I've said some stupid things in my time, but up there with the best of them was a comment I
uttered to my wife on the morning of Tuesday 6 th March 2018. The previous night the
news had broken that an ex-spy by the name of Sergei Skripal had apparently been one of two
people hospitalised on the Sunday afternoon on a bench in The Maltings in Salisbury. At that
time the opioid, Fentanyl, was thought to be connected to it. Was this about to be a huge
international story? Or was it going to soon be forgotten about? I was decidedly of the latter
opinion. "Don't worry," I told her. "Probably just a drug overdose. It'll soon blow
over."
Two years later
Actually, two years on and most people have pretty much forgotten about it. Yes, they
remember that it happened; yes, they remember that it was a mighty odd occurrence with a number
of peculiarities about it; and for the people of Salisbury, I'm quite sure they will recall the
police, the cordons, the helicopters, the place swarming with international media, and of
course let's not forget the baby wipes. But by and large, it happened, it's done with, and the
case was solved a long while ago.
Except that it wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that two of
the many Russians who were in Salisbury on 3 rd and 4 th March, and who
were charged with the incident -- Petrov and Boshirov -- have never been charged with the
subsequent incident in Amesbury. This is very important. If the British authorities' case
against the two men in Salisbury is to be believed, there must be a clear link between them and
the second case in Amesbury. And yet it is impossible to reasonably connect the two cases based
on the British authorities' explanation of the Salisbury event. Unless, that is, you believe
that the two suspects were carrying a cellophane-wrapping machine with them with which to wrap
the bottle of lethal nerve agent they had apparently just used before dumping it in a bin. But
nobody could be daft enough to believe that, could they? Which leads to the question: if the
cases cannot be linked using the British authorities' explanation of the first incident --
which they can't (hence the reason the two men have not been charged for the second) -- then
how can we accept their explanation for the first? The answer is that we cannot, and for a
whole host of reasons, as I hope to show in a moment.
For those who have accepted The Met's and Government's account of the case, I am struck by a
couple of things. Firstly, their claims that those who haven't accepted it are conspiracy
theorists is really quite funny when you begin to count the number of absurd, implausible and
sometimes downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept that official account
(of which more below). But secondly, I am struck by their remarkable apathy and complacency,
given what they claim to believe. Let me put it this way: if I truly believed that agents of a
foreign power had come to my country and had entered my home city carrying, using and
discarding enough deadly nerve agent to kill thousands of people in my neighbourhood, I would
not only be livid at that foreign Government; I would be absolutely furious with the British
authorities for their pathetic, feeble response. Two dozen diplomats expelled in response to
the use of the (apparently) deadliest nerve agent known to man, which could have wiped out half
the population of Salisbury? It's the equivalent of sentencing an attempted murderer to a
£100 fine. Of course, while I accept that a declaration of war in response to such a
reckless act would have been a step too far, given that Russia is a nuclear-armed country with
a hugely powerful military, I would certainly want a response that was far closer to that than
the paltry expelling of a few diplomats. However, the fact that those who bark the loudest
about the alleged use of a nerve agent that could have killed 10,000 people are prepared to
accept the expulsion of a few diplomats as an adequate response, suggests that many of them are
not nearly as convinced as they make out that a lethal nerve agent was indeed used.
Either that or they're just a bit wet!
I am, however, livid at the British authorities for an entirely different reason. And
it is this: I really don't like being lied to. I really don't like handing over hard-earned
money in taxation, only to see it squandered away by people who devise the most elaborate
deceptions to divert attention away from what really happened. Nothing personal, you
understand. I don't like the fact that anyone has their hard-earned cash frittered away in this
way.
That's a big claim I just made. Elaborate deceptions are not accusations I bandy about
lightly. But as I hope to show below, I can see no other explanation for the many absurdities,
implausibilities and downright impossibilities in the case put forward by the Government and
Metropolitan Police (The Met) for what took place in Salisbury.
Let's begin with the case against the two Russians who have been charged over the Salisbury
incident. Whenever I have been involved in a discussion on this case with folks on Twitter,
invariably someone pops up to say that the case is closed, and the guilt of this pair has been
shown to be true. Incontrovertibly. Yet when examined carefully, the evidence of the apparent
guilt of this pair turns out to be incredibly threadbare. There are three basic parts to
it:
That they were in the vicinity of Mr Skripal's house on 4 th March, as seen on
footage taken outside a Shell garage on Salisbury's Wilton Road That "Novichok" was found in
the hotel room they stayed in the night before That they were/are agents of the GU (Russian
military police)
On that first point, the fact is that the Shell garage is approximately 500 yards from 47
Christie Miller Road. Whilst this may be "in the vicinity" in a very general sense, it is
nothing like "the vicinity" that would be needed to convince a juror that they actually went
there, much less that they daubed the door handle with a substance, and needless to say, one
cannot simply daub a door handle from 500 yards away.
Furthermore, in the footage shown of them, they were seen walking on the opposite side of
the road to the two routes (a path or a road) which they would have to have taken to reach the
house. If I had been going to Christie Miller Road along that route, I would either have
crossed the road before then, or I would have crossed at the small traffic island opposite the
garage, which can just be seen on the footage. Yet they did not appear to cross or to be about
to cross.
However, there is more. Although The Met showed these few seconds from this camera, what
they failed to inform the public is that there is a second camera just after the first, one
which does cover both routes to chez Skripal. And so if the men had taken either of
these routes that they would have needed to take to get to Christie Miller Road, this second
camera would have shown it. Why was it not shown then? That's probably more a question for The
Met than for me, but if I was a juror in the case, I should most definitely want to see the
footage from that second camera in order to confirm or deny whether they did indeed cross the
road to use those routes. In short: the footage from the first camera is certainly not proof
that they actually went to Mr Skripal's house; the refusal to use footage from the second
camera casts serious doubts that they did.
And of course given who Mr Skripal was, his house and front door would have been covered by
CCTV. In which case, if the men actually did go there, The Met could show it. But they never
have.
The second point is even flimsier. It was claimed that the tiniest trace of "Novichok" was
found in the hotel room they were staying in. However, a second swab apparently turned up
nothing. In other words, you need to trust The Met and Porton Down on this. Right? Er no.
Firstly, we are talking about the same people that allegedly found the "Novichok" at the
beginning of May 2018, yet failed to inform the hotel owner until September of that year of
their finding in his hotel (I'm not into suing, but he should have sued). Not only this, but
they also failed to trace those who had stayed at the hotel from 4th March to May. Not exactly
convincing, is it?
But in any case, the idea is self-evidently ludicrous. Why would there have been a tiny
trace of the stuff in the hotel room? If there was a leak, why wasn't the hotel closed, and the
trains the men travelled on decontaminated? Or are we supposed to believe that the guys took it
out to have a sniff the night before, and spilled just enough for one, but not two swabs? Yep,
that's what we're asked to believe. Fine, believe it, if it gives you pleasure. But to those
with more discerning minds, it does sound suspiciously like a detail made up by people who make
stuff up, doesn't it?
The third point -- that the two suspects were agents of the GU (Russian military
intelligence) -- is by far the most serious. I accept that they probably were, although I do so
with the caveat that one of the most strikingly odd things about this case is that this has
never been officially confirmed. Sure, an organisation that rhymes with Smellingrat has
stated this, and so too have numerous politicians, but it has not actually been stated on the
official charges against them. To this day, the Crown Prosecution Service's charges against
them still use their apparent pseudonyms -- Petrov and Boshirov -- and do not mention their
apparent true identities. I find that very odd.
Nonetheless, as I say I accept that they probably were agents of Russian Military
Intelligence. It is this which is enough for many to confirm their guilt as attempted
assassins. Well, if their actions comported with how military intelligence officers on
assassination missions act, I would be inclined to agree. But they don't. Not even remotely.
There is nothing about their actions, as shown by The Met, that in any way convince that they
were on a state-sanctioned assassination mission. They travelled together. They operated in
broad daylight. They made no attempt to evade detection by CCTV. They cavorted with a
prostitute the night before. They smoked dope and attracted attention in their hotel room the
night before. After allegedly finishing their top-secret mission, they strolled into town. They
took pictures. They went window shopping. Nerve agent assassins? I think not!
"Oh," comes the scoffing reply, "so you believe their story about being tourists come to
see the cathedral and Old Sarum? Idiot."
"No," comes my equally scoffing reply. "Why should I? But why would I limit myself to two
possibilities -- tourists or deadly assassins -- neither of which actually fit their actions?
Have we not imagination enough to think of more than two options? Goodness, what do they
teach them in these schools!?"
