Peter Hitchens helps two
whistleblowers publicize their
critique of the document
that was used to justify US and British bombings in Syria:
The investigation report is a bait and switch tactic that
creates the illusion of a report about a breach of confidentiality, when in
fact it is little more than a public defence of the scientifically questioned
Douma Report. Ironically, the defence, from a highly technical and scientific
body, is not founded on science or logic, but on ad hominem attacks on two of
its former inspectors, who had raised concerns about the scientifically
indefensible manner in which the Douma investigation was conducted. It is
classic ‘if you can’t get the ball, get the man’.
In another classic ruse, the Technical Secretariat tries to distract from the serious concerns of A and B, by trying to portray them as “individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence”. This is demonstrably false and conspicuously the report never says what those ‘views’ are supposed to have been. As a technical body the TS will be aware that inspections, verification, or investigations are never about ‘views’. Views are subjective by definition. They are not the currency of scientists and engineers who (should) only deal in facts, evidence and hypotheses.
It is about the suppression and cherry-picking of these facts and evidence, and the refusal to test alternative hypotheses, which is scientifically questionable, that Inspectors A and B have raised concerns with senior management. These concerns are not exclusive to A and B. Other inspectors involved in the Douma investigation have the same, but because of their contractual relationship with the Organisation are not free to raise them without fear of repercussion.
In another classic ruse, the Technical Secretariat tries to distract from the serious concerns of A and B, by trying to portray them as “individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence”. This is demonstrably false and conspicuously the report never says what those ‘views’ are supposed to have been. As a technical body the TS will be aware that inspections, verification, or investigations are never about ‘views’. Views are subjective by definition. They are not the currency of scientists and engineers who (should) only deal in facts, evidence and hypotheses.
It is about the suppression and cherry-picking of these facts and evidence, and the refusal to test alternative hypotheses, which is scientifically questionable, that Inspectors A and B have raised concerns with senior management. These concerns are not exclusive to A and B. Other inspectors involved in the Douma investigation have the same, but because of their contractual relationship with the Organisation are not free to raise them without fear of repercussion.
It's a brutally-effective
fisking. As usual, the Official Story and the mainstream narrative are both
false.
