Russia "Demands" Explanation for Unqualified OPCW Sarin Report

[Navarro]

"Moscow demands OPCW explain how White Helmets emerged unharmed in Syrian sarin attack ... No representatives of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) visited Syria’s Khan Shaykhun where an alleged chemical attack took place, so the origin of samples the OPCW claims to have is unclear, said Russian Defense Ministry ... OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu said earlier that sarin gas or a sarin-like substance had been used in the chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun. He added that 'the analytical results already obtained are incontrovertible.' According to Konashenkov, 'in the past two weeks, not a single OPCW representative was seen there.' 'Where do these samples come from? Who of the OPCW members was able to study them so fast while standard procedures stipulate a complex research which requires time, as we can see in the case of mustard gas use in Aleppo,' Konashenkov said. The Russian Defense Ministry wants the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to explain how members of the White Helmets managed to stay unharmed by sarin in Khan Shaykhun, Defense Ministry spokesman said. 'If it is true that sarin was used in Khan Shaykhun, how can the OPCW then account for the fact the charlatans from the White Helmets organization were hustling and bustling inside sarin clouds with no protective gear on? Everybody could see that. Ahmed Uzumcu should provide comprehensible answers to these questions as soon as possible,' Konashenkov said. 'Although independent experts do not believe that anyone could have remained unharmed in a sarin gas attack, nevertheless, maybe Mr. Uzumcu has created his own periodic table of elements instead of Mendeleev’s one?' Konashenkov added. OPCW had been founded as an impartial and responsible international organization. 'This is why the statements and conclusions that this organization makes should be based on scientific methods instead of being politically motivated,' the Russian general said. 'Moreover, any experts should have an opportunity to check these statements and conclusions,' Konashenkov added. He said that only an impartial investigation on the scene could help figure out what had really happened in Khan Khaykhun as well as 'establish those responsible.' The Russian defense ministry spokesman went on to say that the OPCW had been unable to provide an opinion on the use of mustard gas in Aleppo for four months while it took the organization very little time to come to a conclusion on the Khan Shaykhun incident. 'Four months later, the OPCW is still unable to deliver an opinion and recognize that the mustard gas found in Aleppo was really mustard gas, citing the need for additional research. However, as for Khan Shaykhun, everything become clear immediately to Mr. Uzumcu,' Konashenkov said. He pointed out that in late 2016, Russian experts recorded a mustard gas attack carried out by militants in Aleppo. 'Russian experts went to the scene and collected samples of the poisonous substance, which were later handed over to the OPCW. At the time, the Syrian authorities insisted the OPCW experts should visit the country and expressed readiness to ensure their security but no one came,' the Russian General noted. The alleged chemical weapons incident in the town of Khan Shaykhun, the Idlib Governorate, occurred on April 4. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, on that day the Syrian air force delivered airstrikes on several militant facilities where munitions filled with poisonous substances were being made. However, Washington came to the conclusion that Damascus had used chemical weapons which led the US to carry out a missile attack on the Syrian military’s Shayrat air base located in the Homs Governorate on April 7, as the US believes that the attack on Khan Shaykhun was launched from there."
http://tass.com/world/942326

 

[Navarro]

https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/855629181098577920

 

[Carkidd]

Jesus, if the Russians get real proof this was a false flag..

 

[TheChrome]

I'm pretty sure the Israelis know what's going on. Russia has a pattern of denial, sort of like the story of never cry wolf. They always cry wolf, therefore anything they say has to be scrutinized as to whether it is true. It usually isn't.

Ya’alon added: “They [Assad] know how to lie and know how to conceal, and they did that with the international bodies of the weapons inspectors.”

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Is...warn-of-Syrias-chemical-weapons-plants-486165

Israel's military said on Wednesday it believes Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces still possess several tonnes of chemical weapons, issuing the assessment two weeks after a chemical attack that killed nearly 90 people in Syria.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-idUSKBN17L2U8

 

[Doc]

I'm pretty sure the Israelis know what's going on.

Most definately. But there are more than one possible translation of the word "תחבולות".

 

[Doc]

Jesus, if the Russians get real proof this was a false flag..

No worries. If they did, noone in the west would belive them. We are at a point in this buildup where what actually happened no longer matters.

 

[Navarro]

No worries. If they did, noone in the west would belive them. We are at a point in this buildup where what actually happened no longer matters.

