Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:42, 13 December 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ghouta chemical attack. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ghouta chemical attack at the Reference desk.

A news item involving Ghouta chemical attack was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 August 2013.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ghouta chemical attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The Syria Chemical Weapons Attack and the Role of Saudi Intelligence. The Mint News Report

This is a new article about the incident and should be included. It is at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-and-the-role-of-saudi-intelligence-the-mint-news-report/5359154

Chris Bury (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Trajectory Intersection Theory Discredited

Note that following consultation with expert Richard Lloyd, Brown Moses has now joined the WhoGhouta estimate of 2.5 km range for the rockets. Since Brown Moses / Eliot Higgins is considered a reliable source (he is quoted elsewhere in this article), the 'trajectory intersection' theory which assumes a 9.5 km range (Zamalka to Mt. Qasiun), can now be safely considered invalid. I recommend qualifying all references to this theory accordingly. For example, in the lead:

Based on analyses of the UN's evidence, Human Rights Watch and The New York Times concluded the rockets that delivered the sarin were launched from areas under government control. Specifically, the inspectors listed the precise compass directions of flight for two rocket strikes and these pointed to the government's elite centre in Damascus, Mount Qasioun. However, more recent evidence indicates Mt. Qasioun is much farther than the rockets' range of 2.5 km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swawa (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I didn't think the Mount Qasioun stuff should be in the intro at all. It's far too speculative at this stage. I see Brown Moses, in the blog post you linked, now suspects the rockets were fired from Syrian Army positions closer to Ghouta as part of the well-publicized offensive in Qaboun. So if there's really no proof as to exactly where the rockets were launched, and no one who meets Misplaced Pages's reliable source guidelines saying much about it at all, then why are we putting this information in the article -- much less front-and-center? I think this is just another good reason to keep the intro concise and focus on less contentious information, as I have argued in the past. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

RfCs

I've closed two RfCs in the archives, for those who are interested:

• Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_5#RfC:_Should_this_Russian_claim_be_in_the_Background_or_capabilities_sections_or_somewhere_else.3F
• Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_4#RFC_-_Primary_and_secondary_sources_for_wind_information

If there are any concerns, please let me know either here or on my talk page. Thanks, I, JethroBT 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

good text

here. 189.12.179.231 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh

There is a new, extensive commentary on the issues by Seymour Hersh on the London Review of Books website. . Hersh is obviously an excellent source, and the LRB website means it's not self-published. Podiaebba (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hersh is a superb journalist, and the material added from his article really improves this page. I hope a little more can be added in the coming days. -Darouet (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

brown moses calls it 'ill-informed' on certain essentials - even 'superb journalists', like Malcolm Muggeridge for example, can get lousy on detail as they get senile-r. Sayerslle (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses calls it ill-informed? Where? He hasn't published a blog entry since the Hersh article was published. Now for some actual information instead of unpleasant insult: based on WhoGhouta's review of Hersh's piece, Brown Moses is probably referring to the UMLACA issue, that Brown Moses thinks was developed for the Syrian Army. On this Hersh cites Theodore Postol, saying "The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal." Postol may not be a self-educated blogger like Brown Moses, but hey, the NYT saw fit to cite him in their Ghouta coverage, so even if Brown Moses is right, maybe Hersh wasn't wrong to rely on him. Podiaebba (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo News coverage of Hersh's article. No new info in it. Podiaebba (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

brown moses calls it ill-informed on twitter -(where the abuse from people with your outlook, and the 'outlook/allegiances' of whoghouta, is really very virulent and disgusting, so I accept 'senile-r' was low-brow of me ) and he responded to a pro-Assad twitterer called Sophia thusly:-

"Sophia ‏@les_politiques 12h Hersh has published an authoritative investigation on Sarin in #Ghouta. Any rational being should b instilled w some doubt,no? .@Brown_Moses

Brown Moses ‏@Brown_Moses 12h @les_politiques I've just written a piece for Foreign Policy highlighting a few key points he appears unaware ofSayerslle (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I actually guessed Twitter, which would imply little detail on his complaints... let's see the Foreign Policy piece when it turns up. Podiaebba (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of Brown Moses' personal opinion about the Hersh piece, I do think this qualifies as a reliable source, and I'm amenable to including its assertions and conclusions as long as they're given due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik and podiaebba have already added stuff from it - skepticism about the article's worth spreads far wider than brown moses - new yorker and wash post didn't want it for example - 'due weight' has to be observed for fatuous stuff Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik and podiaebba have already added stuff from it - no, I only improved the ref. I'm not really surprised that mainstream US media outlets chickened out of accusing the US govt of lying. WashPo's Snowden coverage is based on documents; they have to take Hersh's word for the intelligence sources. Podiaebba (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

