Daily Archives: February 8, 2016

Watch Out America, Venezuela a Failed State

Posted on by

Venezuela Is About to Go Bust

Nagel/ForeignPolicy: Venezuela’s economy is facing a tsunami of bad news. The country is suffering from the world’s deepest recession, highest inflation rate, and highest credit risk — all problems aggravated by plunging oil prices. Despite all its troubles, though, until now Venezuela has kept making payments on its $100-billion-plus foreign debt.

That is about to end. In recent days a consensus has emerged among market analysts:

Venezuela will have to default. The only question is when.

Venezuela will have to default. The only question is when.

A Venezuela meltdown could rock financial markets, and people around the world will lose a lot of money. But we should all save our collective sympathy — both the government in Caracas and the investors who enabled it had it coming.

In the last few years, the Venezuelan government has been steadfast about staying in good graces with its lenders. It has paid arrears on its debt religiously, and has constantly asserted that it will continue paying.

But it has neglected to implement the reforms Venezuela would need to improve the fundamentals of its economy. Its commitment to socialist “populism” and the complicated internal dynamics within the governing coalition have paralyzed the government. It has repeatedly postponed important reforms like eliminating its absurd exchange rate controls (the country has at least four exchange rates) or raising the domestic price of gasoline (the cheapest in the world by far). Instead, the government has “adjusted” by shutting off imports, leaving store shelves all over the country barren.

This strategy now seems unsustainable. According to various estimates, in 2015 Venezuela imported about $32 billion worth of goods. This was a marked drop from the previous year. This year, given current oil prices and dwindling foreign reserves, if Venezuela were to pay off its obligations — at least $10 billion — and maintain government spending, it would have to import close to nothing. In a country that imports most of what it consumes, this would ensure mayhem. That is why all analysts predict default in the coming months.

The Economist has joined the chorus, saying that “the government has run out of dollars.” In the words of Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann, this will be “the largest and messiest emerging market sovereign default since the Argentine crisis of 2001.”

One of the reasons the coming default will be so messy is the many instruments involved, all issued under widely varying conditions. Part of the stock of debt was issued by PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, which owns significant assets overseas (For example, Citgo is 100 percent owned by the Venezuelan government). Another part of the debt was issued by the national government directly, while another big chunk is owed to China, under secretive terms.

The Chinese issue looms large. China’s loans to Venezuela — close to about $18 billion, according to Barclay’s – consist of short-term financing payable via oil shipments. As the price of oil collapses, Venezuela needs to ship more oil to China in order to pay them back. Barclay’s estimates that right now this is close to 800,000 barrels per day, leaving little more than a million barrels per day Venezuela can sell for cash.

A default will send ripples beyond Wall Street. Many people have been buying high-risk, high-return Venezuelan debt for years — from pension funds in far-off countries to small banks in developing ones. Most stand to lose their shirts. Yet the signs that this was unsustainable were there for all to see.

For years, Venezuela has had a massive budget deficit, sustained only by exorbitant oil prices. For years, analysts have been warning that the Venezuelan government would rather chew nails that allow the private sector to grow. And yes, a lot of that borrowed money was used to help establish a narco-military kleptocracy.

It is impossible to untangle the ethical implications of all of this. Lending Venezuela money is what business ethics professors talk about when they question “winning at someone else’s expense.” Losing money from investing in Venezuela is akin to losing it from, say, funding a company that engages in morally reprehensible acts. (Insert the name of your favorite evil corporate villain here).

Investors in companies with “tainted profits” from, say, engaging in child labor or violating human rights should not get the world’s sympathy, nor should they be bailed out. Similarly, investors in Venezuelan debt have only their hubris to blame.

In a few months, once the rubble of the Bolivarian revolution is cleared, the discussion will turn to how Venezuela can be helped. It would be smart to remember that aid should come to the Venezuelan people first. As the scarcity of food and medicine grows,

Venezuela may become the first petro-state to face a humanitarian disaster.

Venezuela may become the first petro-state to face a humanitarian disaster.

If and when a responsible government in Caracas asks for foreign assistance, solving this urgent issue should be at the top of the agenda. Conditions on financial assistance should privilege the interests of Venezuelans caught in the debacle above the interests of angry hedge fun managers or international bankers.

