Warning: This site contains images and graphic descriptions of extreme violence and/or its effects. It's not as bad as it could be, but is meant to be shocking. Readers should be 18+ or a mature 17 or so. There is also some foul language occasionally, and potential for general upsetting of comforting conventional wisdom. Please view with discretion.

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Swept Under the Rug, Part 1

Swept Under the Rug
The Plot to Delay the OPCW Douma Probe and Manipulate the Evidence

Part 1: Delaying the Probe
July 28/29, 2018
update Aug. 5

The Douma Incident and Probe Creation
Some 12km northeast of central Damascus, Douma was by April, 2018, the last opposition-held area in the capitol's East Ghouta suburbs. It too was squeezed to partial surrender by April 7, when a Syrian government helicopter allegedly dropped two chlorine bombs on two buildings, killing at least 43 civilians.

The last of the occupying Islamist opposition forces surrendered the following day, either "to save lives" as they claimed, or because they finally had no choice. Militants and civilians who opted to would be allowed to leave for rebel-held territory in Idlib, and already were before the final surrender. But most residents chose to remain, and some former residents started trying to return.

Under the surrender agreement, Russian military police - not the Syrian Arab Army - would run security in Douma. Russian troops visited the sites of the alleged chemical attack on the afternoon of April 9th, claiming to find no signs of a chemical attack, and sharing some video of their investigation (right: arriving at the site with 35 bodies). This clearly fed into the following accusations that the Russians tampered with the site to erase signs of their allies' crime.

That same day, an urgent investigation was formed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), with everyone - including the Syrian and Russian governments - agreeing. The OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) investigators got organized, and were ready to set out by the 13th. They were in Syria and ready to work on Saturday the 14th. So all this explains the first week of delay following the attack - nothing unreasonable, and nothing yet that can be blamed on Syria or Russia.

On that same day, April 14, the U.S., U.K., and France showed confidence in their own pre-investigation findings by launching missile strikes on suspected chemical weapons sites in Syria. These powers then gave it a full two days before they started crying foul over the delay in an investigation they weren't waiting for anyway.

Note: the widely-noted reports from medics, the boy Hassan Diab, many other locals, as passed on by Robert Fisk and many others, are valid evidence against an open, widespread gas release with the 500 alleged patients. That's evidence, not proof (I personally accept their version, but obviously not everyone does). Their version is disputed by other residents, but not in a convincing and consistent manner. The "no attack" witnesses clearly win, in my opinion. But even if their claims are true, and even considering the apparent staging and fake claims lodged by the opposition, consider this: only two sites were reportedly stricken, one of which had almost everyone inside allegedly die. These reports from around Douma and in clinics can't prove there was no limited release inside such a place - the gas wouldn't spread much or at all past those walls, and few if any inhabitants would be rushing the clinics, as they mainly dropped dead (allegedly).

So the option of a chemical attack would remain open, neither proven nor disproven, and not even firmly challenged by the valid but limited views of the residents we've heard from. Here we focus on just these two sites with the chlorine gas cylinders allegedly dropped from the air, and primarily on the famous one that had some 35 dead civilians found inside (as I count them: 12 girls, 10 women, 6 boys, 5 men, 2 infants (perhaps both girls)).

On July 6, the OPCW issued an interim report (S/1645/2018 - PDF link) that gives some new insights into the delays in their investigation of the April 7 incident, and oddities with the evidence that might be linked to that. This will be frequently cited in this article as 'the OPCW interim report.'

The Case for Tampering
New York Times, April 16:
Chemical arms inspectors were blocked on Monday [the 16th] from the site ... raising Western suspicions that Syria and its Russian ally were scrubbing the stricken area of evidence.
The inspectors, who wanted to take samples and interview people, “are currently being prevented from doing so by the regime and the Russians,” Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain said in Parliament."
May "accused Syria and Russia of blocking access and attempting to cover up the attack," the Guardian reported on April 16, as "the UK’s OPCW delegation urged "Russia & Syria must cooperate." The suggestion is they were not cooperating for some pretty evident reason, and required pressure.

The French Foreign Ministry said they believed it was "highly likely that evidence and essential elements disappeared from the site, which is completely controlled by the Russian and Syrian armies." (DW)

The U.S. ambassador to the OPCW, Kenneth Ward, said since "the Russians may have visited the attack site," there was "concern" that "they may have tampered with it with the intent of thwarting the efforts of the OPCW fact-finding mission to conduct an effective investigation.” This was said at a closed-door OPCW meeting, but was swiftly made public on the 16th, presumably to increase the pressure on the stonewalling villain states. (Washington Post)

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert followed up on the 17th, reiterating Ward's comments and adding: "We've seen that the Russian government and the Syrian government - their whole goal in this is to try to cover up. Their goal is to try to deflect attention." However, when pressed, she explained "in terms of what exactly is happening on the ground to prevent (the OPCW team) from getting there in a quicker time frame is not something that I can discuss or get into." For some reason, she refuses to explicitly blame them; as if she knew there was another cause.

