Douma ‘attack’ witnesses speak at Russia-called OPCW briefing at The Hague

Douma ‘attack’ witnesses speak at Russia-called OPCW briefing at The Hague

Speaking at The Hague, 11-year-old Hassan Diab, featured in the clip of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, joined other witnesses to describe the events of April 7, which the US used a pretext for a strike on Syria.

“We were at the basement and we heard people shouting that we needed to go to a hospital. We went through a tunnel. At the hospital they started pouring cold water on me,” the boy told the press conference, gathered by Russia’s mission at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague.

Hassan was among the “victims” seen being washed by water hoses in a video released by the controversial White Helmets group on April 7. The boy and his family later spoke to the media and revealed that Hassan was hurried to the scene by men who claimed that a chemical attack had taken place. They started pouring cold water on the boy and others, filming the frightened children.

“There were people unknown to us who were filming the emergency care, they were filming the chaos taking place inside, and were filming people being doused with water. The instruments they used to douse them with water were originally used to clean the floors actually,” Ahmad Kashoi, an administrator of the emergency ward, recalled. “That happened for about an hour, we provided help to them and sent them home. No one has died. No one suffered from chemical exposure.”

Halil al-Jaish, a resuscitator who tended to people at the Douma hospital that day, told the press conference that some of the patients had indeed experienced respiratory problems. The symptoms, however, were caused by heavy dust, which engulfed the area due to recent airstrikes, and no one showed any signs of chemical warfare poisoning, al-Jaish said.

rt.com/news/425240-opcw-russia-syria-douma-witnesses

Attached: 5ae20a84fc7e93e7138b45ac.jpg (900x506, 97.42K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?t=1h10m0s&v=nKil4rhDFW8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Oh great, now liberals will just dismiss it as russian propaganda.

Very good news, but yeah, OP can we get another source? I couldn't find any links from the story itself. But it would be very helpful to have an alternate source confirming this so we can preempt the "Russian bot" BS narrative that we'd surely encounter.

no one else is reporting it

(OP)
CNN are liars, but so are RT. Stop believing anything just because it's vaguely anti-Amerikan. The Russian mainstream media are bourgeois imperialists, too.
I hope the independent inquiry will soon make their findings public because it's really getting hysterical. We just don't know yet what happened and who did it, get over it.

Attached: 16443429_1376495759058127_2055622268_n.jpg (640x640, 80.34K)

All's fine, we are against the intervention.

Doesn't matter, we're still against western intervention.

You are right though, we better wait until """unbiased""" sources crop up so we can more easily convince leftoids and other individuals.

>>/reddit/

In this case? Absolutely. Not that I would expect a braindead tänkie to realize it — you probably believe the annexation of Crimea was not "real imperialism" because you heard Putin refer positively to the USSR once on TV.
>

Assad is a bourgeois despot and I do not expect him to show any mercy to civilians — his forces have been responsible for the death of so many since the events that led up to the civil war. But it's a fact that we don't know yet who is responsible for the Douma attacks, so we can't jump to conclusions. Could it be Assad? Yes. But it could also be rebels or ISIS.
What's so hard about waiting for a reliable, independent opinion? People who rush to CNN or RT whenever they hear of an attack in the hope that the reporting will confirm their bias honestly look like agitated Zig Forumstards obsessively trying to "prove" the latest terror attack was actually Antifa.

Attached: 16427211_738538586310118_8030988741341269424_n.jpg (540x405, 27.52K)

The point of my post is to say it doesn't matter if Assad is "responsible" or not, a western intervention in Syria is not in the menu for communists. I hope we are in agreement here.

Attached: 1505389976956.jpg (399x385, 29.35K)

...

Yes, we agree. The findings won't influence my opposition to US intervention, just inform us about the truth of what happened.

The OCWP is more reliable than CNN or RT, that's for sure — but I'd be happy to know about any other independent source you might provide.

Are we allowed to post anti-Kremlin content on this board again?

Attached: leftypol ban 14.4.2018.PNG (685x475, 76.4K)

nice post faggot

youtube.com/watch?t=1h10m0s&v=nKil4rhDFW8

...

Thank you for proving my point.