In other words, the Venezuelan people should come first. The folks who enabled this catastrophe? They can wait.

 

Beyond U.S. Campaigning: ISIS Killed 300

Posted on by

ISIS executes 300 Iraqis in Mosul, including activists and former soldiers

ARA News 

ERBIL –Extremists of the Islamic State (ISIS) have executed some 300 Iraqi people in Mosul city of the northwestern Nineveh province, an official said on Sunday.

The victims included civilian activists and former members of the Iraqi army and national security.

Official spokesman of the Iraqi army in Nineveh Mahmoud Souraji confirmed the execution of 300 people at the hands of ISIS militants in Mosul over the last few days.

“The terror group has conducted the executions at different locations across Mosul,” he said. “Most of the victims were killed inside the group’s detention centers in the city and its surroundings.”

According to Souraji, who spoke to the local Sumariyah television on Sunday, the majority of those executed were former members of the national security and the Iraqi governmental troops.

“Among them were also a number of media activists who have been detained by the terror group (ISIS) last week in separate raids,” the official said.

Souraji, who based his information on ISIS-linked sources in Mosul, pointed out that the executions were carried out by firing squad.

The victims were reportedly exposed to torture at the hands of foreign jihadis of ISIS before being executed. They have been buried in mass graves in Mosul suburb.

*** While the State Department says much of what is on the internet about Islamic State winning is false, heh….well, killing 300 is significant. Further, what is the leadership of Islamic State doing now….

An Account of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi & Islamic State Succession Lines

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Abu al-Waleed al-Salafi, whose complete history of Jamaat Ansar al-Islam I have previously translated, has also written Twitter essays on Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and compiled lists of names of individuals who came to hold key positions within the ranks of the Islamic State and its leaders. I have translated these essays below.

I do not necessarily vouch for all the information presented here and working out exact datings can be difficult. Nonetheless I have tried to summarize the most important information in a table below. Explanatory notes of my own occur in square brackets. If more data become available I will add them to this post as updates.

Readers should pay particular attention to cases of overlap: that is, where an individual holds more than one leadership position in the organzation. Of interest also is the shift to the establishment of a military council during Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s tenure as overall leader.

Leader Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi Abu Hamza al-Muhajir Abu Omar al-Baghdadi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Overall deputy Abu Anas al-Shami, Abu Muhammad al-Lubnani, Abu Talha al-Ansari Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Fellahi

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir

 Hajji Bakr

Abu Muslim al-Turkomani

 Abu Ali al-Anbari [aka Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Afri]
Iraq deputy Abu Muslim al-Turkomani Abu Fatima al-Jiburi
Syria deputy Abu Ali al-Anbari Abu al-Athir al-Absi [previously linked to Syrian Majlis Shura al-Mujahideen & ISIS wali of Aleppo province]
War Minister (followed by head of Military Council) Abu Hamza al-Muhajir Al-Nasir li-Din Allah Abu Sulayman Hajji Bakr

Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Baylawi

Abu Muslim al-Turkomani

Abu Saleh al-Obaidi
Hay’at al-Arkan Abu Ahmad al-Alwani Abu Omar al-Hadithi
Media Abu Maysara al-Iraqi Abu Muhammad al-Mashhadani

Abu Abdullah al-Jiburi/Ahmad al-Ta’i

 Abu Muhammad al-Adnani

Abu al-Athir al-Absi/Bandar Sha’alan/Dr. Wa’el al-Rawi
Security Abu Muhammad al-Lubnani Abu Ahmad al-Badri [Syria]

Abu Omar al-Turkomani [Iraq then general]

 Abu Muhannad al-Suwaydawi

Abu Ali al-Anbari

Iyad al-Jumaili
Shura Council Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi Abu Abdullah al-Baghdadi

Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Ansari

 Abu Arkan al-Ameri Abu Bakr al-Khatouni

Translation of Text by Abu al-Waleed al-Salafi

-Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is not a person of random pulse but rather has attained knowledge that his peers could not enjoy since he has known well the schools of Sufi thought and the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] and he was a jihadi before the fall of Baghdad originally.

-Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has an attractive charisma and a calm composure that is impossible to compare, for you find him speaking in high quality language, attractive calmness and the tone of the one victorious even in the harshest circumstances.