Non-Issues on Both Sides
One issue Nauert and others labored to refute was part of that "deflection" by the Syrian government; on the 17th SANA, Syrian state TV, reported that the OPCW's FFM investigators actually had entered Douma. But that seems more like an error by SANA: As the Daily Sabah report noted: "Syrian state media reported Tuesday that inspectors ... had entered Douma, but the Syrian government later said that only a U.N. advance security team had entered."

That would be a pretty dumb and short-lived lie. Luckily it was thoroughly debunked. Scott Lucas, EA Worldwview: "The Assad regime continued to stall ...even resorting to the lie that the (FFM) had reached Douma. State news agency SANA put out the false information, which was circulated by many mainstream outlets. … Finally, the Assad regime’s UN ambassador Bashar al-Ja’afari walked back the line.." or corrected the error, depending. "Finally" is later that day. Baseless gripes move fast.

The Russians seem to have some baseless charges too. a Reuters report stated "Moscow denied the charge and blamed delays on retaliatory U.S.-led missile strikes on Syria on Saturday." This rebuttal seems like a red herring; it's apparently based on an impression that the site to be visited was under bombardment in the strikes on April 14. The Guardian's report added this explanation by the Russian deputy envoy at the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy: “If you go to a site which was just bombed I imagine you might have certain logistic problems."

This was just as the FFM arrived, but didn't continue, and struck areas entirely outside of Douma (though one major target was fairly nearby). The same explanation was repeated recently (Sputnik News), and then again (TASS): Georgy Kalamanov, Russia's head delegate to the OPCW said of the Western coalition attacks "their missiles were about to hit the OPCW mission." But it doesn't seem that's the reason for the small delay.

Fake Security Concerns?
Amid the accusations from some governments, it's unsettling that the departing director general of the OPCW himself voiced concerns, as early as April 16, that the Russians and Syrians were stalling them on purpose. Or, at least, his comments were widely read that way. As The Guardian reported:
Russia and Syria had cited “pending security issues” before inspectors could deploy to the town outside Damascus, said Ahmet Üzümcü, the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at a meeting of its executive council.
Syrian authorities were offering 22 people to interview as witnesses instead, he said, adding that he hoped “all necessary arrangements will be made … to allow the team to deploy to Douma as soon as possible”.
That Uzumcu has to "hope" they aren't stalling suggests he thinks they are, as they seem to offer alternatives "instead" of allowing access. The implication is the security problem was fake, just an excuse to delay. Most media reports passed it on in that context, scare quotes included. (original statement hard to find - NPR article links to a broken e-mailed PDF link. I didn't locate it anywhere else yet.)

Note: Uzumcu has just now stepped down in a planned retirement. Having headed the OPCW since 2010, he's been at the helm the whole time Syria has been blamed for CW attacks on often dubious evidence. (one important but little-noted example - another) He's from Turkey, has previously been Turkey's ambassador to NATO, and to Israel - not the best qualifications to be an impartial agent in a campaign against a common enemy in the Syrian government.

The Russians offered an alternate reason for the delay; it was the United Nations stalling, but over valid security concerns. This was swiftly rebutted and made to look like a lie by people speaking for the supposedly neutral UN. New York Times, April 16:
Russia — which has questioned whether the Douma attack even happened — ridiculed the Western accusation, asserting that the United Nations had exercised its authority to delay the inspectors for security reasons. 
The United Nations disputed the Russian explanation, saying it had no security issues and wanted the inspectors to reach the site quickly. … a spokesman for the United Nations, Stéphane Dujarric, said the United Nations had given the inspectors “all the necessary clearances.”
But this doesn't seem to be true.

The UN agency that would have security issues - the one he should be referring to - is called the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS). It's they who would be responsible for the safety of any OPCW mission. Immediately on deployment, the UNDSS set to assessing the obviously complex situation in Douma, as it emerged from six years of occupation by foreign-backed Islamists. As the OPCW report states:
6.1 ... According to Syrian Arab Republic and Russian Military Police representatives, there were a number of unacceptable risks to the team, including mines and explosives that still needed to be cleared, a risk of explosions, and sleeper cells still suspected of being active in Douma. This assessment was shared by the representative of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS). 
So it wasn't a fake concern, as suggested publicly, but a real one the UN's security people shared. Jason Ditz was correct to note at Antiwar.com "Though British officials blamed Russia for the delay, it is now clear that the UNDSS is driving the scheduling." They were delaying work over security concerns, just like the Russians said, and Mr. Dujarric is looking dishonest in disputing that.