How about this: Yes, they were in Salisbury on a mission from the Russian state, but no it
was not an assassination attempt -- not unless Vladimir Putin has taken to employing muppets to
carry out highly sensitive and dangerous missions of the Russian state. But seriously, does he
strike you as someone who would tend to give the most highly sensitive missions to a couple of
pot-smoking, prostitute-cavorting, picture-snapping, CCTV-friendly, window-shopping dudes?
Hardly!
Yet they were almost certainly doing something there other than tourism, as they claimed,
and my guess is that it was connected to where they went on the Saturday 3 rd March,
which The Met laughably tried to tell us was a reconnaissance mission to check out Mr Skripal's
house. A reconnaissance mission? Ha ha! Reminder: this is Salisbury, not Afghanistan or Idlib.
You can walk about unhindered, unmolested, and you can even locate 47 Christie Miller Road
using Google Maps. So why would they have needed to do reconnaissance on a house that they
allegedly walked up to in broad daylight the following day?
But even more than this, if they went to check out the house on the Saturday, why did they
not daub the door handle then? The Skripals were out at the time. It would have been the ideal
time to do it, if that was what they were intending. But no, The Met wants you to believe that
they came to Salisbury, secretly made their way to Mr Skripal's house, saw it, noted that no
one was at home, decided not to "Novichok" the door handle there and then, but instead go back
to London (where they had apparently left their "Novichok" all day long in their hotel room),
and come back the following day to do it when -- according to The Met -- the Skripals were at
home and their car in the drive!
It really is such an utterly stupid and preposterous proposition, that I have no doubt this
is why The Met decided to give no timeline of where and when they went in Salisbury on the
Saturday; to present no footage; and to show no pictures, save for one at the train station.
For had they shown such footage, I am quite sure that far from it showing them going out of
the town towards Mr Skripal's house for reconnaissance, it would show them going into
town for reconnaissance, probably near The Mill pub and the Maltings, where the following
day they just happened to be in the vicinity of the Skripals at about 1:45 -- far closer than
the Shell garage footage shows them in the vicinity of the house.
None of the above evidence would pass muster in a courtroom. It is flimsy, it's pathetic and
it's full of holes.
But talking of holes, let's now set this all in the context of the entire story presented by
The Met and the Government. I mentioned above the number of absurd, implausible and sometimes
downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept their account. Below, I've
recounted 40 of the most glaring, although I'm sure regular readers here can think of many,
many more. In case of doubt, I have annexed a comment next to each point, depending on whether
it fits into the absurd, implausible or impossible category, although I understand that some
readers may well think it remiss of me not to have given some of them more than one of those
descriptions:
That two men put themselves and everyone on their flight in jeopardy, by
boarding a plane with at least one, possibly two, bottles of the World's Deadliest Nerve Agent
(WDNA) in their luggage. (ABSURD) That the two suspects dropped an unused package of the
WDNA in a bin somewhere, whilst taking the used bottle of nerve agent back to Moscow with them.
(ABSURD) Or alternatively, that they only had one package of WDNA with them, but brought
a cellophane wrapping machine to Salisbury to wrap the used box up in, before discarding it.
(ABSURD) That the two men sprayed WDNA in an open space, without wearing any protective
clothing. (ABSURD) That after they had done this, rather than legging it, they decided
to spend an hour in the city centre window-shopping and taking pictures. (ABSURD) That
Mr Skripal and his daughter both somehow managed to touch the door handle of his front door on
their way out (try it with someone next time you exit your house). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That
despite being contaminated with WDNA, they showed no effects for hours afterwards.
(IMPLAUSIBLE) That when they did show effects hours later, it was at precisely the same time,
despite their very different heights, weights and metabolisms. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite being
contaminated with WDNA, they went into town, fed ducks, went for a meal, then went to a pub for
a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal
handed a piece of bread to a local boy who ate it without becoming contaminated. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed to
contaminate the table in Zizzis, but not the door or door handle on the way in. (IMPLAUSIBLE)
That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed not to
contaminate the manager of Zizzis when he shook hands with him (confirmed to me by a local
source). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That after becoming extremely aggressive in Zizzis, which some assume
was the effects of poisoning with WDNA, Mr Skripal wolfed down a plate of seafood
risotto before sauntering over to the pub for a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That no CCTV of Mr Skripal
or his daughter on 4 th March could be shown to the public to jog their memories,
because of something called "National Security". (ABSURD) That no CCTV could be shown of The
Maltings, on the grounds of National Security, even though according to the official story no
crime took place there. (ABSURD) That the Russian couple who were filmed on CCTV camera at
15:47 in Market Walk (confirmed by a reliable source in the comment section on this blog), were
not in any way connected with the case. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the only CCTV the public were
allowed to see of this pair was an absurd, blurred, fuzzy image taken second hand on a mobile
phone, when they could have shown crystal clear footage from the CCTV camera at the other end
of Market Walk. (ABSURD) That the Skripals were somehow in Zizzis at the same time that they
were actually in the Mill pub (The Met's timeline shows them to have been in Zizzis from 14:20
and 15:35,
which is demonstrably untrue ). (IMPOSSIBLE) That the Metropolitan Police are unable to put
out correct timelines. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That WDNA deteriorated so much after an hour on a door
handle, that it was too weak to kill the Skripals. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That this same WDNA, which
allegedly deteriorated in an hour, was then found three weeks later after exposure to the
elements and after being touched by many human hands, to be in a state of "high purity,
persistent and weather resistant". (IMPOSSIBLE) That WDNA, which was allegedly sprayed on a
door handle, somehow managed to spread to the roof of the house, meaning that it had to be
replaced. (IMPOSSIBLE) Yet that same WDNA, 2mg of which is apparently enough to kill a person
(according to BBC Panorama), and which causes whole roofs to have to be replaced and cars to be
destroyed, can be cleansed by members of the public using baby wipes. (ABSURD) That the police
cars which attended the Maltings needed to be destroyed, yet the ones that attended Mr
Skripal's house, where the poison was apparently most concentrated, did not. (ABSURD) That
Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey managed to be a first responder at the bench when the two
Russians were on it, at the same time as not being at the bench when the two Russians were on
it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That Mr Bailey entered Mr Skripal's house via the back door, because he
couldn't open the front door; but also managed to enter the house via the front door because he
was able to open it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That he was wearing a forensic suit to enter the house of
someone who had apparently overdosed in a park on Fentanyl. (ABSURD) That he managed to get
contaminated by WDNA despite wearing a forensic suit. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the numerous police
officers not wearing forensic suits, who went in and out of the house on 4 th and 5
th March, did not become contaminated by WDNA, even though it was allegedly found to
be most concentrated there three weeks later, and in a state of "high purity". (IMPOSSIBLE)
That the police somehow managed to miss all four of Mr Skripal's pets (two cats and two guinea
pigs), so leaving them to starve to death. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That an air ambulance was called for
what looked like a drug overdose on a park bench, when a land ambulance can get to the hospital
just as quickly, if not quicker given where the helicopter had to land. (ABSURD) That the chief
nurse of the British Army just happened to be shopping near the bench when the two Russians
were on it. (ABSURD) That there just happened to be two Porton Down trained doctors at
Salisbury District Hospital. (ABSURD) That despite The Met, the Government and the media
referring to the substance used as "Novichok", in their only official statement to a court of
law, Porton Down were unable to confirm this, instead referring to it as "a nerve agent or
related compound" and "a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." (ABSURD) That
Porton Down were able to identify a substance within 36 hours that apparently no other country
on earth makes, has made, or can make. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That "Novichok" can only be made in
Russia, despite variants of it having been synthesised or stocked in numerous countries
including Czechia, Sweden, Germany, Iran, the US, and Britain (Boris Johnson having unwittingly
confirmed this when he blurted out that they had samples of it at Porton Down). (IMPOSSIBLE)
That after she and her father were allegedly poisoned by the Russian state, Yulia Skripal said
she wanted to return there. (ABSURD) That Mr Skripal and his daughter have never been seen
together since -- not even in a single photo. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That nothing has ever been heard
from Mr Skripal since (national security won't wash – his daughter was able to appear in
a video). (ABSURD) That Salisbury had its first case of Fentanyl poisoning on the same day, at
the same time, and in the same shopping centre apparently involving another couple.
(IMPLAUSIBLE)
Remember, this list of the absurd, the implausible, and the downright impossible is not a
bunch of lunacy that I or anyone else looking into the case has concocted. No, they are
things that the Government of Great Britain, and The Metropolitan Police have concocted. It's
their story, not mine, and I'm just pointing it out and saying, "Hey, come look at this. No
clothes and all that!" That being said, it is of course those who point out this absurd,
implausible and impossible folly who are called conspiracy theorists by the keepers of the
narrative and their devotees, which is rather like being called a scruffbag by Dominic
Cummings. But no matter, better to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out patent
absurdities and things which are impossible than to be a Believer in Patent Absurdities and
Impossible Things.
Speculation Corner
Having cleared that Stuff and Nonsense out of the way, what did happen on 4 th
March 2018 in Salisbury? I am bound to disappoint people looking for the answer, as I simply
don't know. I don't know because the keepers of the keys of the Stuff and Nonsense have not
only done their utmost to keep the truth away from the light (such as refusing to release even
a jot of CCTV footage of the Skripals that day), but the sheer number of absurdities and
conflicting stories they have put out make it impossible for those watching from afar to be
sure about which things happened on that day, and which things were subsequently added to
obscure the truth. All we can say, for sure, is what didn't happen (see above).
Nevertheless, there are a couple of big clues that allow us to speculate as to something of
the nature of the thing. These are The Mill Pub and Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey. They
are not clues in the sense of us being able to know what role they played. But they are clues
in the sense of the authorities never being able to come out with a straight answer about the
location and the man, thereby giving rise to speculation that the bizarre and conflicting tales
about them are extremely important.
Take Mr Bailey, for instance. Where exactly was he on that evening and where exactly did he
succumb to poisoning? As hinted at above, he has been placed in multiple places, depending on
who has been telling the story and when they've been telling it. He has been:
A first
responder to the incident at the bench Not a first responder to the incident at the bench Not
at the bench when the two Russians were there At the bench after the incident happened At the
house at midnight entering by the front door At the house at midnight but unable to enter the
front door Admitted to Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning Not admitted to
Salisbury District hospital on the Monday morning, but on the Tuesday Morning Admitted to
Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning, discharged but readmitted on the Tuesday
How can it have been so difficult to establish where he was? His movements would have been
easy to trace. Why were they not and why have so many different stories been mooted? As I wrote
back
here :
"I would submit that the most reasonable view to take -- until evidence confirms otherwise
-- is that Detective Sergeant Bailey was poisoned neither at the bench nor the house, but
somewhere else altogether."
Actually, I think that there is some evidence for this. Here is what a
Freedom of Information request revealed about how The Met were to deal with questions posed
by the media about Mr Bailey. Note that this was on 9 th March, two weeks before the
door handle claim was first made:
"IF ASKED: Why was a detective sergeant (Nick Bailey) a first responder?
ANSWER: He attended the initial scene in the town centre.
IF ASKED: It's been suggested DS Bailey was contaminated at Skripal's house. Did he go to
the house? Can you confirm he definitely went to the Maltings?
ANSWER: He was a first responder to the initial scene in the town centre. We are
not discussing further [my italics]."
So he was a first responder to the "initial scene" in the town centre. Okay, but according
to Mr Bailey himself, on the BBC Panorama Programme, he was not a first responder at the bench
when the Russian pair were there. He claimed to have wandered down there sometime after it had
all finished, which means that he was not a first responder at that scene. Which means what?
It means thatthere was another scene . That is implied in the phrase "initial
scene". Clearly, if there was an initial scene, there must have also been a subsequent scene.
And equally clearly, it cannot have been anything to do with the house or the door handle,
because on 9 th March, when this instruction was given, there was officially only
one scene -- that is, the bench. The door handle story had not yet emerged.
Put all that together and what is the inescapable conclusion? Mr Bailey was indeed injured,
but it was at an initial scene -- that is at a scene that occurred prior to whatever
happened at the bench .
Let's come back to that after looking at the other big clue, The Mill. In the aftermath of 4
th March, the back of the Mill was closed off and the chaps in HazMats were busy
doing their thing there. But hang on a minute. Why was this? That area was never any part of
the official story. There was never any suggestion whatsoever that Mr Skripal or his daughter
had been there, and so why would it have needed cleaning up? From what?
In addition, we know that the then Manager of the Mill, Greg Townsend was interviewed
intensively by investigators from The Met, no less than eight times in the week after 4
th March. According to Mr Townsend, he felt like he was being treated as "
a terror suspect ". Again, why? According to the official story, what did Mr Skripal and
his daughter do there? They went in. They had a drink. They left. Big deal. Why on earth would
the most intense questioning and focus be at that location then?
But thirdly, and most crucially, is the incorrect timeline put out by The Met about the
Skripals' visit to this pub. Here's what they said:
13:40 – Sergei and Yulia arrive at the Sainsbury's upper level car park in The
Maltings
The pair go to The Mill pub in Salisbury
Approximately 14.20 – The father and daughter eat at Zizzi restaurant on Castle
Street
15:35 – They leave the restaurant
This is simply wrong. They did not go to The Mill pub before Zizzis. They went to Zizzis
between about 2:00pm and 2:45pm, and then on to the Mill from around 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Every
single one of the original witness statements in the early days of the case confirms this, and
I have also had independent corroboration locally that this was the case (
see here for details ). So why did The Met put out a timeline saying that the Skripals were
in Zizzis between 3:00pm and 3:30pm, when in fact they were in The Mill? Unfortunately, the
only conclusion I can draw from this is that it was done deliberately, with the purpose of
drawing attention away from that location as being the place the Skripals visited before the
bench incident.
Put that together with the oddities around the location of the poisoning of Detective
Sergeant Nicholas Bailey, and it seems to me -- and I admit this is highly speculative -- that
there was an incident prior to the bench incident, that it most probably occurred at the back
of The Mill, and it was there -- not the bench or the house -- that Mr Bailey became
contaminated. Let me stress that this is speculation, and it may well be incorrect, yet it
seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the extremely strange ambiguity
surrounding Mr Bailey's movements, the claim that he was injured as a first responder to "the
initial scene", and the bait and switch between Zizzis and The Mill given in The Met's
timeline.
I would add one further element that may hint at this, which is this extraordinary claim in
an article on 6 th March 2018 in
The Sun (also carried in The
Mail ):
"As emergency crews cleared the substance left near the bench, others were called to
decontaminate the hospital. First reports suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a
synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. But that
was later linked to unconnected incident involving another couple coincidentally in the
shopping centre."
That really is extraordinary. Another incident, this time a Fentanyl poisoning, the first of
its kind in Salisbury, on the same day, around the same time, and in the same shopping centre
as a nerve agent incident. That's about as likely as the British Army's Chief Nurse happening
to be there at that exact same moment, isn't it? Did it really happen? I have no idea. But if
it did, was this something to do with the " initial scene" -- the one that saw Mr Bailey
and two of his colleagues taken to hospital ( here is a link to BBC article confirming that two
police officers were contaminated, as well as a third member of the emergency services, who was
clearly Mr Bailey)?
Questions, questions, questions. To which there must be answers, answers, answers.
Unfortunately, those controlling the narrative are not about to give them any time soon, and
they will no doubt continue to perpetuate the absurd, the implausible, and the impossible,
rather than coming clean with the truth.
This is the kind of country we are becoming. This is the kind of society that those behind
this riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax, are leading us to. A national security
state, where the truth is buried underneath an avalanche of deception, and where those who try
to honestly get to the bottom of it are labelled enemies of the state, treated shamefully, so
that others are deterred from following suit. It rather minds me of this, from one of the early
church fathers, St. Anthony:
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they
will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'"
It's not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It's not the kind of
society I hoped my children would grow up in. My guess is that it's not even the kind of
society that those who are playing these elaborate games wanted to grow up in. Yet it is what
it is, and I am persuaded that those who have brought us to this point have more trouble
sleeping than I do. I would urge them to consider this, before it is too late:
"For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will
not be known and come to light." – Jesus Christ (Luke 8:17)
POSTSCRIPT
I just wanted to say thanks once again for all the many wonderful commenters and their
thoughtful analysis of this case over the last couple of years. Your contributions are much
appreciated. Once again, it is my intention to write about other things, and my sincere hope is
that I don't find myself writing a 3rd anniversary piece.
I also wanted to draw your attention to a new book on the subject, Skripal in Prison
, by John Helmer. I regret that I would have liked to be in a position to be able to make one
or two comments on the book, but unfortunately I have not had the time to read it myself yet.
But given John's pieces on the subject on his blog, I have no doubt that it will be a most
interesting and enlightening read. You can get a copy of it here:
An interesting connection between Skripal false flag and Syria false flag.
Notable quotes:
"... Main Stream Media ..."
"... "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." [4] ..."
Hamish
de Bretton-Gordon is the pretentious name used by a fellow who seems to have been a
lieutenant colonel in the British Army and a chemical weapons expert. He has
access to the media and markets the Party Line . Whose? The Foreign Office's version of
truth, one that denies the very active role of the Israel Lobby in using American forces to make war
in the Middle East.
de Bretton Gordon's public position is that chemical weapons are nasty dangerous things
being used by Bashar al
Assad , the president of Syria
to attack innocent civilians. Before believing this story look at what Seymour Hersh has to
say; that the Syria Gas Attack Carried Out
By America .
... ... ...
Civilians were under fire, he went on. He failed to mention that Al-Nusra might be holding
them as human shields, as they did in Eastern Aleppo. The Syrian army liberated that area in
December twenty-sixteen.
For the first time in five years the city's Christians were able to celebrate Christmas
free from constant bombardment from the Al-Nusra terrorists in the east.
Celebrating Christmas in Aleppo December 2016.
The US and UK Governments and the mainstream media hated the liberation of Eastern Aleppo.
They will equally bewail the liberation of Eastern Ghouta, when it comes.
Indeed, during the BBC interview, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon came across as nothing more
than a UK government sock-puppet. He confirmed this when he commended what he said were 'the
peace talks in Geneva'. We shall come to that below.
Doctors Under Fire
Mr David Nott is a respected surgeon but blames 'Assad' for everything.
But what of this man, and what of 'Doctors Under Fire'? Well, the latter has apparently
just two members, De Bretton Gordon and one David Nott, a surgeon who has been in war-torn
areas. Mr Nott similarly finds no good word to say about the Syrian government.
Oddly, in a video on Vimeo from
2016 he says Doctors Under Fire will be a charity. The Charity Commission has no record
of it, nor of 'Medics under Fire' which is what the Doctors Under Fire website is called.
When you go to the website , at
this time of writing, you're invited to a rally on 7th May. On further investigation, that is
7th May 2016. Their website is two years out of date. Of course hospitals should not be
attacked in war zones, but
the Doctors Under Fire platform gives Messrs De B-G and Nott credibility to advance
another agenda.
Hospital bombing scam
Furthermore, this
astonishing video collated all the times the 'last hospital' in eastern Aleppo was put
out of action by 'Syrian regime airstrikes'. Can you guess how many it was? And how do the
mainstream media source their footage of sick children, hospitals, and dare we add, 'doctors
under fire'? They are entirely dependent on the terrorists. No western journalist can venture
into their areas. Why? For fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom by the very people
they champion.
De Bretton Gordon also claimed on the BBC a hospital in eastern Ghouta had been hit. That
was why they gave him a platform under his 'Doctors Under Fire' persona. But again, it was
second-hand terrorist propaganda.
Here, the impressive 'Off-Guardian' website exposes the Syrian totem head of the 'White
Helmets', which was a British Foreign Office creation, as we
investigated here . This relentless
tugging at western heart-strings is a scam and the msm [ Main Stream Media ] know it.
Hamish de
Bretton-Gordon
SecureBio spun off from Hamish De Bretton-Gordon's time in the British Army
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a retired Colonel with an OBE. He commanded NATO's Rapid
Reaction Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Battalion. He ran a company
called SecureBio with, we read on this
'military speakers' website , 'an impressive list of blue chip clients globally.'
However, Companies House says
SecureBio resolved to go into liquidation in June 2015.
The Colonel now apparently works for a company which makes breathing masks, Avon Protection . His LinkedIn
profile claims he is 'Managing Director CBRN' of Avon, despite not actually being a
director. He also claims still to be director of SecureBio. He does not mention that company
was dissolved in August 2017 with debts over £715,000.
Call for France to drop
bombs on Syria
De Bretton-Gordon has teamed up with Avon Protection which makes breathing masks.
De Bretton-Gordon no longer has any connection with military field-work. Nevertheless, he
has continued access to the world's media when subjects like Syria and alleged chemical
weapons come up.
Securebio's YouTube channel is
still online and has a number of videos of the colonel calling for 'safe havens' for
terrorists. He has appeared frequently on Sunni-Muslim Qatar's Al Jazeera TV channel.
Finally, why did the Colonel's promotion of the Geneva peace talks raise the alarm?
Because this is a UK-driven political view. In reality the Geneva talks stalled in February
twenty-seventeen. The Kurds took against the inconsequential opposition in exile pompously
called the High Negotiations Committee.
The Geneva talks finally collapsed in November when the Syrians would not agree to
President Assad stepping aside, a key, but stupid, UK and US demand.
The Guardian's highly-respected Patrick Wintour says the talks De Bretton Gordon extols
are 'perilously shorn of credibility'.
Meanwhile, the real peace talks, unmentioned by the Colonel, have been held in Astana,
capital of Kazakhstan. They are brokered by Russia, so the UK wants them to fail.
But the UN's Staffan de Mistura says the Astana talks are making small but 'clear
progress' to reducing violence in Syria.
They have now moved to Sochi on the Black Sea and we need to pray for
them.
They need to lay down their arms. But don't expect the Colonel to agree. The Bible says in
Psalm 120:7:
I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon will keep ringing the UK Government bell. A knighthood
cannot be far away. But we must take what he and the rest of the BBC's pro-Foreign Office
pundits say with a very large pinch of salt.
De Bretton-Gordon is Managing Director CBRN at Avon
Protection , the recognised global market leader in respiratory protection system
technology specialising primarily in Military, Law Enforcement, Firefighting, and Industrial.
[2]
Novichok
nerve agent
On 4 March 2018, a Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was reported to have been
poisoned in Salisbury with a nerve agent which British authorities
identified as Novichok .
Theresa May told
Parliament that she held Russia responsible for Skripal's attempted
murder.
According to Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Novichok was allegedly developed in the Soviet Union at a laboratory
complex in Shikhany, in central Russia. Vil
Mirzayanov , a Russian chemist involved in the development of Novichok, who later
defected to the United
States , said the Novichok was tested at Nukus, in Uzbekistan . [3]
Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray , who visited the site at Nukus,
said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the
UK placing blame on Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. In a blog post, Murray
wrote:
"The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve
agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British
soil." [4]
Deployments
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon's operational deployments included the 1st Gulf War , Cyprus , Bosnia , Kosovo , Iraq (multiple tours) and Afghanistan (2 tours) and has been in
Syria & Iraq frequently in the last 3 years.
This considerable experience in the field places Hamish de Bretton-Gordon as one of the
world's leading and most current experts in chemical and biological counter terrorism and
warfare.
Doctors
Under Fire
In December 2017, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon and fellow director David Nott of Doctors
Under Fire highlighted the case of seven children with curable cancer who were said to be
dying in Ghouta, Syria, for want of drugs and nourishment. They claimed
Union of Syrian Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) hospitals in Ghouta were on
their knees with very few medicines left, and that kind words for the dying children were the
only palliative care available. [6]
UNQUOTE
This Christian has been abused; he does not approve of Homosexuality or abortion. In other words, he is
not a heretic.
The United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed
by the United Nations Security
Council and many other countries. [38] It was the
official Syrian branch of al-Qaeda until July 2016, when it ostensibly
split. [39][40]
In early 2015, the group became one of the major components of the powerful jihadist joint operations room
named the Army of
Conquest , which took over large territories in Northwestern Syria . It also operates in neighbouring Lebanon . [41] In November
2012, The
Washington Post described al-Nusra as the most successful arm of the rebel forces.
[[42]
In July 2016, al-Nusra formally separated from al-Qaeda and
re-branded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham ("Front for the Conquest of the Levant"). [39]
On 28 January 2017, following violent clashes with
Ahrar al-Sham and
other rebel groups, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham merged with four other groups to become Their al-Sham .
Christian
Voice ex Wiki
Christian Voice (CV) is a Christian advocacy group based in the
United Kingdom .
[1] Its stated
objective is "to uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom, to be a voice for
Biblical values
in law and public policy, and to defend and support traditional family life." [2]
It is independent of religious, denominational, or political parties. [3]
CV is led by Stephen Green, with Lord Ashburn as its patron.
[3] Green
is the group's spokesperson, producing scores of press releases from 2005 to 2010. According
to Green, Christian Voice had in excess of 600 members in 2005. [4]
The group has been criticised for its positions. David Peel, leader of the United Reformed
Church called Christian Voice "a disgrace" [4] and
described their "claim to represent Christians" in the UK as "absurd". [[5]
Leadership Stephen Green
The leader, and sole staff member, of Christian Voice is Stephen Green [6]
, a former Chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, who attends an Assemblies of
God Church. In the early 1990s, Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the
Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End .
Medics Under Fire - org
Anti-Syrian government [ of 2016 ]
The repeated targeting of healthcare workers and hospitals by the Russian and Syrian
governments are war crimes. We call on you to give Syria's heroic healthcare workers and the
communities they serve a zone free from bombing to ensure their protection. The international
community has agreed the bombs need to stop. The resolutions are in place. They simply need
to be enforced.
Secure Bio
Limited ex Companies House
Registered office address
Bell Advisory, Tenth Floor 3 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3H
Company status
Dissolved
Dissolved on
17 August 2017
Company type
Private limited Company
Incorporated on
29 June 2011
Last accounts made up to 31 December 2013
Nature of business (SIC)
82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
Appointment of Hamish De Bretton-Gordon as a director
New article from John Helmer "MI6 & BBC REVEAL OPERATION MINCEPIE – SKRIPAL
BLOOD-TESTS AT SALISBURY HOSPITAL FAILED TO SHOW NERVE AGENT UNTIL PORTON DOWN ADDED IT FOR
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE".
"The evidence of the Salisbury hospital personnel has been reviewed by a sharp-eyed
English analyst who prefers anonymity and an internet handle called Twiki. He has discovered
that the blood testing of the Skripals for at least 36 hours after their hospitalisation
– that is between their admission on Sunday afternoon March 4, and the following
Tuesday morning March 6 – did not (repeat not) reveal a marker for organo-phosphate
nerve agent poisoning; that is, the level of acetylcholinesterase (ACE) in the
bloodstream.*"
It seems to me that HMG fiction writers need to up their game. HMG novel on what happened
to the Skripal's is unbelievable. Has the quality of modern day Agatha Christie's
deteriorated that much? It seems that the events on March 4th in Salisbury were not
anticipated and a clusterfuck of the coverup has no clothes on it.
The importance of getting to the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this
epidemiological trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001.
Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed into cycles of
seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and surveillance state interventions at home.
This cycle of fast responses began within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion
of Afghanistan, an invasion that continues yet.
When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US
executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard
by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax. The violent tactic of the saboteurs proved effective in
easing aside close scrutiny that might have slowed down the fast approval by the end of October
of Congress's massive Patriot Act.
Since then a seemingly endless cycle of military invasions has been pushed forward in the
Middle East and Eurasia. The emergency measure powers claimed by the executive branch of the US
government extended to widespread illegal torture, domestic spying, media censorship and a
meteoric rise in extrajudicial murders especially by drones. This list is far from
complete.
All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an unproven official
explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have demonstrated unequivocally for
the attentive that officialdom's explanations of what transpired on the fateful day in
September were wrong, severely wrong. The
initial interpretations are strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on
the public record.
We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The stakes are
too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001. The misinterpreted and misrepresented
events of 9/11 were exploited in conformity with the " Shock Doctrine ," a strategy for instituting
litanies of invasive state actions that the public would not otherwise have accepted.
The conscientious portion of humanity, many of whose members have done independent homework
of their own on the events of 9/11, will well understand the importance of identifying the
actual originating source of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
No less than in the wake of the 9/11 debacle , there are grave
dangers entailed in being too quick or too naïve or too trustful in immediately accepting
as gospel fact the Chinese government's initial explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak. Why not
take the time to investigate and test the current interpretations of the authorities that
proved themselves to be so wrong in their decision to reprimand Dr. Li?
Especially when the stakes are extremely high, the need is great for objective, third-party
adjudication to establish what really happened irrespective of official interpretations.
History provides abundant evidence to demonstrate that official interpretations of
transformative events often veer away from the truth in order to serve and protect the
interests of entrenched power.
All semblance of due process and the rule of law can quickly evaporate when powerful
institutions advance interpretations of catastrophic events used to justify their own
open-ended invocation of unlimited emergency measure powers. The well-documented examples of
the misrepresentation and exploitation of the 9/11 debacle demonstrate well the severity of the
current danger. The origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have yet to be adequately
addressed and explained by a panel of genuinely independent investigators.
The Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, acknowledged on Feb. 9 on CBS's
Face the Nation
that there is no certainty about the origins of COVID-19. When asked by CBS's Margaret Brennan
where the virus came from, the Chinese Ambassador responded, "We still don't know yet."
There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and
some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious
assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in
the United States.
These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the large body of
crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The anthrax attacks killed five people
including two postal workers. Seventeen people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.
Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two Democratic Party Senators,
Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged
in questioning provisions of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act.
Both Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was seemingly
instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the 9/11 debacle.
The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began invading Afghanistan where the
culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack,
who we were supposed to imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the
major locus of opposition to the Patriot Act's speedy passage in late October. Why, one might
legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act to be rushed through Congress. In
early October the US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch
was seeking with the Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of
accountability.
Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of
9/11's genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based
investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror
continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for
the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.
In his 2005 book,
Biowarfare and Terrorism
,
Prof.
Boyle's analysis
pointed to major problems in the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks
including the agency's destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined
military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced
within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or
Bacillus anthracis
,
is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.
Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle
observed
,
"The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their
interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with
super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001."
Prof. Boyle's interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof.
Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen's study of the anthrax
deception as part of a "domestic conspiracy." He sees
The
2001 Anthrax Deception
as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.
Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn
the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who
share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German
Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former
Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile
Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the
author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University
Professor David Ray Griffin.
Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he
asked
,
Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the
immediately-following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same
people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist
anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the
pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented
powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?
In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known
as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates
hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center
for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect
it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of
the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that
frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of
9/11.
A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an
epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for "a step up on
the part of governments to take action against Fake News." Thiru called for recriminatory litigation
aimed at criminalizing "bad actors." Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is
going to decide what constitutes "Fake News"? If fact checkers are to be employed, "who will fact
check the fact checkers"?
Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in
condemning the activities of "conspiracy theorists" that have organized themselves to question the
motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines.
She
frequently condemned
the role of "conspiracy theories" in energizing public distrust of the role
of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.
Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the
discussion. He asked,
"How much control of information should there be? By whom should control
of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?" Ingelsby then
added, "What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoLw-Q8X174
This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find
their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions.
Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false
information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists." Too often
the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple
arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.
Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States
instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WE8m309gKVE
https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0DDXsPKGHw
He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the
civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the
Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic
chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.
On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see
here
,
here
and
here
.
Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military
Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated
as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support
personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new
pathogenic front in the US government's informal
"hybrid
war" against China
.
On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a
highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory
actions.
Esper
asserted
, "China's growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by
theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and
universities Huawei and 5G are today's poster child for this nefarious activity.
The US antagonism to Huawei's leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G
technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined
research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.
Back in 2000 the
notorious
report
entitled
Rebuilding America's Defenses
, a publication brought forward by the
neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should
refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated
the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by
mobilizing American public opinion with "a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor."
After 9/11, the PNAC Team of related neoconservative activists and Zionist organizations pretty
much took over the governance of the United States along with the build up and deployment of its
formidable war machine. PNAC called for the invocation of "advanced forms of biological warfare that
can 'target' specific genotypes." In this fashion "biological warfare might be transformed into a
politically useful tool."
The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on
full display in Steve Bannon's coverage of the crisis entitled
War Room: Pandemic
.
A
prominent member of US President Donald Trump's
inner
circle
, Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident,
Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).
Guo is an
outspoken Chinese refugee
. He is a
persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
Guo regularly condemns those who dominate China's one-party system, a system run by an elite who,
he alleges, are corrupt, incompetent and inveterate liars. Guo regularly asserts that all of the
Chinese government's numbers on the pandemic, including death rates and infection rates, can probably
be multiplied by 10X or even 100X to get closer to accuracy.
[On the 10X guestimate of mortality and infection see
this
.]
Clearly Bannon and Guo would like to see the emergency conditions created by the pandemic as a
wedge of division, protest and regime change within China. One of the subjects they regularly raise,
as do others who accuse the Chinese government of systematic lying and deception, is that the
crematoriums in Wuhan and nearby Chongqing are burning corpses of dead people at a rate far higher
than official death figures. Some reports indicated that portable incinerators were being brought into
the most infected core of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.
It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being
cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health
Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual
deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and
angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.
Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security
police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed
officials seem sometimes to suggest the
severity
of a life or death struggle
. It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of
authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by
incineration.
These
reflections
are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/yvouHwAEYCk
Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more
pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at
War Room: Pandemic
is
the
propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept
at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist
Party.
To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the
New York Times
,
The
Washington Post
, and
CNN
essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.
The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to
understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese
Communist Party.
Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and
decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan
of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge
implications for spreading the contagion.
As noted in the introduction,
the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has
become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi
Jinping.
Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some
significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly
afflicted his patients.
For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other
supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There
he was warned by police to stop
"making false statements." He was ordered to cease and desist "spreading rumors," and "acting
illegally to disturb social order."
Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of
doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began
treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon
died
from COVID-19
when it was still known as 19-nCoV.
Is Twitter's permanent
deplatforming
of the Zero Hedge web site a North
American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the
censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing
"conspiracy theorists"
repeating
the Chinese Communist Party's effort to silence Dr. Li?
Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a "conspiracy
theorist"?
How different was his treatment for allegedly "spreading rumours" and "acting
illegally to disturb social order" from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been
deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?
I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda
blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my
university.
These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own
violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as "conspiracy
theorists" or worse.
More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the
censorious attacks on the
American
Herald Tribune
.
These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations
of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at
CNN
and
the
Washington Post
.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/1MXdLwZ6spE
No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever
we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated.
Whatever
happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of
biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other
countries.
Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and
probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces.
The death and destruction that humanity is
presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting
military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972.
It
is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law
in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors' Justice.
It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through
abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress.
Most certainly, it
is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the
development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to
militarization through the massive expansion of the "death sciences."
The vile activities of
fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of
our besieged institutions of higher learning.
Forget Where's Wally, what we really want to know is where are the Skripals? It's exactly two years to
the day since the Russian spy and his daughter were novichoked in Salisbury, and we've still not seen
hide nor hair of them.
Former double agent Sergei has been completely off-grid, while Yulia Skripal was seen in a highly
staged video in 2018, filmed in an anonymous but pleasant leafy glade shortly after recovering from
her poisoning ordeal; but, apart from that, there has been no statements or updates about them at all.
The most recent piece of 'information', and I use that term loosely, to leak out about their whereabouts came this weekend
from Britain's Mail on Sunday, courtesy of a source which became ubiquitous throughout the Skripal
saga, the reliably unreliable
"security insiders."
It's always amazing how willing these
apparent insiders are to release top-level secrets to the home of the
"sidebar of shame."
The latest speculation from 'security insiders' is that the Skripals are hoping to head for a new
life down under in Australia after
"effectively living under house arrest since the attack."
This means either those insiders are the leakiest spies in the world, or the Skripals are going to be
nowhere near
Australia
anytime soon.
The house arrest must be at Julian Assange in Belmarsh levels of security, because even the
Skripals' family in Russia say they haven't heard from them in months.
So all quiet on the Skripal front and, frankly speaking, it's all quiet on the geopolitical front,
too, and in the media. The disputed events of March 4, 2018, over poisoned spies and their aftermath
formed the biggest story on the planet, and not just because the whole world finally started paying
attention to the majesty of Salisbury cathedral's glorious 123-metre spire.
This incident seemed like it might have genuine life-changing political consequences. Britain
entered the phrase
"highly likely"
into the lexicon of geopolitics, and [then-PM] Theresa
May's declaration that it was
"highly likely"
that the Kremlin was to blame was deemed strong
enough to see the West turn en masse against Moscow, and Russian diplomats and 'diplomats' were
expelled by the dozen, by London and its allies across the world. It seemed the bar for state-to-state
accusations had been lowered.
Russia to this day denies involvement in what happened in Salisbury.
So what has changed? If anything, all that has changed over the last two years is a desire to get
back to business, to rebuild ties and move on. Some of those expelled diplomats have reportedly moved
back
.
French leader Emmanuel Macron is pushing hard for relations between the West and Moscow to be
repaired, something Germany needs little encouragement for.
The Brexit dividend (for Russia)... In 2019, British imports of Russian
oil jumped by a whopping 57% compared to the previous year, as Boris Johnson's government
unleashed the potential of their country.
https://t.co/ZSIJGvpFif
Britain is still pretending to be in a huff, but British imports of Russian oil were up 57 percent
last year, so realpolitik reigns supreme in London, as ever.
Boris Johnson is now the prime minister and with a thumping majority doesn't need to use bogeyman
Russia as a tool to look strong quite as much as his predecessor did. Johnson and Putin even met in
January and there are reports the prime minister is considering an invitation to attend a second world
war commemoration
parade
in Moscow this May.
And as for the media, it's all gone quiet there, too. Skripal coverage is about as common in the
mainstream now as coverage of Julian Assange's imprisonment. He's a journalist whose supporters say is
'highly likely' a victim of a demonstrable state campaign against him because he attempted to uncover
the misdeed of power. However, a boring attack on free speech is nowhere near as exciting as a
poisoned spy, is it?!
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Simon Rite
is a writer based in London for RT, in charge of several projects including the political
satire group #ICYMI. Follow him on Twitter
@SiWrites
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... Yet the mass media, freakishly, has had absolutely nothing to say about this extremely newsworthy story. ..."
"... The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world; questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in that conspiracy of silence? ..."
"... This is the FOURTH leak showing how the OPCW fabricated a report on a supposed Syrian 'chemical' attack," tweeted journalist Ben Norton. "And mainstream Western corporate media outlets are still silent, showing how authoritarian these 'democracies' are and how tightly they control info." "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," "Media silence on this story is its own scandal," tweeted journalist Aaron Maté. ..."
This is getting really, really, really weird. WikiLeaks has WikiLeaks has
published yet another set of leaked
internal documents from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) adding even more material to
the mountain of evidence that we've been lied to about an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria last year which resulted
in airstrikes upon that nation from the US, UK and France.
"... Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless. ..."
"... In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson reported in The Epoch Times. ..."
"... That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling ( footnote 69 ). ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations. ..."
"... Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years. ..."
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico. Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
This is mostly fear mongering as an affective bioengineered virus will create a pandemic, but
the truth is that Anthrax false flag attack after 9/11 was not an accident...
Trump administration beahaves like a completely lawless gang (stealing Syrian oil is one
example. Killing Soleimani is another ) , as for its behaviour on international arena, but I do
not believe they go that far. Even for for such "ruptured" gangster as Pompeo
Notable quotes:
"... Consider that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be affected in such a scenario? ..."
"... "In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ..."
"... Additional notes: here , here , here , here , here and here . ..."
Interestingly, in the past, U.S. universities and NGOs went to China
specifically to do illegal biological experimentation, and this was so egregious to Chinese
officials, that forcible removal of these people was the result. Harvard University, one of the
major players in this scandal, stole the DNA samples of hundreds of thousands of Chinese
citizens, left China with those samples, and continued illegal bio-research in the U.S. It is
thought that the U.S. military, which puts a completely different spin on the conversation, had
commissioned the research in China at the time. This is more than suspicious.
The U.S. has, according to this
article at Global Research ,
had a massive biological warfare program since at least the early 1940s, but has used toxic
agents against this country and others since the 1860s . This is no secret, regardless of the
propaganda spread by the government and its partners in criminal bio-weapon research and
production.
As of 1999, the U.S. government had deployed its Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW)
arsenal against the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia,
Cuba, Haitian boat people, and our neighbor Canada according to this article at
Counter Punch . Of course, U.S.
citizens have been used as guinea pigs many times as well, and exposed to toxic germ agents and
deadly chemicals by government.
Keep in mind that this is a short list, as the U.S. is well known for also using proxies to
spread its toxic chemicals and germ agents, such as happened in Iraq and Syria. Since 1999
there have been continued incidences of several different viruses, most of which are presumed
to be
manmade , including the current Coronavirus that is affecting China today.
There is also much evidence of the research and development of race-specific bio-warfare
agents. This is very troubling. One would think, given the idiotic race arguments by
post-modern Marxists, that this would consume the mainstream news, and any participants in
these atrocious race-specific poisons would be outed at every level. That is not happening, but
I believe it is due to obvious reasons, including government cover-up, hypocrisy at all levels,
and leftist agenda driven objectives that would not gain ground with the exposure of this
government-funded anti-race science.
I will say that it is not just the U.S. that is developing and producing bio-warfare agents
and viruses, but many developed countries around the globe do so as well. But the United
States, as is the case in every area of war and killing, is by far the world leader in its
inhuman desire to be able to kill entire populations through biological and chemical warfare
means. Because these agents are extremely dangerous and uncontrollable, and can spread wildly,
the risk to not only isolated populations, but also the entire world is evident. Consider
that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and
verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic
agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be
affected in such a scenario?
All indications point to the fact that the most toxic, poisonous, and deadly viruses ever
known are being created in labs around the world. In the U.S. think of Fort Detrick, Maryland,
Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, Horn Island, Mississippi, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, Vigo
Ordinance Plant, Indiana, and many others. Think of the fascist partnerships between this
government and the pharmaceutical industry. Think of the U.S. military installations positioned
all around the globe. Nothing good can come from this, as it is not about finding cures for
disease, or about discovering vaccines, but is done for one reason only, and that is for the
purpose of bio-warfare for mass killing.
The drive to find biological weapons that will sicken and kill millions at a time is not
only a travesty, but is beyond evil. This power is held by the few, but the potential victims
of this madness include everyone on earth. How can such insanity at this level be allowed to
continue? If any issue could ever unite the masses, governments participating in biological and
germ warfare, race-specific killing, and creating viruses with the potential to affect disease
and death worldwide, should cause many to stand together against it. The first step is to
expose that governments, the most likely culprit being the U.S. government, are planting these
viruses purposely to cause great harm. Once that is proven, the unbelievable risk to all will
be known, and then people everywhere should put their divisiveness aside, stand together, and
stop this assault on mankind.
