MIT professor accuses Bellingcat’s Higgins of enabling war criminals to walk free in Syria (VIDEO)
The opponents met on the grounds of the Center for Investigative Journalism's Conspiracy conference in London on Saturday, engaging in a bitter war of words. Not that anyone expected the meeting to be peaceful, given how Higgins earlier refused to meet the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor and former scientific adviser for the Pentagon, simply calling him “an idiot.”
Eliot Higgins and Theodore Postol come to verbal blows over what the forensic evidence shows about whether or not Sarin was used in an attack in the Khan Sheikhoun, Syria attack in April 2017 - and how it was actually deployed. pic.twitter.com/TsQUssfOgX— Aidila Razak (@aidilarazak) October 20, 2018
Excerpts from the debate have been posted on social media.“Ted, have you found anything useful in Eliot’s work?” the moderator of the debate asked. “No,” he replied shortly, sparking laughter from the audience.
More: (All this from the CIJ's Conspiracy conference at Goldsmiths, Uni of London.)In short: Higgins feels Postol's findings that UN findings don't stand up discredits the White Helmets, Postol feels Higgin's work is unscientific and may allow war criminals to escape charges pic.twitter.com/Y2k1doUyh4— Aidila Razak (@aidilarazak) October 20, 2018
Bellingcat’s chief was seemingly offended by such an evaluation, launching a bitter personal attack on Postol … only to be immediately returned the favor.
“I think that Ted’s work is a disgrace. It’s being used to deny war crimes,” Higgins stated boldly. “And I think it’s absolutely disgusting.”
“You fabricate the data and arguments. You are essentially causing people, who might have committed a war crime, to go free,” Postol replied in a calm manner of speech as opposed to Higgins’ agitated reaction.
The full video of the talk which includes both side’s technical assessment of the incident is not available as of yet. However, people who were present at the conference pointed out that “Eliot demonstrated that he had no real expertise — or any kind of real authority on the subject: not political, not scientific, not analytic or even personal.”
On stage, Eliot demonstrated that he had no real expertise — or really any kind of real authority on the subject: not political, not scientific, not analytic or even personal. He’s taken seriously because powerful institutions say he should be taken seriously.— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) October 21, 2018
When called on his lack of expertise, Eliot resorted to crude insults. This from a guy who gets funding from the Atlantic Council and NED, a Reagan Era CIA cutout.— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) October 21, 2018
Seconds into the debate Eliot Higgins is avoiding answering simple question— Christine Maguire (@_ChrisMaguire) October 20, 2018
Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.