In a April 16 meeting under intense pressure, the UNDSS came to an agreement with the Syrian and Russian authorities on accessing the attack sites. As the OPCW interim report explains, the Russian Military Police then in charge could run "security within Douma," while the Syrian government would be in charge everywhere else. (point 6.3) And another small delay was added - by the UN security team. An OPCW statement of April 18 explains "the UNDSS preferred to first conduct a reconnaissance visit to the sites." This was planned for the 17th, with hopes of FFM site inspections by the 18th if the advance mission went well. Russia and Syria agreed to facilitate this. That's the progress on the probe-stalling for the 16th of April, the day the OPCW were reportedly "blocked from the site."

An especially flawed New York Times video report says (at 0:38) "the regime went to great lengths to conceal the evidence." On-screen, a Russian military vehicle is shown driving across the camera's line of sight. Well, it seems we just examined those "great lengths," and there's nothing at all to prove that bold claim. Even a deliberate delay is unproven, let alone active concealment. As we'll see, to propose anything more substantial would require a "conspiracy theory," as they call it.

"The Incident"
The next day, that plan was implemented. DW:
Syria's UN ambassador told the United Nations Security Council Tuesday (the 17th) that a UN security team traveled to the town of Douma, outside the capital Damascus, to ascertain whether it was safe for global chemical weapons experts to visit the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack last week that killed dozens.
Bashar Ja'afari said if the team decides "the situation is sound," the fact-finding mission from the international chemical weapons watchdog — Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons — will start work there Wednesday. 
The situation was not sound. As the OPCW report passes on the details:
"During the reconnaissance visit by UNDSS on 18 April 2018 to assess the first two locations planned to be visited the following day, the security detail was confronted by a hostile crowd and came under fire from small arms and a hand grenade that exploded" This "reportedly resulted in two fatalities and an injury to a Russian soldier."
Whose reports they're relying on isn't mentioned, and it's not explained who was killed. As it turns out, most of those details are wrong. Ambassador Jaafari and all others agree the mission this incident came amid was on the 17th, not the 18th. There were two incidents, not one (one had a crowd, the other had violence). And a Syrian officer, not a Russian one, was wounded. No one else mentions fatalities but still, that part might not be an error.

Sputnik News reports on a statement by the Russian center for Syrian reconciliation, an informed source:
According to the statement released by the Russian center for Syrian reconciliation, which has been observing the ceasefire in the Arab Republic, an exchange of fire between Syrian security officers and unidentified assailants took place in Douma on April 17.
"As a result of the shootout, a Syrian security officer was slightly injured. There were no Russian servicemen at the site of the incident," the statement said.
The Syrian officers have been providing security for UN personnel on a reconnaissance mission to Douma.
The Russian Defense Ministry is cited for a supporting claim that no Russian military personnel were present or involved. The plan was to have the Russians run security, but as Syrian Oberver, reported April 17 report notes "Russian military police have withdrawn from Douma" rather suddenly, in favor of Syrian army troops. This had sparked fears of a massacre, as the Oberver heard (none was ever reported). This little-noted last-minute switch may be the cause of that confusion.

Who, if anyone, died, is also unexplained here. It might well be the attacking militants, or no one, in another reporting error. But it's less likely to report two deaths in error than it is to just not mention it in most reports. Some possible story twists of great significance remain over this issue. (I checked the VDC records for good measure, and they don't seem to list any such victims, unless it's that guy from Dumair.)

OPCW DG Üzümcü's reaction at the time agrees the report's date is wrong. Daily Sabah, April 18: "The head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said Wednesday [April 18] that a U.N. security team doing reconnaissance in Douma, Syria came under gunfire a day earlier, sources told Reuters." He was said to acknowledge this was a real attack, and what some would call "pending security issues" would delay the FFM's work, after seeming to scoff at the notion recently. As his same-day statement says:
… At present, we do not know when the FFM team can be deployed to Douma. Of course, I shall only consider such deployment following approval by the UNDSS, and provided that our team can have unhindered access to the sites. … This incident again highlights the highly volatile environment in which the FFM is having to work ...
There's no mention of Uzumcu suggesting which side was behind the disruption or what their motive would be. But Al Jazeera's Zeina Khodr noted the accusations of regime stalling, and added "what we understand is that Douma is under the control of the Russian military and the Syrian government. Both of them claimed just a few days ago that the area had been 'fully liberated from terrorists'." Maybe they really had cleansed the place good in just a few days, so that anyone shooting now must be with the government's approval or even on their orders. Maybe the regime admits they have total control, but then makes up lies about "sleeper cells" to delay things … and then maybe they get people to stage sleeper cell violence with real weapons, to make the lies seem true and stall further.