"In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of
experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble
poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole
continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ~
George Orwell – 1984
Damning new evidence that Dr Kelly DIDN'T commit suicide: The disturbing flaws in the
official government story surrounding the death of Blair's chemical weapons expert
https://t.co/izNiYtE8yI
In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting
, the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US
account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27.
The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of
responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence
for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was
Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.
She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that
though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they
have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.
KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and
has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.
The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump
administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the
west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in
Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties.
On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen.
Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.
The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had
previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and
were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to
launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they
have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.
This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense
Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon
in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious
(but not fatal) wounding
of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately
blamed on the PLO.
Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the
assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In
London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an
anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the
time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside
Lebanon.
The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the
authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a
bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against
them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in
triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were
both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.
Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was
Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in
the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS
in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.
Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed
to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and
installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion
looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982
served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong
political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled
Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the
country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against
Israel today
Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move.
How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation
against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against
Tehran?
This article has been republished with permission from
Just World News .
"Many of the players involved in this act worked in CI which is closely connected to the
CIA's own counter intelligence. "
Fusion Centers. Created and run by the very same Andrew McCabe at the centre of Crossfire
Hurricane and subsequently fired for malfeasance and abuse of public office.
The same Fusion centers were behind America's biggest "terror" attacks, in the same way
MI5 tend to be behind (or at least have very good knowledge of prior to) our own
"attacks"
(just to let the admins know, I had Seamus Padraig's details pre-filled in my text
box)
Carter Page is suing the DNC and the Perkins Coie law firm for their roles in funding the
infamous Steele dossier, which was used as the foundation for controversial surveillance
warrants used by the Obama administration to spy on him during and after the 2016 US election.
The former Trump campaign adviser filed a lawsuit Thursday in the Northern District of
Illinois' Eastern Division, which his attorneys described as the "first of multiple actions in
the wake of historic" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse, according to
Fox News .
"Defendants developed a dossier replete with falsehoods about numerous individuals
associated with the Trump campaign -- especially Dr. Page . Defendants then sought to tarnish
the Trump campaign and its affiliates (including Dr. Page) by publicizing this false
information," reads the lawsuit, which adds "Even the DOJ and the FISC have recognized that the
false information spread by Defendants led to invalid FISA warrants against Dr. Page. "
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced in a December report that
the FBI made repeated errors and misrepresentations to the FISA court in the agency's
ham-handed efforts to surveil Page and those in his orbit in 2016 and 2017.
Horowitz confirmed that the FBI's FISA applications to monitor Page heavily relied on the
dossier and news reports rooted in Steele's unverified research.
Just last week, the FISC released a newly declassified summary of a Justice Department
assessment revealing at least two of the FBI's surveillance applications to monitor Page
lacked probable cause.
-Fox News
" This is a first step to ensure that the full extent of the FISA abuse that has occurred
during the last few years is exposed and remedied," said attorney John Pierce on Thursday,
adding "Defendants and those they worked with inside the federal government did not and will
not succeed in making America a surveillance state."
" This is only the first salvo. We will follow the evidence wherever it leads, no matter how
high. The rule of law will prevail. "
Page first filed a defamation suit on his own against the parties in October 2018 in
federal court in Oklahoma, but that suit was dismissed in January 2019 after the judge ruled
the court lacked jurisdiction over the case because neither Page nor the DNC had strong
enough ties to the state.
Page is now represented by Pierce, the global managing partner of Pierce Bainbridge Beck
Price & Hecht LLP. They filed in Illinois because they allege the relationship with the
firm behind the dossier, Fusion GPS, was "orchestrated" through law firm Perkins Coie's
Chicago office. The suit also claims the DNC "has a historical pattern" of making Chicago its
principal place of business . -
Fox News
"Judge Collyer did not protect the federal judiciary, she did not protect her own courtroom,
she did not protect the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," Levin said. " For more than 2.5
years, she allowed these perpetrators to get away with what they did. And she could have
brought an end to this. She could have had an evidentiary hearing or a contempt hearing if you
will, and she chose not to."
"Now she's jumping on the bandwagon," Levin continued, "after the OIC report, after FBI
Director Wray has announced 40 different reforms that he's going to take a look at. After I and
others, including Mike Lee, have said, 'you know, we have to abolish the court.' [The court
has] failed to do its job and I suspect they won't do its job."
"Only now does Judge Collyer issue her decision. Only now. Because part of the problem is Judge
Collyer and any other judge" working as a FISA judge, he said. "They don't read these
documents. Over a 1,000 of them were presented to the FISA courts in 2018 and only one was
denied. That is almost a 100 percent approval record . Now that's absurd," Levin explained. "So
Judge Collyer has some answering to do. And if Congress is serious about getting to the bottom
of this, she and others need to be called before Congress in a legitimate oversight function,
not to investigate her for criminal reasons, but to find out exactly what she and others did.""
pjmedia
-------------
Rosemary Collyer made a living hell of Carter Page's life. She allowed this graduate of USNA
who had been a cooperating source for the CIA AND the FBI to be used as a tool for the purpose
of gaining legal authority to surveille the Trump political campaign. The FBI in its filing
documents asserted that Carter Page's contacts with Russian intelligence officers made it
likely that he was himself working for Russia. An FBI staff attorney deliberately altered a
letter from the CIA that identified Page as a CIA asset working AGAINST he Russians , The FBI
lawyer altered the document and it became part of the case presented to Collyer seeking a FISA
warrant against him.
And, now, having been unmasked as IMO a co-conspirator of the FBI in framing Page, Collyer
has abruptly left the FISC and scuttled back to her life appointment as a district court
federal judge in Washington, DC.
Having testified in Rosemary Collyer's district court several times, I remember her to be an
extraordinarily pro-DoJ jurist who made every effort to accept the DoJ's position in matters
before her.
IMO her conduct in the matter of the FISA warrant against Carter Page should be examined
with a view to impeachment and removal . pl
Kevin Smith: "Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving
his conclusions. For those who’ve followed his story, it’s clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall
when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together
by elastic, and is not for sale." ~Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
"... I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path. ..."
"... This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing. ..."
"... I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today. ..."
"You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the
ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held
together by elastic, and is not for sale."
Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on
Twitter – 2 January 2020.
Like many, I've been following the Douma scandal for some time and particularly since the
OPCW whistleblowers and leaked emails blew the lid off the official narrative that Assad used
chemical weapons there.
For the past few weeks he's been debating the topic with Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Scott Lucas and various Middle East based journalists
who created and then pushed the false narrative.
In fact, it's not really a debate. Peter Hitchens is quite literally slaughtering these
narrative managers – his logic and clear thinking – and wit exposing the numerous
gaps in their story and their desperate deflections.
Hitchens position is not exactly the same as many of us here hold – that Douma was a
clear false flag. What he is saying is the evidence points to there being no chemical attack by
the Syrian government, the pretext used for the attack on Syria. He doesn't wish to speculate
on matters which aren't conclusively proven, for example precisely on what did actually
happen.
I respect that position in many ways and his refusal to comment on the dead civilians in the
Douma images makes sense from a journalist in the mainstream. I think by having a position
which is clear and unassailable enables him to easily brush off his online detractors and not
allow them to deflect to other issues.
While I don't agree with everything he says, Hitchens has a calm and rational argument for
all the issues he covers. This puts clear ground between him and his online opponents who often
resort to childish abuse.
My 80-year old mum admires him too. She describes him as 'frightfully posh'. Perhaps someone
who might have belonged in a previous age – but I'm glad we have him in this one.
Anyway, I think we can be sure that Hitchens will continue his important work within the
remit he's chosen and others will investigate the unanswered questions which arise from the
Douma incident.
Ultimately the question about the dead civilians in the images is simply too dreadful to
ignore.
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
And then, of course, the resulting air strikes nearly caused us to go to war with Russia,
with all that would entail.
While these investigations continue, I think it's timely to see where these events fit into
the way the general public think and perceive wrongdoing and to try to radically to change
this.
I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and
events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you
explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem
hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path.
This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset
that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way
be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of
concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so
ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing.
I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to
people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed
him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries
complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back
at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people
can relate better to events today.
So, here follows an analogy of a character who lived in the 17th century. His traits, his
crimes, the political climate and peoples misguided perceptions in response can be compared to
recent events and one particular individual causing havoc in the world today.
Of course I refer to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.
