Thread by @neil_abrams

Here's the problem with b.s. like this. Even if you buy the claims of Assad apologists that a few of the alleged attacks were false flags, you're still left with literally hundreds of documented chemical attacks which none of these people have ever so much as questioned. 🧵

https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1777058582909100529

An NGO called GPPi has compiled the most comprehensive dataset I've managed to find on chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian civil war. The methodology is extremely rigorous.

Using open-source methods, GPPi has documented, as of 2020, 334 instances in which Assad's regime allegedly used chemical weapons. You can find it here:

I then went through - and I wouldn't advise this for those concerned with their mental health - hundreds of tweets and articles by @aaronjmate, who is perhaps the most vocal denier that Assad has used chemical weapons. I also looked at relevant Grayzone articles by other authors

@aaronjmate Of the 334 instances GPPi documented in which Assad's regime used chemical weapons against his own people, do you know how many Maté and other deniers have ever disputed? Seven. Seven out of 334. That leaves 327 alleged attacks they've never even *attempted* to dispute.

@aaronjmate The seven disputed attacks are: Khan Shaykhun (4/4/17), East Ghouta (8/21/13), Al Lataminah (3/24, 3/25, and 3/30/17), and Douma (two attacks on 4/7/18). That's seven alleged attacks in four locales.

@aaronjmate I suppose you can add to that a handful of attacks questioned by certified lunatic Kit Klarenberg - three in Sarmin (March 2015), one in Al-Tamanah (4/17/15), and fifth in Saraqib (2/4/18), which would add a grand total of 5 additional cases to the seven mentioned above.

@aaronjmate So, in sum, taking into account all the alleged Assad chemical attacks questioned by The Grayzone guys, you get a total of 12 disputed attacks out of 334 total such attacks committed by Assad's regime. None of the deniers have even attempted to dispute the rest of those.

@aaronjmate (sorry, will finish this in a bit - childcare to attend to...)

@aaronjmate "Ah," you might object, "but don't the Syria objectors dispute not just the aforementioned attacks but the source which documented them - namely the OPCW, the governing body that enforces the 1997 chemical weapons convention?"

@aaronjmate In other words, people like Maté aren't just disputing a handful of attacks like Douma but the OPCW itself, which they claim is irredeemably compromised. How many alleged attacks by Assad were revealed by OPCW investigations? Shouldn't we exclude all of them?

@aaronjmate Fair enough. Let's go into the GPPi dataset and exclude not just the attacks cited above but every single one which at all relied on input from the OPCW. That way, we're being as generous as we can to the Assad apologists.

@aaronjmate GPPi's dataset relies on 13 sources in all. Two of those include input from the allegedly discredited OPCW. The first is the OPCW itself and the second is the UN/OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM).

@aaronjmate Just for good measure, let's also exclude Bellingcat, another of the 13 sources GPPi uses. After all, we don't want any room for Assad apologists to accuse us of relying on what they deem to be discredited sources, and we know they have (very dumb) issues with Bellingcat.

@aaronjmate If we exclude these three sources Assad apologists question, we are still left with a total of 257 alleged chemical weapons attacks perpetrated by Assad's regime. These, again, are attacks none of Assad's defenders would have *any reason at all* to dispute.

@aaronjmate If Assad apologists are really going to claim that his regime has committed no chemical weapons attacks, they would somehow have to find fault with all 257 alleged cases they've never attempted to dispute and would have no obvious reason to dispute. Were they *all* false flags?

@aaronjmate Obviously not. But herein lies the deceptive trick Assad defenders like Maté use to cast doubt on such accusations. By disputing a tiny handful of alleged chemical attacks, they create the erroneous impression that *all* such allegations are false.

@aaronjmate That's because they never actually acknowledge that they're only questioning a small number of all such attacks. So they leave their audience with the wholly unfounded view that Assad is innocent of any and all charges. This a very deliberate deception on their part.

@aaronjmate Of course, we haven't exhausted the full range of objections Assad apologists make. In particular, while you and I trust NGOs like GPPi, weirdo propagandists like Maté and The Grayzone will inevitably question them because they rely on - gasp! - funding from Western governments.

@aaronjmate I've dealt with this idiotic argument elsewhere. Still, it's worth going through the *reasons* why it's idiotic, as Grayzone-style propagandists will no doubt bring it up.

@aaronjmate Here's the argument: Because NGOs like GPPi rely in part on funding from Western governments, they can be expected to mindlessly repeat whatever propaganda their funders want them to say. So we can't trust them.

@aaronjmate Now, that's pretty goddamn rich; while places such as GPPi are fully transparent about how much funding they get from which sources, The Grayzone does *not* reveal who their biggest funders are. But whatever. Let's indulge them.

@aaronjmate First, the researchers who work at reputable NGOs like GPPi are professionals. They're not going to tolerate some government agency trying to lean on them to produce preordained conclusions.

@aaronjmate If some government functionary tried to exert pressure on analysts like those who work at GPPi, at least some of them would object. There would be resignations. We'd hear about it.

@aaronjmate And if the practice of leaning on NGO researchers was widespread, we'd see whistleblowers all over the place. Not just a handful of cranks, but serious, established people coming out and saying "this is happening and needs to stop." But do we ever see that? At all? No.

@aaronjmate I mean what are these people arguing? That all these NGO researchers are staying silent about the pressure they're supposedly getting from Western governments? For what? To protect their meager salaries? Give me a break.

@aaronjmate But what about the argument that they aren't pressured directly but are pre-selected? In other words, what if the government influence happens at the point of hiring? What if NGOs are selecting for analysts who already believe in the agendas of the states that fund them?

@aaronjmate Okay, let's think through the implications of this. Obviously there will be some degree of preselection against certain viewpoints and in favor of others. This happens everywhere. Fine.

@aaronjmate But if these Assad apologists are really going to question an organization like GPPi on this basis, there's only so far they can go. What, did the GPPi analysts invent out of whole cloth all 250-odd chemical weapons attacks? Did they just make them up?

@aaronjmate Please. Selecting hires based on preexisting viewpoints happens everywhere. But it's a hell of a long way from noting this obvious fact to actually suggesting that the researchers are just fraudulently inventing alleged attacks by Assad out of thin air.

@aaronjmate In sum, there is simply no credible way to argue that a dataset with hundreds of chemical attacks by Assad is somehow unreliable because the organization compiling it receives funding from Western governments. The leaps of logic required to get there are just insane.

@aaronjmate In conclusion, by disputing a small number of chemical weapons attacks by Assad, his apologists are playing a deceptive trick to try and cast doubt on all the hundreds of such allegations that exist. It's total bullshit which no reasonable person should believe.

@aaronjmate A final note: While the above thread focuses on all the alleged Assad attacks his defenders *don't* question, other people have done good work exposing the nonsense of their claims on the attacks they *do* question. In particular, I recommend the work of @KostjaMarschke.

@aaronjmate @KostjaMarschke I also recommend following @Brian_Whit. He's done good work on this too. See, for instance, this article of his on Seymour Hirsch and Ghouta: brian-whit.medium.com/how-seymour-he…