Agreed. Even Russian propaganda would be unlikely to respond with any form of unprecedentedly concerted effort. This is what Russia has dubbed the "Post-Truth Era," and the student must want to learn. At some point, emphasis and reiteration becomes a wasted effort, as the objective have already received the message and assessed its content, and so beyond that point one is battling hardened preconceptions and indoctrination. One cannot challenge faith with logic, because faith isn't arrived at through logic, and thus logic will bare no relevance to such a person.

One can explain and demonstrate to a child that 1+1=2 and reiterate that process upon the child's repeated failure to grasp the concept, but if the child will not listen, will not observe or cannot appropriately interpret the demonstrations, and continues to insist that the correct sum is 3, then at some point there's nothing left to discuss.

 

[Doc]

No worries. If they did, noone in the west would belive them. We are at a point in this buildup where what actually happened no longer matters.

Agreed. Even Russian propaganda would be unlikely to respond with any form of unprecedentedly concerted effort. This is what Russia has dubbed the "Post-Truth Era," and the student must want to learn. At some point, emphasis and reiteration becomes a wasted effort, as the objective have already received the message and assessed its content, and so beyond that point one is battling hardened preconceptions and indoctrination. One cannot challenge faith with logic, because faith isn't arrived at through logic, and thus logic will bare no relevance to such a person.

One can explain and demonstrate to a child that 1+1=2 and reiterate that process upon the child's repeated failure to grasp the concept, but if the child will not listen, will not observe or cannot appropriately interpret the demonstrations, and continues to insist that the correct sum is 3, then at some point there's nothing left to discuss.

Exactly. The Russians have slightly missed their mark in their "truthseeker"-propaganda. This is perhaps a good time for a short lecture on PSYOP to demonstrate why.

PSYOP 201/PHIL 103 - How do you know what you think you know?

According to Ancient Greek sources, there are four distinct versions of human knowledge. Philosophy, and indeed the Greeks themselves, has since discussed the value of each of them in revealing truths. I will not engage in such an endevour at this point, but simply explain how this model translates to understanding in the art of psychological manipulation.

The four categories are, and one can of course discuss their names forever, Episteme, Techne, Phronesis and Doxa.

Episteme

I could have called this "empirical". Episteme in this regard is what you can show using scientific methodology. Experiments. The testing of a hypothesis. Pure scientific knowledge is very hard to find, as any empirical reseach will be quasi-objective. This serves to prove that even though the four categories are treated as completely separate (se below), they are indeed spectra.

Never the less, if presented with two explanations for why you are not reading this while floating weightless in your livingroom, the model we call gravitation, will turn out alot more probable through experimentation and observation, than a model claiming your body is seeking earth because thats where it came from.

Your faith in gravity, if based on studies of physics, will be a rather pure version of knowledge based on episteme.

Techne

The word is the basis for Technology. In this context it is knowledge as can be found by watching a blacksmith. Even an excellent blacksmith will be unable to completely describe the process of making a sword in such a manner that the skill can be transferred to you. Scientific methodology will also have a hard time proving a blacksmith in that the knowledge behind smithing is not to be found physically. Yet watching the excellent blacksmith at work, you will in the end agree that he is a blacksmith. Techne, to qoute 007, is "all in the wrist". You can read all available literature on boxing. You will still get your ass handed to you if the first time you try on the gloves is at the championships.

Phronesis

Phronesis means, directly translated, "mindness". It describes the phenomenon of "practical wisdom". The ability to reason, to apply logic, to understand context. It is phronesis that lets you know that stepping out of your car at 55 mph is a bad idea. You have experience falling when running, and put that into the correct context. You need no further evidence.

Doxa

Doxa, meaning faith, as in Ortho-doxia (correct-faith). Doxa was originally treated by the Greeks as wisdom given directly from the Gods and later morphed into something best traslated as "popular opinion". We don't really have to take a stand regarding the devine. it is sufficient to acknowledge that many of the things human beings think they know, they know due to holding a belief that can't be explained through phronesis, techne or episteme. The believes held among western youth that they one happy day will become famous singers or moviestars, soccer heros in England, football players in the US, can all be classified as Doxa. The same goes for the belief in the metaphysical enteties of freedom and human equality. Scientism, the belief in popular science held by people lacking a scientific education, must be classified as Doxa. The belief in Bing Bang as more than a mathematical model, represents a belief-system comparable to the faith in a creative God.

How do you apply these principles in propaganda?

What is now important to understand for the psychological warrior, is that these four categories are distinct and seperate. Just as perception based on Techne can't be countered by the means of episteme, you can't persuade the blacksmith that he is indeed not a blacksmith by the application of science, so you can't change a Doxa-perception thorugh the use of Phronesis. Logical arguments will not change a persons faith in their God.

