Thread by @GeorgeMonbiot

We will look back on the belittling, dismissal or denial by prominent Western figures of the Assad government's crimes in the same light as we look back on the denial of Stalin’s crimes. #Syria
Thread …

I say this as someone who is *opposed* to Western military intervention in Syria, which I believe can only make a terrible situation worse. It would be nice to be able to speak out against Assad’s war without being called a warmonger, but this is a looking glass world

The major difference between Assad’s crimes against humanity and Stalin’s is that Assad’s are much better documented. There is a massive trove of forensic and testimonial evidence. They are among the best-documented war crimes in history.

The main method of denial, promoted by Syria and Russia and taken up by their echo chambers in the UK and US, is to home in on minor gaps in our knowledge, inflate them beyond recognition, and use them to dismiss all that we know.

The OPCW/JIM report on Khan Shaykhun presented a mountain of evidence for a chemical weapons attack by the Assad government. After global experts in the field had reviewed this evidence, it concluded:

You can read it here: reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe…

It also explored the gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence, and concluded: “The irregularities described in annex II are not of such a nature as to call into question the aforementioned findings”

Please ask yourself, would you expect there to be NO gaps or inconsistencies? In the aftermath of a chemical weapons attack, would you expect perfect record-taking and time-keeping, or chaos and confusion? Chemical weapons unleash pure terror. That, after all, is their purpose.

By contrast, there is *no evidence at all* supporting any of the alternative theories claiming to explain the mass deaths that ensued after Syrian munitions were dropped. So are we to pretend they didn’t happen?

Unfortunately Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) copies the Syrian and Russian tactic: cherrypicking the acknowledged inconsistencies and using them to blithely dismiss the weight of evidence presented in the OPCW-JIM report

He has ignored invitations to consult independent experts in the field, who could help him navigate such fiendishly complex areas as chemistry, munitions etc, in favour of his own expertise. He has done the same thing, across many years, on climate change.

Trying to discuss this with him, however gently, is, as I found on Twitter earlier this week, like playing chess with the proverbial pigeon. In other words, a waste of time:

I don’t think Peter is an idiot (I’ve borrowed the graphic). Rather, I think he is so convinced by his own illusion of expertise that he cannot see his limitations.

His cherrypicking on this issue and his repetition of their memes amounts, in my view, to apologetics on behalf of the Assad government and its Russian backers.

But, just as with climate change, he genuinely seems to have no idea how much evidence he is dismissing, or to have grasped the gravity of the enterprise he has embarked on. It’s like watching a clown juggling hand grenades.

Despite his efforts, the facts remain: over 70 people were killed and hundreds injured through chemical poisoning at Khan Shaykhun, for which, despite massive efforts by Syria, Russia and their supporters, no viable alternative explanation remains.

There is nothing surprising about the Assad government dropping CWs on Khan Shaykhun. It is one of a long list of chemical weapons attacks it has perpetrated in Syria.

Many people ask me “but’s what’s Assad’s motive?”. The motive is obvious: CWs are highly effective at clearing rebel-held areas and spreading panic and terror among civilian populations. Using them also exposes the vacuity of the US “red line”.

We all have a duty not to ignore, dismiss or deny the evidence for well-documented war crimes, however inconvenient it may be for our own positions and beliefs. We should, in all fields, be wary of what we *want* to believe.
Ends