Attached: 22f805783533acc78f3427c9577eb2425c70d4d0a638f3f0e2154993ec782377.gif (500x281, 426.74K)

You don't know the terms you are using. You are using the radlib definition of imperialism.

Imperialism is when a relatively strong state seeks to achieve aggressive military and/or commercial expansion into a weaker state as a mean of accumulating influence and capital, as part of a wider immanent trend of consolidation embedded into capitalism itself. Now tell me how the Russian invasion of Crimea doesn't qualify as imperialism.

Attached: 14222175_10210393337767047_7467954447511598108_n.jpg (500x500, 57.24K)

Imperialism is when one country forcibly occupies another for the purposes of economic or military exploitation. This is precisely what the Kremlin is doing with Crimea, and eastern Ukraine in general. It is a place to be annexed then exploited for their own personal gain. Imperialism.

America is not the only imperialist power in the world, and fighting US-allied regimes is not itself anti-imperialist.

...

It was also Russian territory for 200 years until it was given away by the revisionist traitor Khruschev in violation of both soviet and international law.


Oh, poor neo-Nazi Ukraine…

Is that why this is a massive net defecit for Russia? Both of these actions were a direct result of western imperialism and wasn't an imperialist incentive on their own. In Donezk and Luhansk they are expropriating Ukrainian oligarchs and put factories in worker's hands, for goods sake.

I'm the last one who is denying that Russia is pretty hardcore imperialist in many SNG states but that doesn't mean I have to adhere to radlib distortions of the definition in regards to Ukraine and Syria.

So then do a right-of-return like Israel did. Russia's government clearly has the capability to mass airlift men into Ukraine, they could instead choose to airlift civilians out and back to Russia. Ukraine's government wouldn't care because they don't want Russians in their country, because their country is not Russia.


Yes, IMPERIALISM. You have exactly, precisely, 100% described imperialism.

It isn't because Crimea gives then Black Sea access, thereby improving Russia's military position against Ukraine and Turkey. It is no different than America annexing Puerto Rico or invading Vietnam. The deficit spending is for the purpose of perpetuating a bourgeoisie military-industrial complex, also known as imperialism.

Maybe because the people didn't want to leave their homeland and stand their ground against Nazis? I'm not surprised a defender of proto-fascist Ukraine is also a Zionist.

No you dipshit, because those were state investments causing a net defecit in the state budget and not Haliburton or some shit that operates under a profit motive.

It's not improving it, it's simply maintaining it.

Except you actually have profits been made through that, plus the coercion that is also a factor missing in the Crimean affair.

Yes, but the complex ain't imperialist in Ukraine or Syria.

This is exactly the same logic used to justify US imperialism — military-backed regime change in the name of a progressive-sounding cause.

Except the regime was installed by a Western regime change in the first place.

Tänkies are the ultimate stage of "socialism is when the government does stuff".

Attached: babby.jpg (500x376, 15.97K)

Yet they didn't in Poland, a country with a far more aggressive anti-Russian nazi movement and a far more permissive government yet Russia doesn't do anything about it there. It probably has to do with the fact that Poland isn't strategically important like Kaliningrad or Crimea are. Come to think of it, Russia has had constant nazi problems in Chechnya yet had no problems bombing that country into the dirt because it was easy money for the capitalists which control their economy. Russia also has major nazi problems in the Baltics yet they do right-of-return there no problem.


oh, you mean the trillions of state investments financed by Sberbank and fulfilled by Vaz and KTRV somehow isn't operating under a profit motive? America's government wasn't itself offering under a profit motive either, hence why they took out trillions of dollars to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan so private enterprises could profit. Exactly what Russia (a capitalist country) is doing in Crimea.>>2501272

Also, did Russia ever openly call for regime change? If I remember the timeline correctly, Putin has said in a press conference that Yanukovych has no political future and that Ukraine should have a constitutional assembly. What Russia did was to protect Russian minorities and separatists and to secure their Black Sea naval base, that's all. This is way different than the "ASSAD MUST GO" "GADAFFI MUST GO, WE CAME, SAW AND HE DIED LMAO" rhetoric by Hillbots and neolibs.

"Protecting the ethnic group your state represents" is the very same excuse given by Hitler for annexing the Sudetenland.

Technically no because both Ukraine and Russia were independent Republics under the broader USSR, but this gets into problems with the USSR's administration itself. But even then, fighting a western-allied power is not itself an anti-imperialist act.