This means that any opinion-changing operation will have to start with mapping out in which of the four categories the "center of gravity" of the opinion you want to change, is situated.

This can be done through interviewing, through analysis of the individual and the population.

In this case, alot of observations point to that those who are certain this gas attack was preformed by the Syrian air force, group 1, belive so because any other reality would threaten their belief in core values that can only be classified as Doxa. Thus no evidence (episteme), no logic (phronesis) and no expert (Techne) will change their minds.

In the other end of the spectrum, those who are certain the gas attack was conducted by a party interested in triggering a hostility towards the Syrian government, group 2, will belive so because it supports their own perception of the geopolitical situation and the role of their goverments in it.

If we restrict our studies to the western world, and found that while members of group 1) in general to be loyal to their nations and/or governments, while those who belong to group 2) to be suspicious of their own government, perhaps even openly hostile, this would be in support of our model.

Furthermore, as a logical consequence, one could suspect member of group 1) to have a higher probablility of being up the food chain, and thus more to gain by being loyal to their system, than members of group 2).

If so, this could explain why the newspaper editors all belong to group 1), while youtube is flowing over with people spending their time presenting models coherent with their membership in group 2).

So how would this work from a Russian position?

"American backed rebels were behind this" will never work. No matter what you present you will only end up catering to those who are sympathetic in the first place. An argument made to influence inside the framework of a beliefsystem has to respect those frames, unless it be discarded. If I was asked to conduct an operation on behalf of Kremlin, I would phrase myself quite differently.

"It is unamerican to avoid the tough questions."

It will be interesting to see if the Russian ministry of propaganda is pliable enough to evolve into the future.

 

[TheChrome]

One cannot challenge faith with logic, because faith isn't arrived at through logic, and thus logic will bare no relevance to such a person.

I challenge this statement, by challenging your definition of faith. It is common to associate faith with chance, but is that an accurate depiction? The biblical definition of faith is "certain of what we do not see" - (Hebrews 11:1) How can a person be certain of what is not seen? It is because the underlying facts and logic point to an undeniable conclusion. Faith is thus based on concrete evidence rather than chance.

Would you say it takes faith to expect the Sun will rise in the morning? By my definition yes, because of the scientific facts that I know, I know the Sun will rise.

People hardly will listen to logic, whether religious or irreligious due to preconceived ideas. I can callously say to the religious that Easter is a derivation of Astarte the fertility goddess, and that the Easter holiday has nothing to do with Jesus, but who will logically put that together? You want to talk logic, let’s go!

 

[TheChrome]

No worries. If they did, noone in the west would belive them. We are at a point in this buildup where what actually happened no longer matters.

Agreed. Even Russian propaganda would be unlikely to respond with any form of unprecedentedly concerted effort. This is what Russia has dubbed the "Post-Truth Era," and the student must want to learn. At some point, emphasis and reiteration becomes a wasted effort, as the objective have already received the message and assessed its content, and so beyond that point one is battling hardened preconceptions and indoctrination. One cannot challenge faith with logic, because faith isn't arrived at through logic, and thus logic will bare no relevance to such a person.

One can explain and demonstrate to a child that 1+1=2 and reiterate that process upon the child's repeated failure to grasp the concept, but if the child will not listen, will not observe or cannot appropriately interpret the demonstrations, and continues to insist that the correct sum is 3, then at some point there's nothing left to discuss.

Exactly. The Russians have slightly missed their mark in their "truthseeker"-propaganda. This is perhaps a good time for a short lecture on PSYOP to demonstrate why.

PSYOP 201/PHIL 103 - How do you know what you think you know?

According to Ancient Greek sources, there are four distinct versions of human knowledge. Philosophy, and indeed the Greeks themselves, has since discussed the value of each of them in revealing truths. I will not engage in such an endevour at this point, but simply explain how this model translates to understanding in the art of psychological manipulation.

The four categories are, and one can of course discuss their names forever, Episteme, Techne, Phronesis and Doxa.

Episteme

I could have called this "empirical". Episteme in this regard is what you can show using scientific methodology. Experiments. The testing of a hypothesis. Pure scientific knowledge is very hard to find, as any empirical reseach will be quasi-objective. This serves to prove that even though the four categories are treated as completely separate (se below), they are indeed spectra.

Never the less, if presented with two explanations for why you are not reading this while floating weightless in your livingroom, the model we call gravitation, will turn out alot more probable through experimentation and observation, than a model claiming your body is seeking earth because thats where it came from.

