Topic: Un Reports

The hosts argue that chlorine gas is easily manufactured and that the current allegations against the Syrian government are a "phony deal" born of desperation. They criticize the reliance on UN reports that use Skype interviews and a single source in London as "proof." They suggest that if the government wanted real public outrage, they would focus on more emotional topics like the mistreatment of animals or specific social groups.

The discussion moves to Syria and the UN report on chemical weapons. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf is criticized for her lack of knowledge regarding biological weapons. The hosts examine the timing of the UN report, suggesting it is being used to complicate or assist negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Adam Curry analyzes the UN report on the Ghouta chemical attack, noting that samples were only taken from 20 survivors and none from the 1,500 reported deceased. He questions why soil samples and clothing from the victims were not more thoroughly tested, given that sarin gas remnants can persist for long periods. He labels the report fundamentally flawed.

The UN report's evidence regarding delivery mechanisms is questioned, specifically the use of 45-year-old BM-14 rockets. The hosts argue that the Syrian army would likely use more sophisticated weaponry and suggest the rockets could have been planted as props. They criticize the report's assumption that the rockets were launched from government-held areas based solely on their landing spots.

John C. Dvorak describes himself as a "pissed off writer" rather than a journalist, lamenting the decline of investigative reporting. Adam Curry explains that it only took him 40 minutes of reading the actual UN chemical weapons report to find major flaws that professional journalists ignored. They emphasize the importance of providing source material in the show notes.