Anyway, even if what you said was true the first thing Ukraine did when they declared independence, as a condition of their independence, was to give all their nuclear weapons over to Russia. Ukraine's biggest threat to Russia and Russian peoples, weapons of mass destruction, were fully returned to Russia. The west intentionally crippled the new state, in a way that neither Stalin nor Hitler did during WW2.

In this case it's true because what we are seeing here are geopolitical state interest that are related to Russian monopoly capital but not identical with it. The same way there is a difference between colonialism and modern imperialism. It's also a fundamental misunderstanding of imperialism in general. The reason why Russia took those actions was also because the haute bourgeoisie of the EU was proposing a free trade agreement with Ukraine, something they've advocated since a long time. This would indirectly cause a forced market opening for Russia, considering that it already has free trade with Ukraine, which would have then been used a proxy. Russian proposals to negotiate a free trade zone with restricted terms have been ignored. Russia's reaction was a reaction to EU imperialism, it is extremely dependent on tariffs due to its economic structure. We see Russian national industrial capital trying to shield itself off from Western finance and corporate capital, which again, is the very definition of imperialism, whereas you need a looking glass to identify the interests of a bourgeois military-industrial complex in the Russian deficit spending in Crimea. Shit is ridiculous and nitpick-ish, and fueled by an underlying liberal narrative of "muh both sides".

...

What has that to do with the issue at hand? I was never defending Russia as a non-imperialist state, I was merely negating your radlib understanding of the Crimean issue. Besides that it's a weird claim because Russia doesn't border Poland if you ignore Kaliningrad. There is also no initiative of Poles to join the Russian federation.

Sberbank is state-owned, user.


But Hitler didn't stop at Sudetenland, now did he? He also annexed the "Resttschechei" with it.

If the western government got in power through an illegal coup and is threatening minorities with Nazi militias, it pretty fucking much is. Also, stop with your deluded narrative, Russia never went to war with Ukraine with the goal to occupy it, they just delivered support to the separatists.


If you think what Russia did in Crimea is the same in quality as to what the West did Libya then I can't help you. You are just an idiot.

No because Ukraine's bourgeoisie has a conflict-of-interest when they can just not allow the free movement of goods from Russia to the EU, creating a situation where Ukrainian businesses make money from the EU free trade agreement guaranteed to them and not Russians. Even if one assumes corruption Ukrainian pigs have every reason to be corrupt with the EU and not Russia, since Russia is willing to pay mobsters to assassinate people who steal their money.

Regardless of that, if trade is such a big problem for Russia they can just choose to not trade with Ukraine or tax imported products. EVEN BETTER, Russia could start taxing the gas they send to Germany. In both cases EU influence on Russia's economy nosedives.


Which is privately held and thus capitalist, meaning attempts to spread it is imperialism. A conflict between two imperial powers does not make one side anti-imperialist. Just look at the entire planet which is riddled with wars between imperialist powers.

And yet they are occupying it, making it defacto imperialism. America never wanted to occupy Mexico and Mexico never wanted to occupy Guatemala yet in the former case America ended up annexing most of northern Mexico and in the latter the Mexican army regularly purged communist separatists under the guise of stopping fascism. If support is a solider you are engaging in war, and if that solider is being paid to stand there and promote a private enterprise it is imperialism.

And again, at every point the other option was an evacuation which Russia absolutely has the capability to do in a safe and orderly manner. But they didn't because their goal is conquest, not saving people.


what's state capitalism for $100? China does it too with their state-owned banks. This does not preclude the existence of private capital financing these banks and the existence of private dividends being paid to private investors.

Reminder that Russia's Czar intentionally put Russians in Ukraine as Imperialism, in a manner similar to how Spain, France and England colonized the world. However today we don't see England invading countries based upon the existence of English speaking peoples there, because England is cheap for old school imperialism. Russia on the other hand has no problem doing it with Russian speakers in Ukraine, because Russia's modern capitalist government is imperialist.

Russia has not many trade partner to choose from.

In which case Germany just finds a profitable gas importer. It's not an issue for them.


You've already changed the definition of imperialism ITT so much that but this is again radlib view on this issue.

But that's not what happens in Donezk, now is it? They are expropriating private property there.

I never said Russia has no geopolitical interests. But to view this as incentivized from the Russian side is retarded. In fact, you are abandoning every pretense of materialism here, Russia has no interest in territorial conquest as the biggest country in the world with an undeveloped economy, they pretty much have the same interests as the US in the 19th century, which is to have tariffs and controlled investments and imports. Germany and Russia would make a good couple, which is what the US is trying to thwart since 1900. There is so much untapped potential in Russia economically speaking, why on earth would they want territorial conquest?

Highly unlikely considering how they suffer from the sanctions. Investors substrated 22 billion dollar worth of capital.

Except they actually are Neo-Nazis and not Zig Forums-tier *masturbate to anime* "nazis" but literal blood and soil murderous fascists with a worldview based on racial extermination.

I really have no problem with the fact that Ukrainian Russian speakers in the East and Crimea want to get away from them. The fascist regime was imposed by them by the US and the EU–a coalition of the most powerful and aggressive imperialists in the world.

If they turn to Russia to help them then so what? They didn't vote to live under the fascist regime and they didn't get the choice to vote at all. The regime was imposed on them by US-EU imperialism and overthrew the democratically elected government they voted for.

Ukraine as a nation didn't even exist back then. Ukraine nationalism was always tainted with far-right mysticism and Aryan origin stories and was artificially created in the 19th century.

You also know very well that you are strawmanning me in the end because I never said Russia isn't imperialist, I said it's not imperialist in Ukraine and Syria.

It can be argued that Russia was trying to preserve influence, rather than accumulate it. The annexation of Crimea was executed primarily to secure Sevastopol and secondarily to destabilize Ukraine and thus sabotage European efforts to draw them closer to their sphere.
From a security perspective, Russia's aggression can easily be justified. Furthermore the entire region is better off if the bear is less anxious. In that sense I'm all for their annexation.
Now, their intervention in Georgia is another issue. In that case I fail to see how they were compelled to act the way they did.

This

Russia didn't have to airlift a single soldier into Crimea. The soldiers simply had to walk out of their military bases in Crimea.

It wasn't. The people of Crimea exercised their right to self-determination in a democratic referendum.

That is precisely what is happening in Donetsk. They're expropriating the property of Ukrainian bourgeoisie and redistributing it to Russian bourgeoisie. Socialism is when people expropriate stuff…


Lol, and I guess the Soviet republics also exercised their right to self-determination in a democratic referendum, in 1991. Democracy is not fiction only if Russia does it.

Amazing how "leftists" immediately drop any pretense to Marxism and turn into Russian xenonationalists like this guy as soon as this topic comes up.


Fascist_Brazil_vs_UK.txt

Pretty much any American imperialist will dismiss RT.

Attached: 58c.png (1052x1137, 286.9K)

Funny thing, that…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_referendum,_1991
The dissolution of the USSR was fundamentally undemocratic.

Real talk, the most sensible thing that russia should do is let NATO build up heavy fortifications right on its border and install hostile governments in all neighboring countries.

If russia DARES to do anything else I will call them imperialists from my comfy 5 bedroom house in the suburbs.

What is with the appalling use of false equivalence in this thread? This fucking liberal cunt is saying anything russia is doing is akin to nazis.

Quite. For all its thuggishness, Putin's regime in the foreign sphere has been entirely reactive; NATO and the EU expanded throughout in the old Russian sphere, and the Russian moves in Georgia and the Ukraine were direct reactions against further incipient expansions.

We really appreciate your concern for our geopolitical interests, user! Keep up the good fight!

Attached: d810bb75e9f54ca88c458b1e32db32fb.jpg (640x480 122.59 KB, 48.17K)

...

Read up on the origins of Ukrainian nationalism, the role of Ukraine in Nazi ideology, the role of Ukraine in Hitler's Lebensraum politics, the role of Ukraine in the Holocaust and the role of Ukraine nationalism in the recent Maidan regime change.

Nobody is a "Russian xenonationalist" when he points those things out. So go fuck yourself, hardcore. You are not better than any of those Hillbot/Russiagate neolibs, you are just as spooked as them, considering you and another guy in this thread claimed I was a Putin apologist/Russian nationalist just because I implied a materialist analysis to the Crimean issue.

applied*