Your faith in gravity, if based on studies of physics, will be a rather pure version of knowledge based on episteme.

Techne

The word is the basis for Technology. In this context it is knowledge as can be found by watching a blacksmith. Even an excellent blacksmith will be unable to completely describe the process of making a sword in such a manner that the skill can be transferred to you. Scientific methodology will also have a hard time proving a blacksmith in that the knowledge behind smithing is not to be found physically. Yet watching the excellent blacksmith at work, you will in the end agree that he is a blacksmith. Techne, to qoute 007, is "all in the wrist". You can read all available literature on boxing. You will still get your ass handed to you if the first time you try on the gloves is at the championships.

Phronesis

Phronesis means, directly translated, "mindness". It describes the phenomenon of "practical wisdom". The ability to reason, to apply logic, to understand context. It is phronesis that lets you know that stepping out of your car at 55 mph is a bad idea. You have experience falling when running, and put that into the correct context. You need no further evidence.

Doxa

Doxa, meaning faith, as in Ortho-doxia (correct-faith). Doxa was originally treated by the Greeks as wisdom given directly from the Gods and later morphed into something best traslated as "popular opinion". We don't really have to take a stand regarding the devine. it is sufficient to acknowledge that many of the things human beings think they know, they know due to holding a belief that can't be explained through phronesis, techne or episteme. The believes held among western youth that they one happy day will become famous singers or moviestars, soccer heros in England, football players in the US, can all be classified as Doxa. The same goes for the belief in the metaphysical enteties of freedom and human equality. Scientism, the belief in popular science held by people lacking a scientific education, must be classified as Doxa. The belief in Bing Bang as more than a mathematical model, represents a belief-system comparable to the faith in a creative God.

How do you apply these principles in propaganda?

What is now important to understand for the psychological warrior, is that these four categories are distinct and seperate. Just as perception based on Techne can't be countered by the means of episteme, you can't persuade the blacksmith that he is indeed not a blacksmith by the application of science, so you can't change a Doxa-perception thorugh the use of Phronesis. Logical arguments will not change a persons faith in their God.

This means that any opinion-changing operation will have to start with mapping out in which of the four categories the "center of gravity" of the opinion you want to change, is situated.

This can be done through interviewing, through analysis of the individual and the population.

In this case, alot of observations point to that those who are certain this gas attack was preformed by the Syrian air force, group 1, belive so because any other reality would threaten their belief in core values that can only be classified as Doxa. Thus no evidence (episteme), no logic (phronesis) and no expert (Techne) will change their minds.

In the other end of the spectrum, those who are certain the gas attack was conducted by a party interested in triggering a hostility towards the Syrian government, group 2, will belive so because it supports their own perception of the geopolitical situation and the role of their goverments in it.

If we restrict our studies to the western world, and found that while members of group 1) in general to be loyal to their nations and/or governments, while those who belong to group 2) to be suspicious of their own government, perhaps even openly hostile, this would be in support of our model.

Furthermore, as a logical consequence, one could suspect member of group 1) to have a higher probablility of being up the food chain, and thus more to gain by being loyal to their system, than members of group 2).

If so, this could explain why the newspaper editors all belong to group 1), while youtube is flowing over with people spending their time presenting models coherent with their membership in group 2).

So how would this work from a Russian position?

"American backed rebels were behind this" will never work. No matter what you present you will only end up catering to those who are sympathetic in the first place. An argument made to influence inside the framework of a beliefsystem has to respect those frames, unless it be discarded. If I was asked to conduct an operation on behalf of Kremlin, I would phrase myself quite differently.

"It is unamerican to avoid the though questions."

It will be interesting to see if the Russian ministry of propaganda is pliable enough to evolve into the future.

I have a theorem of what the aforementioned philosophies are. I call it mental masturbation. In other words, a bunch of philosophers and scientists who sit around creating psychological profiles in order to make themselves feel important. And it feels good to act important, doesn't it?

 

[Doc]

I have a theorem of what the aforementioned philosophies are. I call it mental masturbation. In other words, a bunch of philosophers and scientists who sit around creating psychological profiles in order to make themselves feel important. And it feels good to act important, doesn't it?

Yes, that perception is not uncommon. This thread, however, is about the OPCW Sarin report and the Russians propaganda-response.

 

[TheChrome]

I have a theorem of what the aforementioned philosophies are. I call it mental masturbation. In other words, a bunch of philosophers and scientists who sit around creating psychological profiles in order to make themselves feel important. And it feels good to act important, doesn't it?