– Psychological analysis of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s personality points to a truth not accepting debate: and it is that he is a personality that does not speak frivolously, but rather he is a man who does not speak a word unless he implements it.

Abu Muhammad al-Adnani “seeks to inspire zeal in the soul.”

– I have analysed the speeches of Baghdadi and Adnani psychologically more than once, and I found a result: that Adnani’s speech seeks to inspire zeal in the soul, while Baghdadi’s speech seeks to inspire calm.

– Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, despite the fact that he studied at the hand of the Ikhwan and the Maturidis in university, apart from the fact that he took their thoughts to benefit from them, but he was very different from them in ideology.

– Baghdadi was known for his firmness in the field of da’wa since the days of the Ba’ath in Iraq, and this personality of his enabled him to be a Shari’i official. Then he gradually moved up the ranks till he reached the leadership.

– Baghdadi did not suddenly attain the leadership or in the darkness of oppression, as some journalists narrate, but rather he gradually moved up in a number of positions until he reached the leadership, and this is a well-known matter.

– Baghdadi got involved in jihadi formations since the fall of Baghdad in 2003, and it is not as some reports relate that he was far from the field.

– Baghdadi was a student of Shari’i knowledge, and he combined academic study in university with study at the hands of the mashaykh, and he was outstanding in study of the Qur’an.

Mugshot of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, 2004.

– Baghdadi was from Jaysh Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama’at, then [late 2006] he became a Shari’i official in the Dawlat al-Iraq [Islamic State of Iraq], then courier official, then an official of the Shari’i committees, then subsequently amir of the Dawla.

– Baghdadi sought ‘Ilm [Islamic knowledge] at the hands of mashaykh from many schools of thought, and this was a cause in the formation of his personality, as he sought ‘Ilm at the hands of Abu Abdullah al-Mansur, the amir of Jaysh al-Mujahideen [cf. here]

– Before the fall of Baghdad, Baghdadi had an Islamist direction that no one could condemn, but rather he was given the nickname by those who know him as “The Believer,” not to mention his status as a preacher in one of the mosques of Baghdad.

– Baghdadi operated in the ranks of ‘Ansar al-Tawheed’, one of the formations of Jaysh al-Mujahideen, while Baghdadi’s sister married the amir of this faction [c. 2005]

– Baghdadi entered prison in 2004, and he was imprisoned in Bucca in Basra, south of Iraq. And his entry into prison was a new point in his life that drew up his future subsequently.

– Baghdadi’s charisma made him qualified to be a person of importance inside the prison, for he was the side that would resolve disputes between adversaries, just as he would guide them in prayer.

– Baghdadi’s personality made the situation suitable for there to be a type of connection between military officers and Shari’i leaders in al-Qa’ida, especially after the repentance of these officers from the Ba’ath. READ MUCH MORE HERE.

What is YOUR Profile? Ask Google and Facebook

Posted on by

You have been profiled, but is it accurate? You have been sold and sold out.

Scary New Ways the Internet Profiles You

Morrison/DailyBeast: Facebook, Google, and the other Internet titans have ever more sophisticated and intrusive methods of mining your data, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

The success of the consumer Internet can be attributed to a simple grand bargain. We’ve been encouraged to search the web, share our lives with friends, and take advantage of all sorts of other free services. In exchange, the Internet titans that provide these services, as well as hundreds of other lesser-known firms, have meticulously tracked our every move in order to bombard us with targeted advertising. Now, this grand bargain is being tested by new attitudes and technologies.

Consumers who were not long ago blithely dismissive of privacy issues are increasingly feeling that they’ve lost control over their personal information. Meanwhile, Internet companies, adtech firms, and data brokers continue to roll out new technologies to build ever more granular profiles of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of consumers. And with next generation of artificial intelligence poised to exploit our data in ways we can’t even imagine, the simple terms of the old agreement seem woefully inadequate.

In the early days of the Internet, we were led to believe that all this data would deliver us to a state of information nirvana. We were going to get new tools and better communications, access to all the information we could possibly need, and ads we actually wanted to receive. Who could possibly argue with that?

