BEIRUT, LEBANON (3:30 A.M.) – Wikileaks has released its third batch of documents about the OPCW’s fact-finding mission in Douma, Syria.

In the new leak, Wikileaks releases a memo that reveals that 20 inspectors felt the version “did not reflect views of the team members that deployed Syria.”

According to the documents, one paramedic from the fact-finding mission in Douma actually contributed the final version of the OPCW’s report.

Besides the one paramedic, the entire OPCW report was gathered by an entirely new team that did not visit the alleged site where the chemical weapons attack was reported.

“This new team was staffed with people who ‘had only operated in country X’, according to the memorandum. It is not clear what country that refers to, except that it is presumably not Syria. It is possible, though only speculation, that country X refers to Turkey, as OPCW has sent teams into refugee camps there to interview survivors from Douma.

The author of the memorandum states that he was the one originally tasked with analysis and assessment of the two cylinders found on the scene of the alleged chemical attack. This was a task he undertook ‘in the understanding [he] was clearly the most qualified team member, having been to the location in Douma and because of [his] expertise in metallurgy, chemical engineering (including pressure vessel design), artillery and Defence R&D’. He continues: ‘In subsequent weeks I found that I was being excluded from the work, for reasons not made clear.’

The author explains that he had frequently asked to be updated on the progress of the final report and to be allowed to review the draft, but was turned down on both counts. ‘The response was utmost secrecy.'”

The OPCW has yet to issue a comment regarding these latest leaks.

ALSO READ  Syrian Army repels militant attack along Sweida-Daraa axis

The full report can viewed on Wikileaks official site:

Share this article:
  • 38
  • 1

Notice: All comments represent the view of the commenter and not necessarily the views of AMN.

All comments that are not spam or wholly inappropriate are approved, we do not sort out opinions or points of view that are different from ours.

This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

  • Name-calling
  • Ad hominem attacks
  • Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
  • Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.