Yes, that perception is not uncommon. This thread, however, is about the OPCW Sarin report and the Russians propaganda-response.

Correct you are, but HARK! I am not the one who took the thread off topic!

 

[Drumboy44]

What is now important to understand for the psychological warrior, is that these four categories are distinct and seperate.

But not one without the other?

 

[Doc]

What is now important to understand for the psychological warrior, is that these four categories are distinct and seperate.

But not one without the other?

Extremely good question and something lacking in what I wrote. Thank you for asking/pointing it out.

The figure is a sylized version for educational purposes in which these elements have been seperated. Just as you would seperate the quarks in a lecture of physics. The real world is, of course, more complicated and multifactorial.

Opinions can be, and indeed probably always is, a combination of two or more of these categories. And different opionions in the same person will have different compositions.

Most people, as stated, will apply phronetics if told to jump out of a car at the highway. This is automated, and we don't think of it. But if you consider a child, who as not yet developed to a mature stage of phronesis, you would fear that they might actually do it, because experience tells you that kids do not always possess this ability. That would constitute double phronesis. Moving fast is relatively safe in car, but dangerous outside the car, kids don't always apprechiate the significance of that. Both are conclusions based on experience and "common sense".

The same person who just politely declined jumping out of our car, then goes to science class and grows petriedishes, observe the bacterias and their properties, and through those properties verify that it is indeed the Staphylococcus bacterias that form abcesses. That will take a mix of Techne and episteme, as handling lab equipment is a matter of technique and the understanding gained is empirical.

So there is a symbiosis as well. Being good at one, might make the others easier to aquire. I hope understanding this text to have the same effect.

The same person may, however, engage in a political discussion in which he or she expresses her or his belief in that mrs Clinton/mr. Trump is the only acceptable candidate. Which would be Doxa as I am sure America is still great enough to produce thousands of candidates more suitable.

The object of the intelligence operative is to measure/understand/investigate the "center of mass" of the opinion that is to be "attacked". How is opinion X) comprised? Of all four? Just one? Two of them?

Then, and only then, will you know what your options are and how to attack opinion X.

 

[TheChrome]

What is now important to understand for the psychological warrior, is that these four categories are distinct and seperate.

But not one without the other?

Extremely good question and something lacking in what I wrote. Thank you for asking/pointing it out.

The figure is a sylized version for educational purposes in which these elements have been seperated. Just as you would seperate the quarks in a lecture of physics. The real world is, of course, more complicated and multifactorial.

Opinions can be, and indeed probably always is, a combination of two or more of these categories. And different opionions in the same person will have different compositions.

Most people, as stated, will apply phronetics if told to jump out of a car at the highway. This is automated, and we don't think of it. But if you consider a child, who as not yet developed to a mature stage of phronesis, you would fear that they might actually do it, because experience tells you that kids do not always possess this ability. That would constitute double phronesis. Moving fast is relatively safe in car, but dangerous outside the car, kids don't always apprechiate the significance of that. Both are conclusions based on experience and "common sense".

The same person who just politely declined jumping out of our car, then goes to science class and grows petriedishes, observe the bacterias and their properties, and through those properties verify that it is indeed the Staphylococcus bacterias that form abcesses. That will take a mix of Techne and episteme, as handling lab equipment is a matter of technique and the understanding gained is empirical.

So there is a symbiosis as well. Being good at one, might make the others easier to aquire. I hope understanding this text to have the same effect.

The same person may, however, engage in a political discussion in which he or she expresses her or his belief in that mrs Clinton/mr. Trump is the only acceptable candidate. Which would be Doxa as I am sure America is still great enough to produce thousands of candidates more suitable.

The object of the intelligence operative is to measure/understand/investigate the "center of mass" of the opinion that is to be "attacked". How is opinion X) comprised? Of all four? Just one? Two of them?

Then, and only then, will you know what your options are and how to attack opinion X.

If a negative + negative = negative, then> the study of human imperfection (psychology) + Imperfect humans = negative

According to modern day psychology this would equate to: if X = a person predisposed to (Flaw), and Y= studied results of such personality traits, then Z = (flawed) personality trait

However, if a higher positive + lower negative = positive, then> biblical guidelines + human imperfection = positive.

Let’s put this into a formula.

If N = Biblical Guidelines, then Delta X = (N-Y)

Therefore a person who studies biblical principal, eliminates the Z variable (Flawed analysis of supposed human characteristics), or the flawed personality trait by certain degrees.

Science and Philosophy will never solve the problem, as they do not plug in the correct variable to solve the equation.