Some people seem sure of this. Hadi al-Bahra of the Saudi-backed High Negotiations Committee, in a tweet, called the shooting incident "a criminal act and efforts for concealment of evidence, in an area where all armed groups have left and handed over completely, as per terms of agreement." He's sure all Saudi-backed Islamists disarmed and left, honoring their pledge like good Saudi-backed Islamists would clearly do. But neither the Russians, the Syians, or the UNDSS was so sure about this, considering "sleeper cells" of them to be a potential danger. That could be who was behind the attack, knowing that anything can be blamed on Syria and Russia, no matter the evidence.

The OPCW's statement of April 18 (PDF link) agrees the incident "took place yesterday," and explains it as having two parts:
On arrival at Site 1, a large crowd gathered and the advice provided by the UNDSS was that the reconnaissance team should withdraw. At Site 2, the team came under small arms fire and an explosive was detonated. The reconnaissance team returned to Damascus. .
It's worth noting the crowd that became an issue at the first site was, on its surface, there to protest the Western-power airstrikes the OPCW is seen as in league with (and not without reason). So most likely they were pro-government people, not anti. The Independent: "An official close to the Syrian government said the UN security team had been met by protesters demonstrating against the US-led strikes. “It was a message from the people,” said the official..."  But that doesn't prove anyone sent them. There's no mention of their being a clear threat anyway, just a presence the team retreated from in caution.

At site 2, no clues are given about the assailants except they were armed and launched a small attack. There's no mention here of any fatalities or even injuries.

So, the Russian-Syrian coverup plot ... there must be some clues of it in there. Did they trick the UNDSS into believing a fake terrorist threat in its first days? Did they launch a false-flag attack against their own security detail on the 17th, wounding a Syrian officer and perhaps losing two of their own attackers to defensive fire? All just to stall the probe in a deniable way, and get another few days of evidence-scrubbing done? 

The Final Delay and Tally of Time Lost
This shooting incident on the 17th shows, ten days after the incident, it wasn't clearly Russia and Syria but mystery militants in Douma blocking the work. OPCW report:
Following the incident, the planned deployment of the FFM team was postponed until the security situation could be reassessed... New routes of access to the locations of interest were identified and modifications to the initial FFM deployment plans were formulated...
This took a few more days, but the investigators were at the sites and collecting samples on the 21st, according to news reports (Reuters) and the later OPCW interim report.

April 7 to 21 is two weeks, the total time lost before first on-site investigation. Half of that time was lost in forming the mission prior to arrival. Once Syria was hosting them, two precious days were lost to setting up the details of a visit, perhaps too rushed for the security situation. A day was spent with the needed pre-mission that encountered violence and other problems, and in recovering from this before reporting it the next day. Then four even more precious days were lost planning it over and getting the FFM actually to the sites.

By the (apparent) dates in the Evidence Reference Numbers (in the interim report), the first visit was April 21, and they made several collection trips up to at least the 27th. The report states crowds and gunmen were kept at a distance, and no further security incidents occurred in this time.

After the rush: the team flies back to Europe, logs details and files paperwork. 29 samples are tested in OPCW-certified labs, with results on May 22. Some statements and such precede the interim report published July 6, 1.5 months after results were available, 3 months after the incident. The bulk of testing and a final report will take some more time...

There was a point when the process seemed much more urgent. Of course, this was when the relevant chemicals were breaking down naturally, if not being scrubbed. In fact the plotters could just hold the probe off until the clues had broken down to nothing (the time frame for that is considered in part 2). No doubt time is a serious issue for the science.

But this was also when it helped score cheap points against the Syrian and Russian governments for allegedly daring to stall the probe. We can see dishonest and misleading statements to the effect of scoring such points, so I suppose this was the main motive. For all anyone knew, what the FFM found might wind up embarrassingly absurd or incriminating the local Islamists. The OPCW and others could try to spin it, but might fail, and have to drop the issue.

As part 2 explores a bit, and as most readers already know, no nerve agent turned up in the environment or in the supposed victims' blood. It's not universally noted, but that's absurd and embarrassing. The media coverage of these OPCW findings are not covered as enthusiastically as Russia was denounced for delaying the findings.

Luckily, there was a ready widely-sown explanation for anything amiss - the presumed cleanup the villain states would have done with that bought time. In part 2, we'll consider what the OPCW should and shouldn't have found,  did and didn't find, what that might mean, and who might have tampered with what evidence.

Aug. 5: Part 2 is now online

Monday, July 16, 2018

Irritated Eyes...

July 16, 2018
rough, incomplete

On the advice of Qoppa999, I make this dedicated post.

Irritated Eyes...
… Are They White or Red?
I'll start with the points addressed in my critique of a New York Times video report on the visual evidence they pretended supports government guilt. 
Idiot expert on corneal burns: 
… Another supposed expert (Jennifer Knaack) thinks chlorine causes corneal burns that make the eyes appear white? What a moron. The literature has been pretty clear for over a century, but a bit more mixed the last few years in Syria; the acid created when chlorine contacts the water in the eyes causes a mild to severe redness in the eyes. In more severe cases, from what I know, they'll start melting, get really red and pour blood. The point where the whites are still white is at little or no exposure, not at severe exposure like they heard. Whiteness over the whites is generally the point the Douma victims are at.

The added whiteness over the pupils she seems to be referring to, I think, is a simple phenomenon they call "clouding." It's a basic thing that happens to all dead people and animals, like rigor mortis. 
This eye claim has previously been made by supposed chemical expert Keith Ward. In an article run by Bellingcat, he decided "the vast majority of the clinical signs and symptoms (such as the corneal opacification...)" are, of all chemicals around, "most consistent with exposure to high levels of chlorine, although they do not completely rule out that a nerve agent might have also been involved." What a moron. He clarifies they refer to clouding, and are unaware this is just a sign of death. … He's also cited in the NYT repot at 9:24, testifying to the frothy mucous clue, but not the eyes. Instead, Knaack is brought on to address that. Did Ward decide to drop that point, forcing them to find someone less qualified to repeat what they had heard around … from the likes of Mr. Ward?

This BBC article takes reports from locals of "corneal burns" and/or "cornea irritation" as signs of chlorine, seen/reported on patients and those found in the home - who only display clouding, which should NOT be seen on living patients.

French Intel report
"French experts analysed the symptoms identifiable in the images and videos that were made public," and tallied:
Suffocation, asphyxia or breathing difficulties, (observed for sure, or inferred from claims and the wearing of masks?)
Mentions of a strong chlorine odour and presence of green smoke in affected areas, (they observed mentions? Or just passing on claims?)
Hypersalivation and hypersecretions (particularly oral and nasal), (the noted and evident foam)
Cyanosis, (noted, evident)
Skin burns and corneal burns. (observed? mentioned? No explanation or description what it looked like)
No deaths from mechanical injuries were visible. All of these symptoms are characteristic of a chemical weapons attack, particularly choking agents and organophosphorus agents or hydrocyanic acid (the solution of hydrogen cyanide in water).

* this image search for cornea irritation shows what I'm saying: this means red eyes, not ones that are cloudy as if one were dead.
* here's one easily found online explanation of post mortem eye clouding.
* Here's another list of the basic signs of death, one of which is "Clouding of the cornea." Explained: "The transparent window of the eye begins to cloud quickly after death."

Some images show an additional red-black band across the white of the eye I've rarely seen or noted. Digging around, it seems they call this tache noir (black spot): if the eyes are left open after death, I guess from not blinking/moving and moistening like usual, the exposed part darkens that way (in the dark or only in the sun or light?). This may be the cause of the dark spots on the eyes of the boy whose left eye is shown below (small, in the lower right corner). That also is not a chlorine burn. 

There are injuries to the eye that cause scarring that appears opaque like the Douma victims and all other dead people. Glaucoma causes similar. I've seen cloudy-eyed people blinded by chemical release in Bhopal in the early 1980s. But that, I believe, is scar issue that appears after the initial injury has healed. But dead people don't heal.

What the injury looks like, before and shortly after a related death: bloodshot red, like after the swimming pool but worse in a severe (deadly) case. Chlorine causes acids, which burn less severely than an alkaline would (per this graphic and other sources), but enough to show up visually like the eyes on the left here.  Compare this to eyes that simply show death (middle row) and then to the Douma victims (6 samples, and they're representative).
The conclusion to draw from this is the seen victims are dead, and it's not from regular chlorine exposure. (but perhaps irregular exposure: if they were wearing goggles, for example, red eyes could be avoided even with exposure to chlorine or another caustic agent. But that, clearly, would be abnormal, and no one reported that. Oddly, there are visual clues pointing to it anyway.)