For a while, the predictions seemed to be coming true. But then privacy goalposts were (repeatedly) moved, companies were caught (accidentally) snooping on us, and hackers showed us just how easy it is to steal our personal information. Advertisers weren’t thrilled either, particularly when we adopted mobile phones and tablets. That’s because the cookies that track us on our computers don’t work very well on mobile devices. And with our online activity split among our various devices, each of us suddenly appeared to be two or three different people.

This wasn’t a bad thing for consumers, because mobile phones emit data that enable companies to learn new things about us, such as where we go, who we meet, places we shop, and other habits that help them recognize and then predict our long-term patterns.

But now, new cross-device technologies are enabling the advertising industry to combine all our information streams into a single comprehensive profile by linking each of us to our desktop, mobile phone, and iPad. Throw in wearable devices like a Fitbit, connected TVs, and the Internet of Things, and the concept of cross-device tracking expands to potentially include anything that gives off a signal.

The ad industry is drooling over this technology because it can follow and target us as we move through our daily routines, whether we are searching on our desktop, surfing on our iPad, or out on the town with our phone in hand.

There are two methods to track people across devices. The more precise technique is deterministic tracking, which links devices to a single user when that person logs into the same site from a desktop computer, phone, and tablet. This is the approach used by Internet giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple, all of which have enormous user bases that log into their mobile and desktop properties.

A quick glance at Facebook’s data privacy policy shows it records just about everything we do, including the content we provide, who we communicate with, what we look at on its pages, as well as information about us that our friends provide. Facebook saves payment information, details about the devices we use, location info, and connection details. The social network also knows when we visit third-party sites that use its services (such as the Like button, Facebook Log In, or the company’s measurement and advertising services). It also collects information about us from its partners.

Most of the tech giants have similar policies and they all emphasize that they do not share personally identifiable information with third parties. Facebook, for example, uses our data to deliver ads within its walled garden but says it does not let outsiders export our information. Google says it only shares aggregated sets of anonymized data.

Little-known companies—primarily advertising networks and adtech firms like Tapad and Drawbridge—are also watching us. We will never log into their websites, so they use probabilistic tracking techniques to link us to our devices. They start by embedding digital tags or pixels into the millions of websites we visit so they can identify our devices, monitor our browsing habits, look for time-based patterns, as well as other metrics. By churning massive amounts of this data through statistical models, tracking companies can discern patterns and make predictions about who is using which device. Proponents claim they are accurate more than 90 percent of the time, but none of this is visible to us and is thus very difficult to control.

In recent comments to the Federal Trade Commission, the Center for Democracy and Technology illustrated just how invasive cross-device tracking technology could be. Suppose a user searched for sexually transmitted disease (STD) symptoms on her personal computer, used a phone to look up directions to a Planned Parenthood clinic, visited a pharmacy, and then returned home. With this kind of cross-device tracking, it would be easy to infer that the user was treated for an STD.

That’s creepy enough, but consider this: by using the GPS or WiFi information generated by the patient’s mobile phone, it would not be difficult to discover her address. And by merging her online profile with offline information from a third-party data broker, it would be fairly simple to identify the patient.

So, should we be concerned that companies use cross-device tracking to compile more comprehensive profiles of us? Let us count the reasons:

Your data could be hacked: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse reports that in 2015 alone, hackers gained access to the records of 4.5 million patients at UCLA Health System, 37 million clients of online cheating website Ashley Madison, 15 million Experian accounts, 80 million Anthem customers, as well as more than 21 million individuals in the federal Office of Personnel Management’s security clearance database. And these were just the headliners that garnered media attention. No site or network is entirely safe and numerous researchers have already demonstrated how incredibly easy it is to “reidentify” or “deanonymize” individuals hidden in anonymized data.

Your profile could be sold: In fact, it typically is, in anonymized fashion. That’s the whole point. But in many cases, Internet companies’ privacy policies also make it clear our profiles are assets to be bought and sold should the company change ownership. This was the case when Verizon bought AOL and merged their advertising efforts, creating much more detailed profiles of their combined user base. Yahoo might be next should it decide to spin off its Internet properties.

Your data could be used in ways you did not anticipate: Google, Facebook, and other companies create customized web experiences based on our interests, behavior, and even our social circles. On one level, this makes perfect sense because none of us want to scroll through reams of irrelevant search results, news stories, or social media updates. But researchers have demonstrated that our online profiles also have real world consequences, including the prices we pay for products, the amount of credit extended to us, and even the job offers we may receive.