emesik has added stuff from it - why not add this sensational revelation -"One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote" - heres Scott Lucas on the fatuous Seymour hersh article - Sayerslle (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Brown Moses" has no credibility compared to Hersh. He's just a random guy, with no credentials. His words carry no weight, and blogs are not reliable sources anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Brown Moses does have credibility - you are out of touch, or just being disingenuous to get a rise, - and hersh is all about 'I was speaking to a former whatever..'-and his special secret channels of info to angry anonymous officials,- Maloof? - - brown moses is open and democratic - very distasteful to ba'thists and their fans no doubt - to say he is just a random guy is partisan and out of touch imo. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read about the guy (Brown Moses)? His sole experience is looking at goddamn Youtube videos. A total joke. Only reason the western media parrots his claims is because they need some good pro-rebel spin, and no reliable sources can provide that any more. For someone who keeps rambling about Sharmine Narwani being partisan, it is pretty baffling why you would stick your neck out for that guy. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

well, agree to differ, I take him more seriously than hersh, - he is open and the youtube vids are kind of based on a thing called reality, and not a sectarian paranoid world view - you keep Russia Today and Press TV and hersh and globalresearchmintopressb/s, I'll take brown moses over those dealers in sectarian fantasy and power worship any day- and snarwani - you like her modus operandi? - endless personal abuse, awful, and why wouldn't I stick my neck out -its easy for me- I admire him for dealing with a lot of the abuse he has to put up with, with a great sang-froid Sayerslle (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are Brown Moses and I claim my £5. :0 Podiaebba (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand that podiaebba. is it amusing? last thing , honest -just occurred to me - funkmonk said he is just some random guy - but linked to a Misplaced Pages article about him- not any and every random guy has that. so he is wrong - here is the article brown moses wrote in response to herschs gossip - -Sayerslle (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle, describing one of the most storied investigative journalists in the U.S. as "senile," and his report as "gossip" and "musings," is disrespectful, and indicates that you lack the objectivity or competence to evaluate reliable sources. What Hersh has done, by the way, is get senior government officials, at the risk of destroying their own careers, to say that the Obama administration has been lying about Ghouta, and that many in the intelligence community are frustrated or angry with the misleading narrative. He also reveals that an Op Order (DIA, CIA) from the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the rebels could deploy sarin. Regarding Eliot Higgins, he just runs a blog and, yes, has limited expertise or weight. But he has published a reply in Foreign Policy, and so his voice automatically has some authority in this issue. Secondly, I'd argue that his analyses, even without the FP article, have been important and worth considering (for us too). The other side of this is that the whogouta blog, whose conclusions oppose those of Higgins, is just as notable, and probably more reliable, considering the experts actually working for it. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Hersh is "senile", while "Brown Moses", who is basically just a random bum, is the pinnacle of truth? These are strange days we live in. No wonder the masses are so easily duped into retarded wars/supporting rabid Salafists. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to "the masses," FunkMonk, Hersh does document the systematic lies by the Administration, and their repetition by the media, in the article we're discussing. Not to say that I'm convinced the rebels did this (I'm not), but I'm just pointing out that whatever the truth is, it's hard to acquire it with all the political nonsense coming from the Syrian government or opposition, US or Russian PR efforts. -Darouet (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use that term as a pejorative, FunkMonk. And a piece published in Foreign Policy that pertains to this issue is a reliable source, even if the Brown Moses Blog isn't; one is produced under the masthead of a credible publication and subject to editorial review and quality control, and the other is self-published and lacks editorial controls. We can use Higgins' response in FP, but not his blog posts, as far as I'm concerned. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

here's dan kaszeta replying to hersh, darouet , , and i'll put a link to brian whitakers criticism of hersh "The main problem with Hersh's article is that he seems to have spent so much time listening to his secretive sources, and perhaps became so enthralled with them, that he never got round to looking at a wealth of information about the chemical attacks which is freely available on the internet. The result was that his article posed a number of once-important questions which others had already answered. - http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/december/brown-moses-versus-hersh.htm#sthash.2PjvQSwq.dpbs] "- he doesn't use the word 'senile' but 'old school' which is in the neighbourhood maybe - funkmonk is,as usual, the soul of impartial and restrained rational expressiveness, Sayerslle (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sayerslle - thanks for the links. I'd read the Kaszeta reply with interest after you linked it on the main page. Reading the "EAWorldView" piece you just linked by Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas, I see that they misinterpret the critique by the anonymous intelligence official as relayed by Hersh. Quoting the transcripts provided by the administration (which you've just added to the article), they argue that these obviously required some days to translate… however the critique relayed by Hersh is of a different nature entirely. Regarding to speed of the US government response, Hersh notes that top secret intelligence briefings didn't include any reference to the sensors the US military has placed in the Syrian weapons stockpile. These don't require translation and are meant to respond to an immediate attack. Regarding the transcripts, Hersh's sources tell him that these were manipulated and include intercepts from December 2012 - many, many months before the attack, when the Syrian army was apparently carrying out an exercise. -Darouet (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

o.k - I'll re-read the hersh article and lucas reply more attentively -i'm pretty incompetent as you have observed already- if hersh's sources say they were manipulated that's it. it seems to me the rebels did it narrative swallows elephants and chokes on feathers, if you get my drift. kaszeta and brown moses articles are o.k though with you? good - btw, don't you think - One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote - don't you think that this intelligence officer has a duty to humanity to come forward openly and present what he knows ? Sayerslle (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sayerslle - I don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." I think it is, rather, arguing - based on interviews with US intelligence officials - that:

• the rebels have chemical weapons capability (according to US intelligence),
• intelligence presented to the US public and media was doctored by the administration,
• an early warning sensor system placed on government weapons didn't activate before ghouta,
• many in the US intelligence community are upset about the possibly false narrative given publicly.

I watched an interview with Hersh in which he says just this. I don't think he's confident that the rebels launched the attack. But, based on his research, he's confident that the US doctored intelligence and ignored reports in order to present a picture - publicly - that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack. -Darouet (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. regarding your last comment - sources remain anonymous all the time to protect themselves, and it's normal for intelligence agencies to have internal conflict, or release disinformation - normally, people keep quiet. Whoever spoke to Hersh already risked their career and life to speak anonymously. But they probably did so because the consequences (which include a possible military intervention strengthening al-Nusra) could be momentous. -Darouet (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Darouet you 'don't actually think that the Hersh piece is arguing that the "rebels did it." ',- but the article is titled 'Whose Sarin?' is it not? Implying...? Do you see what he's implying? clever old codger . And if you say I'm guilty of not showing enough respect to one of your heroes , thats tough-people are free to admire whom they choose are they not? Sayerslle (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems poor Moses was just exposed: http://leaks.sea.sy/vandyke-leaks/#KnewRebels In short, he kept quiet about rebels having chemical weapons though he knew it, and he is funded by several partisan organisations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks unlikely, Funkmonk. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hot off the press. Wait, and probably some other outlets will pick it up. Read it, is is quite damning. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether you agree with that post or not, the important thing is that the veracity of the leaks are not denied. To anyone who isn't in awe of these mercenary "journalists", it is clear that all their credibility, if they ever had any, was lost long ago. Furthermore, they don't deny that he receives funding from HRW and the likes. This is the funniest part, though: FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

the important thing is the quality of what he writes - you are just partisan, whether someone is a 'random bum', or a star, in your eyes depends solely on their usefulness, or not, to your sectarian beliefs and extremist Manichean view of the world - 'HRW and the likes' ? what does that mean? snarwani and funk monk, - non sectarian progressives! lol. Sayerslle (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What he writes is only "useful" for those who have a pro-rebel agenda. It is obviously biased. Anyhow, let's see how long the Vandyke guy survives now that the Salafists know he has been dry-humping their women. Quite a show, will hopefully convince other mercenary journalists like him that Syria is not just a playground where they can satisfy their lust and greed.FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• The poor bastard has admitted the messages are genuine: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.dk/2013/12/natos-war-on-syria-just-got-dirtier.html "Brown Moses" should never be used as a source here again. To allof you who got duped,please watch out for others like him so we don't have to go through this again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce or cut EAWorldview comment

Sorry Sayerslle, but I'm going to propose that we cut the EAWorldView commentary from the "Evidence" section of the article, because it fails, almost humorously, to understand the points made by the Hersh article:

• Hersh notes that an "early warning" sensor system, meant to detect preparation for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, didn't fire at any point prior to the Ghouta attacks, though the sensor system had worked well in the past (for example during the December 2012 Syrian army military exercise).
• Hersh writes that, according to a senior former intelligence official, the transcripts meant to demonstrate Syrian government culpability were assembled from military chatter dating all the war back to December 2012, and were furthermore cherry-picked to make it appear as though an attack were imminent on August 21 2013, when it wasn't.

The EAWorldView piece counters that the existence of a US government-provided transcript - which has nothing to do with a sensor system - shows that the sensor system did work. This clearly demonstrates that Joanna Paraszczuk and Scott Lucas don't understand Hersh's article. They furthermore quote from a WSJ article that is simply running through that very same transcript Hersh's sources say are manipulated.

EAWorldView is not a particularly notable source and, because it is confused about Hersh's piece, I recommend that we ditch it. -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Lucas article says not that the sensor system did work, but that it might have - but yes, - kaszeta and brown moses are the responders to hersh to keep in the article. hersh places a lot on the word and say-so of manipulation on this 'former intelligence official' doesn't he-Sayerslle (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sayerslle. -Darouet (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi I know a bit about this topic from following the news and behind the news, and thought Id jump in after watching for awhile. Id have to say I believe Darouet is correct in wanting to ditch it. Huge-Blade (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• Mid-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• Unassessed Arab world articles
• Unknown-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles