I always wonder how reporters get folks who have these tangential connections to powerful / terrible people to talk after they refuse. It's an impressive skill.

• chneu

  today at 2:59 AM

  They just keep trying. It's not uncommon for people to talk after 3 or so attempts. Humans want to talk.

  • mingus88

    today at 3:09 AM

    I block numbers at that point. I don’t get how anyone would decide to open up after repeated attempts on their number.

    • cocoa19

      today at 4:21 AM

      Emergencies. If you are responsible for children or needy adults, and they are not with you, you better respond after multiple tries.

      At least that's what a regular Joe like me would do, I don't know what high in power people do.

• zxexz

  today at 3:36 AM

  Not relevant at all, but I find that interesting and funny. As a rule of thumb I tend to accept unknown callers after 3 missed calls in rapid succession. Everybody I know closely knows this, and its come in useful. Though tbh I’d it’s a recognizable localish area code I usually pick up on the 2nd call in rapid succession.

• mhh__

  today at 2:59 AM

  I assume it's often parallel construction

The story is: they find the guy, call him and he doesn't talk. All they've discovered is that he, like many in the Assad regime, are now in Russia. Duh. This is a non-story.

Is anyone just overwhelmed by the propaganda and partisanship as you read this? I have no great opinion on this Syrian regime or the previous - like basically everyone on HN when it comes to geopolitical topics, I do not know much about it - but the bias in the article is almost comically ham-fisted.

• PeterHolzwarth

  today at 4:21 AM

  It is distressing to hear someone on hacker news describe this, and the history of Syria over the last couple decades, as something that might be "propaganda" and "partisanship."

  My god, man - do you even slightly follow the news? Are you really that unaware such that you feel there is some degree of question over just how horrific the Assad regime was for Syrians?

  • LAC-Tech

    today at 4:32 AM

    This is a quintessential HN response.

    Condescending, emotional, and completely missed the point of what I was saying.

  • SanjayMehta

    today at 4:32 AM

    Why do you care? It's their country, let them mess it up as much as they want.

    That's the problem with you Westerners, you stole and genocided people around the entire world, and when you were finally thrown out, you come back to pass judgement and impose your own dubious morals on other people.

    • stevenwoo

      today at 5:00 AM

      Was reading book by Sue Black on forensic anthropology , Written in Bone, and she recalled incident where she was an expert witness for commission in Qatar, she confirmed the veracity of eyewitness and photo evidence of Assad Syrian regime of torture - for Arab instigated investigation. Not just Western values.

• aplummer

  today at 4:14 AM

  These are allegations of war crimes / criminals it’s not bias to describe them accurately.

  • SanjayMehta

    today at 4:33 AM

    Every US president has been a war criminal. Deal with them first. The entire western world is based on crimes against humanity. Punish your own first.

• yieldcrv

  today at 4:48 AM

  I’m actually not overwhelmed or see it as partisan

  > There are widespread calls across Syrian society on social media for former senior officials to be held accountable

  > Syria's Attorney General, Hassan al-Turba, told the BBC the government had launched a lawsuit against Luka, accusing him of "premeditated murder, torture, and death resulting from torture".

  Syrian administration is using the court system and these aren’t leanings of BBC

  I understand your general sentiment regarding being involved in other countries, I just don’t think it applies here

  Regarding the term “partisan”, Syria is under a single party system, for now… ostensibly. They have grievances with the prior regime and are seeking information which is now irrelevant and has no possibility of being restored. I don't think it is possible for that to be considered partisan

• sulam

  today at 4:24 AM

  You can't "both-sides" atrocities of the sort the Assad regime practiced, which are well-documented. Even if you want to grant an individual associated with Assad the benefit of the doubt, this is the the point of a trial, in international court, the same sorts of trials that were given to Hitler's associates post WW2.

  • shdwslrkr

    today at 4:40 AM

    [dead]

• SanjayMehta

  today at 4:34 AM

  It's the BBC. This is what they do. Just because they speak or write in a fancy tone doesn't change the fact that they are 100% lies and propaganda.

• EA-3167

  today at 4:26 AM

  If you don't know much about it then why are you making accusations about what is and isn't true?

  • LAC-Tech

    today at 4:40 AM

    I know as much about it as every geopolitics expert who's responded to me - in that I have seen news stories. What of it? Do you take every news story you read at face value? I don't. Hence - no opinion; unlike all the experts on modern Syrian history we have here who have no doubt great amounts of knowledge on the civil war, finer points of ideologies, accurate death counts from third party sources, et.

    Also, do you know how to read? I said it was propaganda and laughably biased. Weasel words. Can you not see them? Never accused them of fabricating anything.

• shdwslrkr

  today at 4:34 AM

  [dead]