Our data is already used to build and test advanced analytics models for new services and features. There is much more to come. The Googles and the Facebooks of the Internet boast that newly emerging artificial intelligence will enable them to analyze greater amounts of our data to discern new behavioral patterns and to predict what we will think and want before we actually think and want it. These companies have only begun to scratch the surface of what is possible with our data.

We are being profiled in incredible and increasingly detailed ways, and our data may be exploited for purposes we cannot yet possibly understand. The old bargain—free Internet services in exchange for targeted advertising—is rapidly become a quaint relic of the past. And with no sense of how, when, or why our data might be used in the future, it is not clear what might take its place.

Obama Tells Israel, Take it or Leave it

Posted on by
Note: Haaretz is pro Obama regime and anti-Netanyahu
Obama to Israel as Netanyahu Hesitates Over Aid Package: Next Prez Won’t Give You a Better Deal

An unnamed US official urged Israel Sunday to accept a military aid offer which falls short of Israeli expectations, claiming the country would get no better offer from the next administration. According to Haaretz, the official said, “Israel will certainly not find a president more committed to Israel’s security than is President [Barack] Obama.”

Three rounds of talks to renegotiate US contributions to Israel’s military have largely led nowhere. A ten-year memorandum of understanding, signed in 2008, provided Israel with $3 billion annually. It is set to expire in the near future, and US congressional sources told Reuters that Israel is seeking an increase to $5 billion a year, starting in 2017. The same sources estimated the final agreement would settle between $4 and $5 billion.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a weekly cabinet meeting, “Perhaps we won’t succeed in reaching an agreement with this administration and will have to reach an agreement with the next administration.” This prompted the angry response from US officials.

“Even as we grapple with a particularly challenging budget environment, this administration’s commitment to Israel’s security is such that we are prepared to sign an MOU [memorandum of understanding] with Israel that would constitute the largest single pledge of military assistance to any country in U.S. history,” the senior official told Haaretz.

“Israel is of course free to wait for the next administration to finalize a new MOU should it not be satisfied with such a pledge, but we would caution that the US budgetary environment is unlikely to improve in the next 1-2 years and Israel will certainly not find a president more committed to Israel’s security than is President Obama.”

The same official emphasized that negotiations are “taking place in the context of a challenging budgetary environment in the United States that has necessitated difficult tradeoffs amongst competing priorities including not just foreign assistance and defense but also domestic spending.” Currently, over 50 percent of America’s foreign military spending goes to Israel.

“Despite these [budgetary] limitations, based on extensive consultations with Israel on its threat environment and in-depth discussions within the U.S. government regarding Israel’s defense needs, we are confident that a new [memorandum] could meet Israel’s top security requirements and preserve its qualitative military edge,” the official added.

White House officials stressed that Israel’s security is a top priority of the Obama administration, as demonstrated by its spending to date. “From the $20.5 billion in Foreign Military Financing to the additional $3 billion in missile defense funding the United States has provided under his leadership, no other U.S. Administration in history has done more for Israel’s security.”

A senior Israeli official noted that, while negotiations are ongoing, it would likely take presidential intervention to make any real progress. “It’s not a subject for staff, but rather for decisions by leaders,” he said. This may happen in the near future, as Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is scheduled to visit his American counterpart, Ashton Carter, in Washington next month, followed two weeks later by a visit to the US by Netanyahu, who is expected to meet with Obama at that time.

***

16 Aug 2007

 

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by Israel and the United States at a ceremony today (16 August) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The MOU outlines defense aid to be provided to Israel by the Americans to the tune of $30 billion in the next decade.

Representing the United States at the ceremony were Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns and US Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones. On the Israeli side, Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fisher, Director General of the Foreign Ministry Aaron Abramovich, Director General of the Ministry of Defense Pinchas Buchris and Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Salai Meridor, attended.

*** Contacts between Israel and the United States on the security memorandum of understanding are expected to be stepped up a notch. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon is expected to visit Washington at the beginning of March to meet with his American counterpart, Ashton Carter. About two weeks later, Netanyahu will come to Washington to attend the conference of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In all probability, he will also meet with Obama in an effort to achieve a breakthrough in the talks.