Below, the boy displaying tache noir in larger form, to note the dark spots and clouding to show he died (and had his eyes open about this wide the whole time since). We can also note the lack of red to suggest chlorine did it. But the orange stuff that wound up in his airways suggests it included blood, from inhaling chlorine or similar. So what could be different between his eyes and lungs? (note also an overall yellow color - possibly just lighting, but see below)

...In Alleged Chlorine Attacks, Images and Words
From the visual record in Syria, we could almost conclude the opposite of the expected is true - but the frequent verbal nods to eye redness show how some are aware this is what's supposed to happen. Here's a partial review of chlorine attacks …

April 21 2014, Telmines - a boy who eventually died, white eyes being rinsed for good measure, but blood in the airways (filling the suction tube with pink foam, also across his cheek - that comes up in Douma, 2018 as well. Hm. yellowish color?

March 16, 2015 Sarmin:  Dr. Mohamed Tenari, local director of Syrian American Medical Society, US-backed director of terrorist-affiliated Sarmin field clinic, who claims he tended to the family of 6 who died "said most of the victims came in without physical wounds, but had acute respiratory problems and burning, bloodshot eyes." (Guardian)

But the ones who died don't have these. The evidence suggests the three young children shown on tear-jerking video died from a depressant drug overdose and/or medical malpractice/murder. Their eyes are white. They don't cough or breathe at all visibly - they're comatose.  At right, Aysha al-Taleb with eyes white, corneas looking clouded over - she may be dead here, but not from regular chlorine exposure. Her infant brother Mohamed (white eyes below) breathes just enough to say he's alive but barely breathing. He at least is comatose, in a way few things but a drug OD will cause. http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-killed-talebs.html
http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-movie-updated-evidence-from-swedishthe wearinf og masks-doctors-confirm-fake-lifesaving-and-malpractices-on-children/


Also, Dr. Tennari is not present in these scenes, when he claims he was. He first described the victims as strangers or displaced people rom another town, then decided they were family friends he had recently visited. 

Aug. 2 2016 Saraqeb:
Ibrahim al-Assaad, a doctor who treated the victims, describes patients "having bloodshot eyes,”
Came as a real chemical attack by Islamists hit Aleppo's Old City, killing several, including soldiers and civilians. (barely noted or ignored in the MSM reports hyping the opposition-claimed attack on this day).

Aug. 19, 2016 Saraqeb: "We suspect it was chlorine because of the smell and the nature of the injuries – suffocation and burning, red eyes." https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chlorine-filled-gas-canisters-dropped-syrias-civilian-population-rebel-held-idlib-province-1573933

Aleppo 2016 Chlorine attacks
Aug. 10 and 11: some of the many children with no engorged capillaries in the whites of their eyes, but allegedly exposed to chlorine released by the nefarious regime. You cane tell by the costume (oxygen mask).

Sept. 6:
A man found on the street alone, driven to a clinic - he has red eyes and a realistic cough - filmed by On The Ground News (OGN), by terrorist-supporter Bilal Abdul Karim. He does provide some valuable reporting of the visual kind, like this very rare evidence of chlorine actually contacting someone's eyes. It does happen. But why does it get filmed so rarely, despite all the exuberant efforts?  (to be fair, I haven't really dug for all photos and videos, and am likely missing a good number. But still … why so many white eyes mixed in?)

Three of the many white-eyed children filmed at a clinic that same day, treated for the horrible chlorine exposure from that same attack, or perhaps a nearby one with even less factual basis. 

At right is, apparently, one of the two fatalities of the Sept. 6 attack. That's a good guess, but either way, he's in an extra bad state after the chlorine attack he's shown as a victim of, not breathing anymore, and staring blankly. It ripped up his lungs, but none of it got in his eyes? 

December 9: Abu Rajab, the former administrator at al-Sakhour hospital, said that he heard a thump near the entrance of the al-Hayat clinic in Kallaseh at about 8 p.m. on December 9. Soon, he said, a very strong smell started spreading in the clinic. “It quickly became very bad,” he said. “It felt like I had a fire in my chest, my eyes became red. I couldn’t breathe properly. It smelled like chlorine.”
Abdallah Mahmoud, an administrator working in the al-Quds hospital, said that the hospital treated 47 injured civilians. Their symptoms included red eyes, difficulty speaking and breathing, and coughing.
real release in a nearby district the prior day (Dec. 8) captured on video, again by OGN

Habit, April 3, 2017: (just hours before the Khan Sheikhoun alleged sarin attack, chlorine reportedly dropped on nearby Habit village. Three strangely "displaced" children photographed after surviving the chlorine attack - just now washed down, and already any eye redness they had has disappeared entirely. One has watering eyes, but that must be from sadness. It seems a newborn/unborn brother of these kids, and maybe his/their mother, died in the chlorine attack, but they weren't reported that way at the time. Their fathers - two brothers of disputed/unclear name -  had already died, allegedly from Russian bombing while they were working on a hospital in Latamnah, and not as slave labor.

