funny the pindo nazis refused him a visa

OPCW whistleblower slams OPCW’s Douma report in UNSC testimony, Jan 21 2020

A former inspector with the OPCW has accused the CWs watchdog of issuing a sanitized report on the alleged 2018 attack in Douma, Syria, arguing it ignored serious reservations of its own fact-finding team. The OPCW’s final report on the Douma incident released last March omitted key findings of its own inspection team which would have cast serious doubt on whether a chemical attack took place at all, former OPCW specialist Ian Henderson told members of the UNSC in a recorded video address, after his visa application to attend the meeting in person was rejected. Henderson said:

The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments.

Even though several members of the fact finding team “had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred” as early as Jul 2018, the organization’s final report, compiled by another group that never even visited the incident site, nonetheless concluded there were “reasonable grounds” to all but pin the blame for the attack on Damascus. Sanitized of any dissenting opinion, the report ignored “findings, facts, information, data or analysis” gathered by the team in the areas of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, as well as ballistics, the retired inspector said. Faschingstein & its vassals blamed the Syrian government for the Douma incident, FUKUS launching joint strikes against Syria a week later, well before any official investigation could even start, and even delaying it. Western politicians and media claimed at the time, basing themselves purely on visual materials and witness accounts provided by the notorious White Helmets and other militant-linked sources, that the Syrian government forces had ‘highly likely’ dropped two poisonous gas cylinders, killing scores of civilians. Henderson carried out a closer analysis of that pair of cylinders mysteriously found in a residential area of Douma. His ‘Engineering Assessment’ was initially leaked last May, laying out a number of hypotheses for how the cylinders wound up at the site in Douma. Most significantly, it noted a “higher probability” that they were “manually placed” instead of being “delivered from aircraft,” suggesting a party other than the Syrian government may have planted them there.

In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistics studies into the cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.

Subsequent WikiLeaks publications revealed that a senior OPCW boxtop ordered “all traces” of Henderson’s assessment to be scrubbed from its archives. But despite the internal battle undermining the OPCW’s credibility, Henderson insisted the dispute should not be a matter of “political debate,” urging for any discrepancies to be “properly resolved through the rigors of science and engineering.” The informal UNSC meeting to assess the situation and inconsistencies around the FMM’s report was convened at the request of Moscow on Monday. The US and its allies accused Russia of trying to “discredit the well-respected OPCW and its staff,” even though Moscow insists that the goal, on the contrary, was to restore trust in the organization. Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, accused Pindostan & its vassals of “crying wolf,” saying:

The alleged CW incident in Syrian Douma. Why is it so important? Because it was a justification of missile strikes in Apr 2018 by FUKUS, who immediately named the Syrian Government guilty. Not so long since, some of our colleagues invented a new paradigm: the world of ‘highly likely.’

Besides listening to Henderson’s testimony, the UNSC was addressed by Russia’s OPCW representative Alexander Shulgin, and the chief of an NGO that had previously interviewed over 300 residents of Douma, shattering the official Western narrative.

UNSC Hears OPCW Inspector Testimony About The Manipulation Of ‘CW Attack’ Reports
Moon of Alabama, Jan 21 2020

We have long maintained that the alleged CW attack in Douma on Apr 7 2018 was faked by Jihadis shortly before they were evicted from that Damascus suburb. By the end of last year leaked documents and a whistle blower from the OPCW had proven that the OPCW managers had manipulated the report their staff had written about the incident. The OPCW inspectors who had investigated the case on the ground in Douma found that there was evidence that a CW attack had happened. The murdered people seem in videos from the alleged attack must have died of other causes. The yellow canisters found at the locations of the alleged attack were not dropped from helicopters, but clearly manually placed. Using the Arria-formula, a procedure to have witnesses testify to the UNSC, Russia and China invited other UN members to listen to the testimony of OPCW inspector Ian Henderson. He denounced the false final report the OPCW management had published. Henderson, a South African engineer, was a team leader at the OPCW where he had worked for more than twelve years. Philip Watson transcribed Henderson’s speech:

I need to point out from the outset, I am not a whistleblower. I don’t like that term. I am a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in many areas and I consider this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard. As well as the professionalism of the staff members who work there. However the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in certain sensitive missions. The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on Apr 7 in Douma in Syria. My concern, which is shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lock-down and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of the final report. There were two teams deployed. One team which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments was to Douma in Syria, the other team deployed to Country X. The main concern relates to the announcement in Jul 18, of a new concept, the so-called FFM Core Team which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis. The findings of the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turn-around, with what the team had understood collectively. During and after the Douma deployments and by the time of release of the interim report in Jul 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a CW attack had occurred. What the final FFM report does not make clear and thus does not reflect the views of the team members who deployed to Douma.