UN Report: Extermination Camps, Syria

Posted on by

Syrian victim of torture

UN panel documents ‘extermination’ of detainees in Syria

GENEVA —International investigators say several thousands of detainees have been executed, beaten to death or otherwise left to die during Syria’s civil war, in policies that appear to amount to extermination under international law.

The U.N.-backed Commission of Inquiry on Syria presented a 25-page report Monday on killings of detainees by President Bashar Assad’s government. It also cites execution policies by radical groups like the Islamic State and al-Qaida-affiliated Nusra Front.

The report is drawn from 621 interviews conducted between March 2011 and November 2015. Investigators say they are short of enough evidence to provide more specific estimates of killings of those detained.

The report seeks “targeted sanctions” against unspecified individuals or groups responsible for such crimes. The investigators lamented inaction by the U.N. Security Council about possibly launching criminal probes.

***

VoA: The U.N. report accused Damascus of starving the detainees or leaving them to die with untreated wounds and disease. It said Assad’s government has “engaged in the multiple commissions of crimes, amounting to a systematic and widespread attack against a civilian population.”

The report covered the period from March 2011 to November 2015 — the first 4½ years of the ongoing Syrian civil war.

Investigators

The U.N. investigators said they believed that “high-ranking officers” and other government officials knew of the deaths and of bodies being buried in mass graves.

The special inquiry into the Syrian treatment of its civilian population called for the U.N. Security Council to impose “targeted sanctions” against Syrian civilian and military officials complicit in the deaths and torture, but did not name them.

The investigators called for referral of the cases against the suspected war criminals to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands. Their names are being kept in a U.N. safe in Geneva.

***

BBC: Their report describes the situation of detainees as an “urgent and large-scale crisis of human rights protection”.

Survivors’ accounts “paint a terrifying picture of the magnitude of the violations taking place,” it said.

The civil war in Syria has claimed an estimated 250,000 lives so far.

About 4.6 million people have fled Syria, while another 13.5 million are said to be in need of humanitarian assistance inside the country.

Extract from February 2016 report for UN Human Rights Council

Main detention facilities controlled by the General Intelligence Directorate include Interior Security branch 251 and Investigations branch 285 located in Kafr Soussa, west of central Damascus.

Former detainees described inhuman conditions of detention resulting in frequent custodial deaths.

Officers were observed giving orders to subordinates on methods of torture to be used on detainees.

Corpses were transported by other prisoners through the corridors, sometimes to be kept in the toilets, before being removed from the branch.

Evidence obtained indicates that the superiors of the facilities were regularly informed of the deaths of detainees under their control. Prisoners were transferred to military hospitals before they were buried in mass graves.

Both government and rebel sides are accused of violence against people they detain, the investigators say, but the vast majority are being held by government agencies.

A pattern of arrests since March 2011 targeted Syrian civilians thought to be loyal to the opposition, or simply insufficiently loyal to the government.

Senior government figures clearly knew about and approved of the abuse, says the report entitled Out of Sight: Out of Mind: Deaths in Detention in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Most deaths in detention were documented as occurring in locations controlled by the Syrian intelligence services.

“Government officials intentionally maintained such poor conditions of detention for prisoners as to have been life-threatening, and were aware that mass deaths of detainees would result,” UN human rights investigator Sergio Pinheiro said in a statement.

“These actions, in pursuance of a state policy, amount to extermination as a crime against humanity.”

Torture ‘routine’

The report also accused opposition forces of killing captured Syrian soldiers.

Both so-called Islamic State militants and another group, al-Nusra Front, had committed crimes against humanity and war crimes.

IS, the report said, was known to illegally hold a large, unknown number of detainees for extended periods in multiple locations.

It had set up detention centres in which torture and execution are “routine”.

Detainees were frequently executed after unauthorised courts issued a death sentence.

Extract from February 2016 report for UN Human Rights Council

In 2014 Syrian authorities informed a woman from Rif Damascus that her husband and two of her sons were dead, all known to have been held in a detention facility controlled by the Military Security.

The family obtained death certificates from Tishreen military hospital, stating that the cause of death of all the three victims was heart attack.

A third son remains unaccounted for.