Douma, a year later: covered above, no red eyes. Four more cases from the weeks before that, both in the same besieged Eastern Ghouta area:

Jan. 30 al-Marj
On Monday 30/01/2017 at 4:00pm Damascus time, The emergency department of Al Marj received injured civilians as a result of a poisoned gas attack (probably chlorine gas).
The number of injured was 11, this includes 3 who are in a critical health situation and they had the following symptoms:
Breathing difficulties
Eye and nasal irritation
Nausea and vomiting
The injured who came to the hospital said that the exploded bombs contained green gas with a very bad smell.

Feb. 9 Irbeen
On Feb 9th 2017 in the morning, we received several cases that had the following symptoms: eruption, absence of consciousness, vomiting and irritation in the eye. These symptoms are the result of the chlorine gas exposure.

Feb. 25, 2018, Shifuniya: 
"We don’t know if it’s the chlorine gas or another one. "
"...we, my family and I, started to inhale a strong and strange smell, following which I blacked out, and fainted."
Dr. Saeed Hanafi, a medical centre staff member in Douma, said to STJ:
“The injured who were taken to medical points had a chlorine-like odor, they suffered from dyspnea and the irritation of bronchus and conjunctiva (eyes)."
Kids shown in masks - one set of eyes that might be faintly pink.

"There was a child among the injured whom we couldn’t save because he was in the centre of the targeted area the time of the attack … we initially suspected to have involved chlorine, as the child’s features and face indicate that he was suffocated..." The first boy who died, just the all white eyes (probably clouded too, but hard to tell from this view). Douma Coordinating on Facebook.
The small scrapes on his nose are explained as part of some unrelated wounds from falling debris, which isn't what killed him. 

"Another child named called Ahmad al-Ahmad, 10 months old, died on the morning of 1 March 2018 of dyspnea." He's shown around, app. eyes closed. A woman was said to be critically ill at first, likely died as well. https://gulfnews.com/news/mena/syria/syrian-child-suffocates-in-apparent-chlorine-attack-1.2179200

March 7, Hamouriya:
“Findings show that a basement was targeted by a rocket … whose impact caused a minor explosion sound,” Syria’s opposition directorate of health for Damascus said in a statement, adding that the substances emitted caused “coughing, red eyes and throat congestion”.
But then they decided this wasn't chlorine, just some confusion.

"Due to chlorine attack in #EastGhouta, patients are struggling w/symptoms such as severe dyspnea, sweating, congestion of mucus membranes, severe runny nose, wheezing & conjunctival erythema," SAMS wrote on social media late Wednesday.
"The emotional trauma from these attacks can not be measured."
Dyspnea is shortness of breath. Conjunctival erythema is redness of the eye caused by dilation of the blood vessels.

Here's one story as to why they changed tune halfway through.
Note also closeness in time to the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury. Something went wrong, and they tried again a month later in Douma.

...In Alleged Sarin Attacks, Images and Words
Pure, military-grade sarin is free of smell and color and caustic properties, but in Syria, a dirty kind is used that's yellow, smells foul, and like chlorine, burns the eyes and airways - this is grounds for some confusion, and other grounds have appeared, causing lots of confusion. Anyway, we should see about the same as for red eyes, and we do - a mix of possible exposure and probable non-exposure, but oddly with more realistic red seen than in the chlorine cases where people realize it should appear. 

12-22-2012, Daraya: a yellow gas is reportedly released on SAA soldiers, causing 7 to die in short order. Never clarified, but likely first dirty sarin attack of the war. Eye situation unknown.
3-19-2013, Khan al-Assal - eventually confirmed as a sarin attack, clearly launched by opposition forces against SAA soldiers and primarily Shia civilians: the first widely-noted CW attack of the war. Itching is noted, suggesting the common irritant properties we would see. Red eyes are not mentioned, but likely.(UN report)

April 13, 2013, Sheikh Maqsoud, Aleppo
"those injured suffered hallucinations, severe vomiting, nose bleeding and eye burning, one of which lost eye sight." (SOHR Facebook) Policeman Zargos: "when we went inside we saw the children dead and the Kurdish police who had arrived before us were on the ground foaming something white from their mouth. Their eyes were so red.”

None of the people seen as victims on video seem to have red eyes or bleeding noses, and they aren't vomiting. Are they stand-ins? This guy - not the best frame, but I recall his eyes seemed fine and white, no better faked than the shaving cream "foaming from the mouth" special effects. (white eyes, on this and another guy: Qoppa999 2 women and 2 children reportedly died. Then later they noted 9 men also died, including one already on record as a survivor, and one of their wives. Islamists had just conquered the Kurdish-majority district. One of the female victims apparently had her feet lashed and beaten by the nerve agent.

April 29, 2013, Saraqeb:
That Aleppo attack was allegedly delivered by grenade, dropped from a helicopter - same grenade blamed two weeks later in Saraqeb, killing Maryam Khatib. This allegedly her dilated pupil, surrounded by a sea of almost pristine white.

August 21, 2013 (Ghouta attack):
Witnesses to the Ghouta incident reported varying smells: "something like vinegar and rotten eggs" or "like cooking gas," along with "redness and itching of the eyes." (Guardian)
“Then came the smell, which burned eyes and throats, like onions or chlorine”
eye irritation photo, from a UN report

August 24, 2013, Jobar: SAA soldiers hit w/sarin (OPCW confirmed) "had hypersalivation, red eyes with blurred vision and miosis." "A medical doctor reported itchy eyes in the evening after examining the patients." (UN report)

Dec. 11/12, 2016, Uqrabiyat: "...red eyes, swollen faces, and foaming and bleeding from the mouth" (HRW)

March 30, 2017, Latamnah: "They were trembling, had extreme difficulty breathing, redness in their eyes..."

April 4, 2017, Khan Sheikhoun
A 14-year-old girl "saw an aircraft drop a bomb on a one-story building a few dozen yards away. In a telephone interview Tuesday night, she described an explosion like a yellow mushroom cloud that stung her eyes. “It was like a winter fog,” she said. (New York Times).  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/world/middleeast/syria-gas-attack.html?smid=tw-share
Many report seeing this fog, some kind of fog appears suddenly on video shot just after the allged jet attack. It's said to smell strange and foul, like sarin does here. Eye redness isn't mentioned much or at all, just the feeling (stinging/burning). As it happens, few if any red eyes are seen among those filmed dead and dying. But there may well have been a low-level release of something similar, by way of a special effect.
A surviving victim with miosis, no redness from chemical exposure, no profuse tears like you'd expect with sarin. Bright light involved, likely cause of constricted pupil. Shown to us by Shajul Islam, an active force in blurring the lines between chlorine and sarin attacks, and a spirited advocate of kidnapping and such in the name of an Islamic State, but not very smart when it comes to medical issues.
3 dead children and one seen gasping, likely to die - somehow, exposed to something, but no sign of anything stinging their white eyes. Mainly they display little to no symptoms, as if suffocated, or killed with a gas that leaves no outward sign.

Someone else in Khan Sheikhoun with no outward signs, White Helmets media activist Anas Al-Diab. But he never died, and got a chance to tell his story, unlike those kids whom he and others spoke for.  Here he is as seen just after his horrible exposure, and as he describes himself even longer after it. (credit Qoppa999). So, some of what he says on the victims' behalf is untrue, and this is just regarding his own eyes.

Harasta, 11-18-17: 
Severe respiratory failure, vomiting, eyes irritation &heart acceleration
blurred vision, unconsciousness, contracted pupils, shortness of breath, nasal secretions, vomiting, and headaches.
A later UN CoI report, A/HRC/37/72, Feb. 1,  addresses the claims, finding the government probably gassed the rebels a little with an organophosphate, perhaps sarin.
"a small dose of chemical agent was released on the Harasta frontline."
There had been chlorine attacks  reported in the preceding days.
"At first, we thought chlorine is the gas used in the attack," two medics told them, based apparently on eye irritation and breathing problems and the precedent, with no one mentioning a chlorine-like smell. They were discharged as ok but several hours later, about 15 injured came back with the same symptoms.
The Syria Civil Defence said that barrel bombs containing chlorine gas had been dropped by helicopter and caused the casualties to gasp desperately for air, suffer severe irritation to their skin and eyes, vomit and collapse.
... a medic said "They couldn’t breathe, they were coughing non-stop, they had red eyes and some were vomiting severely"
Note: vomiting can occur with chlorine, but it's secondary, from too much coughing-retching. The actual nausea feeling plus widespread vomiting is more consistent with sarin, where it's one of the core symptoms (part of the SLUDGE-M syndrome). They should also have diarrhea, drooling, etc. (if genuine), but not all of that might be evident or get mentioned.