There are some inaccuracies in Hasan's article. To start with:
"Earlier this week, acclaimed journalist and writer Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent of his trip to Douma alongside other reporters, all of whom were escorted by Syrian government officials."
The implication that Fisk was escorted throughout his reporting by Syrian government officials (thereby intimidating witnesses he spoke to) is not correct. As Fisk made clear in his article in The Independent, he left the official government briefing in Douma and went off on his own, accompanied only by a couple of friends. He found the clinic where the video had been shot showing "victims" being treated for "chemical attack" on his own.
Then there is Hasan's reference to an article in the Guardian:
"Fisk’s report seems to ignore the statements of the head of the largest medical relief agency in Syria, who told reporters this week that medics who responded to the suspected gas attack in Douma have been subjected to “extreme intimidation” by Syrian officials who seized biological samples, forced them to abandon patients and demanded their silence."
This Guardian article has been shown to contain gross inaccuracies. To start with, the medical agency quoted in the Guardian article is the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM). It is not the largest medical relief organization in Syria at all--the Syrian Red Crescent is. Personnel of the Red Crescent are pictured in the article, but the Guardian did not speak to them. According to the blogger Moon of Alabama:
"The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations was founded in 2012, works from Reyhanli in Turkey and claims to have 600 staff. It consists of the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), which is funded by the CIA front USAID and lobbies for regime change in Syria, the British-Syrian Medical Society which only works in 'rebel' held areas, as well as British and U.S. p.o.-box 'charities' which collect donations. SAMS and UOSSM are said to be Muslim Brotherhood fronts."
In short, these are sources that are not neutral or independent observers, and it is unlikely that their accounts can be trusted. It is apparent that Hasan has not done the due diligence required for accurate reporting here. If I, an ordinary citizen who has access only to open public sources can demonstrate this, I suspect professional journalists with experience covering Syria could find much else that is questionable in Hasan's article.
Juan, thank you for giving us additional perspectives on the recent attacks on Syria. Your ability to read the journals of the region in the original languages and report what you find to us is very valuable.
In that spirit, I offer this link to a post by former UK diplomat Craig Murray, in which he addresses the legal arguments the British Government has made supporting their participation in the bombing of Syria:
The article tries to make hay out of something that was obvious all along: Russia was protecting its interests in Syria, which includes a friendly regime and Russian military bases. Those interests have not changed. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Russia will continue to keep forces in the region and will augment those forces if needed.
The similarity to the U.S. actions in Iraq should be noted. We "pulled out" of Iraq as the status of forces agreement required. But with the ramp up of the conflict against ISIS in Mosul and elsewhere, our forces went back in. I think it is safe to say that the U.S. is in Iraq to stay.
There are some inaccuracies in Hasan's article. To start with:
"Earlier this week, acclaimed journalist and writer Robert Fisk wrote in the Independent of his trip to Douma alongside other reporters, all of whom were escorted by Syrian government officials."
The implication that Fisk was escorted throughout his reporting by Syrian government officials (thereby intimidating witnesses he spoke to) is not correct. As Fisk made clear in his article in The Independent, he left the official government briefing in Douma and went off on his own, accompanied only by a couple of friends. He found the clinic where the video had been shot showing "victims" being treated for "chemical attack" on his own.
Then there is Hasan's reference to an article in the Guardian:
"Fisk’s report seems to ignore the statements of the head of the largest medical relief agency in Syria, who told reporters this week that medics who responded to the suspected gas attack in Douma have been subjected to “extreme intimidation” by Syrian officials who seized biological samples, forced them to abandon patients and demanded their silence."
This Guardian article has been shown to contain gross inaccuracies. To start with, the medical agency quoted in the Guardian article is the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM). It is not the largest medical relief organization in Syria at all--the Syrian Red Crescent is. Personnel of the Red Crescent are pictured in the article, but the Guardian did not speak to them. According to the blogger Moon of Alabama:
"The Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations was founded in 2012, works from Reyhanli in Turkey and claims to have 600 staff. It consists of the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), which is funded by the CIA front USAID and lobbies for regime change in Syria, the British-Syrian Medical Society which only works in 'rebel' held areas, as well as British and U.S. p.o.-box 'charities' which collect donations. SAMS and UOSSM are said to be Muslim Brotherhood fronts."
In short, these are sources that are not neutral or independent observers, and it is unlikely that their accounts can be trusted. It is apparent that Hasan has not done the due diligence required for accurate reporting here. If I, an ordinary citizen who has access only to open public sources can demonstrate this, I suspect professional journalists with experience covering Syria could find much else that is questionable in Hasan's article.
Juan, thank you for giving us additional perspectives on the recent attacks on Syria. Your ability to read the journals of the region in the original languages and report what you find to us is very valuable.
In that spirit, I offer this link to a post by former UK diplomat Craig Murray, in which he addresses the legal arguments the British Government has made supporting their participation in the bombing of Syria:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/the-british-governments-legal-justification-for-bombing-is-entirely-false-and-without-merit/
The article tries to make hay out of something that was obvious all along: Russia was protecting its interests in Syria, which includes a friendly regime and Russian military bases. Those interests have not changed. Therefore, it should be no surprise that Russia will continue to keep forces in the region and will augment those forces if needed.
The similarity to the U.S. actions in Iraq should be noted. We "pulled out" of Iraq as the status of forces agreement required. But with the ramp up of the conflict against ISIS in Mosul and elsewhere, our forces went back in. I think it is safe to say that the U.S. is in Iraq to stay.