. They found, with differing levels of certainty in different incidents, that various parties were responsible. In the case of the one your blogger has looked at, he alights on aircraft position and ballistics and makes an argument that says (I paraphrase) “not quite sure I completely agree with the OPCW points on that”. Which is fine in itself. What it isn’t is an argument that supports the point you seem to be making some time back, that justifies Russia vetoing the OPCW/JIM continuing their work. The OPCW /JIM reports highlight where they have doubts or conflicting evidence or can not verify something. Even looking at just the one instance of CW usage the blogger looks at, the OPCW don’t use the ballistics argument to say Syria did it. They use the whole set Of documented evidence ( chemical analysis, video footage of aircraft dropping bombs at the location hit , at the corresponding time and date, medical data and so forth...). There is to me no case to be made that says the OPCW have in some way been so deficient or wrong in their work and reporting that this justifies the Russians vetoing them carrying on their role. So anyone making that argument, I have to ask myself “why would this person support the Russian point of view, what is at play here that makes them think the Russians are right?, and that there is not obviously massive hypocrisy in canning the OPCW team, then 3 months later calling for the OPCW to investigate another apparent CW attack in Syria?” and the only answer I can come up with is that there must be sympathies towards Russia, or against the West which colour their thinking. On its own, that might be a dishonourable thing for me to think. But then when presented with the various bloggers own list of articles and likes and dislikes which confirm, openly, such sympathies and dislikes etc. I think it is fair to factor those in to the equation. There’s cherry picking going on.

Bigger picture, either there was no CW attack last week, or there was a false flag one, or Syria did it. The OPCW team that could have investigated was recently disbanded at the behest of Russia, Syria’s staunch ally. The disbandment, you imply was right because of some narrow criticisms of an OPCW investigation into one attack made on a blog. It all looks very one sided to me. In other circumstances, say if you substitute the USA for Russia and Israel for Syria, would you or I or the bloggers be asking “ hold on, the US has just vetoed the OPCW team which fingered Israel for using CWs, from carrying on, and all of a sudden there’s a CW attack in Palestine and now the US is saying there wasn’t an attack, or it’s a false flag by Hamas, and call in the OPCW...” we’d be shouting blue murder at the hypocrisy of the US and them doing everything to protect their key ally.

and that’s how Russia’s actions look to me. The bloggers and your viewpoints, you have every right to hold them, but they do seem a bit coloured by conscious or unconscious bias to me ( as mine probably do to you).

[NurembergVillan]

It's funny because it's true.

[a m ole]

He really is like a toddler driving an 18-wheeler with a brick taped to the accelerator. 

[Awol]

17 hours ago, peterms said:

P486, you posted his tweets.

Bellingcat has done phenomenal open source work geolocating Russian actions in Ukraine and on the MH-17 shoot down.

Moscow understandably loathes Higgins, a pretty good indicator that his firm’s work is of a high standard.