In which case I can really only speak for myself at this stage. The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, engineering and/or ballistics studies had resulted in a complete turn-around in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team and the entire Douma team in Jul 2018. In my case I had followed with a further six months of engineering and ballistics studies into the cylinders. The results of which had provided further support for the view there had not been a CW attack. This needs to be properly resolved, we believe (Douma FFM Team), through the rigours of science and engineering. In my situation it is not a political debate. I am very aware that there is a political debate surrounding this. Perhaps a closing comment from my side, is that I was also the inspection team leader who developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC facility outside of Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two inspections prior to and the inspection after the chemical facility or the laboratory complex at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike. That however is another story altogether, and I shall now close.

The Barzah SSRC was destroyed in a large-scale Pindo missile attack shortly after the Douma incident. It had been a civil institution concerned with agricultural and medical research. No prohibited substances were found there during intrusive OPCW inspections before and after the Pindo strike. In his closing remarks at the UNSC Russia’s Permanent Representative at the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, said:

Today’s discussions reveal one thing clearly: that something fishy is cooking in the OPCW. When we point at it, our colleagues tell us every time that OPCW, the 2013 Nobel peace prize laureate, is the gold standard of professionalism, integrity and impartiality. We would like it to be such and we adopted a PRST in Nov 2019 exactly aiming at this. Unfortunately, the impartiality and integrity of the OPCW TS is seriously questioned, and not just by us and other member states, as today’s presentation demonstrated. Members of the “Courage Foundation” can hardly be labeled as Russian agents. They are reputable personalities and include such figures as Jose Bustani, first OPCW DG, respectable members of academic community, former senior Pindo & UK intel boxtops and such names as Noam Chomsky and Oliver Stone to name a few. You were provided with a copy of their letter and related materials. Why do some of our colleagues so vehemently defend the reports by the OPCW FFM, which some are believed were fabricated? Because any seed of doubt about chemical episodes conclusions would lead to challenging the expediency and legitimacy of already illegitimate missile attacks against a sovereign UN member state. In that light the Douma incident plays a key role. Because if it transpires that the FFM report was made up, it would lead to questioning earlier episodes like Khan Shaykhun and others, which resulted in the termination of the JIM.  … Our colleague from Viet Nam asked what to do next, what are the nest steps. I think that this issue must be discussed at the OPCW. Legitimate questions and issues that member states face should be addressed and discussed. The question why the first report of the OPCW FFM was shelled initially, and then disappeared and destroyed should be answered. So far we are denied, we and other member states are denied such an opportunity.

Videos from Douma at the time of the incident showed some 30 bodies of dead persons. Most were children. It is up to day unknown who they were and who had murdered them. The OPCW manipulation of the original reports of its inspectors’ findings is a cover-up for that huge crime. The manipulation of the investigation of the Douma attack by the OPCW management also raises doubt about other issues, like the Skripal affair in Britain, in which the OPCW was involved. The OPCW needs to come clean. It must fire the managers who were involved in the manipulation of the Douma reports. Other cases the OPCW was involved in need to be re-investigated.

Former OPCW Inspector Testifies at the UNSC, says reports were ignored and manipulated
Off-Guardian, Jan 21 2020

Yesterday the UNSC held a special panel to discuss the reliability and impartiality of the OPCW, most specifically regarding the alleged Douma “CW attack.” The expert panel reviewed and revealed some worrying evidence. Most important was the testimony of Ian Henderson, former OPCW inspector and leader of the engineering sub-team who visited Douma. Ian Henderson, the source of the famous leaked “dissenting report” on the placement of gas cylinders at the Douma site, was speaking via video link due to being denied a Visa by the Pindo authorities. We don’t know why this happened. I’m sure it was all honest and above board, and not just petty politicking. He told the UNSC that findings of the experts on the ground were totally ignored by their OPCW bosses. He said:

By the time of release of the interim report in Jul 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.

And added that the final report was a “complete turnaround” on these findings, and authored by a separate group who had never visited the site. Unsurprisingly, efforts to smear Mr Henderson or otherwise minimise his testimony were quick to appear. Thomas Phipps, a UK diplomat to the UN, chimed in with some rather xenophobic snobbery:

You’ll notice he doesn’t mention Henderson at all. There were the usual non-arguments from the usual unqualified, NATO-backed mouth pieces:

Meanwhile, the Western press is simply keeping shtum, with the testimony of Henderson, and the UN panel in general, not mentioned in any mainstream outlet we can find. That seems unlikely to change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.