Eliot ( 'suck my balls' ) Higgins and
Titus Oates1. Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat
Higgins probably doesn't need much of an introduction here. It seems he has no specific
qualifications relevant to his role and a bit of a drop-out in terms of education.
Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no
knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."
But this didn't prevent him blogging about world events and then setting himself up and his
site as investigator for several incidents most notably the shooting down of the MH17 passenger
plane over Ukraine and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It's now known that
Bellingcat is funded by pro-war groups including the Atlantic Council
Higgins has been accused by chemical weapons experts, academics and independent journalists
on the ground of fabricating evidence to reach a predetermined outcome decided on by his
funders.
His rise to prominence was fast and apparently some media editors now refer their
journalists to Bellingcat fabrications rather than allowing them to do any journalism
themselves.
For those who've followed his story, it's clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set
up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the
mainstream.
2. Titus Oates and the Popish Plot
Oates was a foul-mouthed
charlatan , serial liar and master of deception who lived in the 17th century. His earlier
life included being expelled from school and he was labelled a 'dunce' by people who knew him.
He became a clergyman and later joined the Navy. His career was plagued by various sex scandals
and charges of perjury.
In the 1670s during the time of Charles II, religious tensions threatened to spill over into
civil war but the pragmatic King, by and large, kept a lid on it.
However, along with Dr Israel Tonge an anti-Catholic rector, Oates started writing
conspiracy theories and inventing plots and later began writing a manuscript alleging of a plan
to assassinate King Charles II and replace him with his openly Catholic brother.
When the fabrication started to gather momentum, the King had an audience with Oates and was
unconvinced and was said to have found discrepancies in his story.
However, the tense political and religious climate at that time was ideal for conspiracy
theories and scaremongering. The King's ministers took Oates at his word and over a dozen
Catholics were executed for treason. This story created panic and paranoia lasting several
years taking the nation to the brink of civil war.
Over time Oates lies were exposed and when the Catholic King James II came to the throne, he
tried Oates with perjury and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
After James II fled England during the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' King William and
Queen Mary pardoned Oates and gave him a pension.
For me, this whole episode has many obvious parallels with Higgins, the long-running Russia
and the anti-Semitism witch-hunts in the media and the false narratives over Iraq, Libya and
Syria. Like those in power today, Oates had a knack for getting away with it. And I guess we
can all relate this to Julian Assange – the victims or whistleblowers being punished and
the perpetrators getting off.
I had wondered why James II, often ruthless and unforgiving had not executed Oates. But
apparently the crime of perjury even then didn't carry the death sentence. The judge who
convicted Oates was said to have tried his best to finish him off through the whipping, though
he survived.
But perhaps even the King and judiciary in failing in this or not using other means at their
disposal, couldn't comprehend the enormity of his crimes. Oates was after all a rather absurd
character, open to ridicule.
Perhaps this is a bit similar to people today when discovering that Eliot Higgins is also a
foul-mouthed fraud – but they can't reconcile this comical ex-lingerie employee as a
menace to humanity.
3. Modern day
In the past few weeks I've read various older articles on Iraq and Syria. US troops
shooting people for fun from a helicopter . The perpetrators are still free – the
whistle-blowers who exposed that, and other events in prison or exile.
Last year we learned about a shocking massacre of Syrian children,
unreported in the mainstream media . Mainstream journalists through their one-sided
distortions of the conflict and silence, perpetuating the myth that the terrorists who carried
out this mass murder are freedom fighters.
And as I've mentioned, we've seen firmer evidence of what many of us knew along – that
Douma was a staged fabrication as a pretext for air-strikes and dangerously escalating the
Syrian war. The likes of Eliot Higgins and others in the media, colluding in the cover-up of
mass murder which likely facilitated this event. And for those honest journalists and experts
who bring the truth of these staged events to us,
smears will no doubt continue .
Higgins and others in the media who lie, misinform or remain silent are no better than those
shooting civilians from helicopters or starting these wars in the first place. In fact, they
have killed more and keep killing.
This modern-day Titus Oates, and others share a big responsibility for death and destruction
in the Middle East and a dangerous new Cold War.
As I say, I think people are waking up to the distorted narratives and misdirections which
have inflicted war on others. Now they need to take the next step and grasp the sheer enormity
of the crimes and the risks of global conflict if we don't act.
So, how do we achieve this and get in a position of holding the criminals and war
propagandists to account?
By confronting them directly and mercilessly. As Jeremy Corbyn should have done over the
anti-Semitism hoax. Perhaps we should adopt some of the tactics they use against the
truth-tellers and whistle-blowers. I don't mean by lies or smears. Maybe even ridiculing these
people and their nonsense might have the effect of trivialising the crimes they have
committed.
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
We need to recognise more the seriousness of the crimes. This commentary from the usually
measured Piers Robinson about the staged event in Douma reflects the true gravity of the
situation in
terms of the OPCW complicity .
4. The hijacking of OPCW
The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As
the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have
suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass
murder."
We need to now apply this strong language to all crimes committed, be it from the soldiers
on the ground, the governments starting these wars or supplying terrorists or the media which
promote mass murder through their lies, distortions and silence when presented with the true
facts.
We need to go on the offensive and call out the criminals and spell out in no uncertain
terms what we are dealing with. With the evidence and fact-based analogies or arguments we
publish we should be using more commentary such as 'mass murderer', 'traitor' or 'terrorist
propagandist'.
This is particularly important in light of events in recent days. The assassination of
General Qasem Soleimani has been normalised in both mainstream and on social media. The people
legitimising state-sponsored murder in offices thousands of miles away from Iran, woefully
ignorant of the potential of this causing a chain of events which could visit our door
soon.
Above all, we should specifically name and shame the individuals promoting war. This needs
to be relentless. The official war narratives which have crumbled so far are ample evidence of
wrongdoing on a vast scale. So, we can be confident in doing this with the truth firmly on our
side.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted
wardropper ,
No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the
true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
Yes indeed.
I was, however, reminded today of the huge mountain we yet have to climb before it can be
normal again NOT to be corrupt and wicked. The scenario was a session of acrimony in a US
Senate chamber, and according to the NYTimes, "Tensions grew so raw after midnight that Chief
Justice Roberts cut in just before 1 a.m. to admonish the managers and the president's
lawyers to "remember where they are" and return to "civil discourse." "
"Remembering where you are", when dealing with Titus Oates and other vulgar frauds is perhaps
not entirely appropriate ?
wardropper ,
Apologies, I forgot to set the first sentence in quotes
Thom ,
Hitchens may be on the level on this particular issue but it is part of a wider deception
where Hitchens poses as a friend to critical thinkers and then tells them they are helpless
and/or can do nothing about it. If he really had journalistic integrity he wouldn't be taking
a salary from the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper that relentlessly lied for the Tories at the
last election, with the help of the itelligence agencies.
Koba ,
As good as Hitchens has done here he's still at heart a Trotskyist he lives a good split and
a toothless display just like the Trotskyists he used to side with. His brother went from
Trotskyist to soft neocon and peter went from Trotskyist to an ardent Christian Conservative
in a veeeeeery short space of time. Plus there dad was deeeeep in with the establishment and
his mum Jewish. So .
Bellingcrap is just another scam like Dupes (Snopes) and Politi"facts". All of them are
funded by the Atlantic Council and the CIA front National Endowment for "Democracy". Their
cover as an "independent objective fact checking service" is about as transparent as Saran
Wrap.
tonyopmoc ,
I really liked this when I read it this morning, before the grandkids came round, but I
thought some of the comments a bit severe..
I mean this photo is of some 40 year old kid, who lives in Leicester, and his
Mum/wife/sister or whatever works in the local Post Office .
I personally had never heard of Brown Noses, and I have never personnally succeeded in
getting anything I wrote, posted above our below the line, since The Manchester Guardian
moved from Manchester to London, and whilst I do love reading some of the posters' comments
well look face it.
Even though Rhys probabaly doesn't like what this kid writes – Elliot is it? he is
hardly going to come round with a chainsaw, to cut his head off is he? He probably never even
thought of it.
He did say he is small fry, and he probably is still a virgin (been brainwashed – so
he actually belives the model doll is better. What has he got to compare it to?)
So I can't blame any of them.
There are alternatives as well as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and all those Dating
Websites, when almost everything you write gets deleted.
Just go down the local pub when there is a good band on. Even I can pull there, but I am
better looking than both Rhys and Elliot
I Like Girls.
I am a man. It's Normal
Just keep fit dancing and smiling, and you will be O.K.
Tony
paul ,
The prime importance of these endless hoaxes, smears, lies, fabrications and official
approved conspiracy theories, lies not so much in the events themselves as what it says about
the nature of the people who rule over us and their courtiers and handmaidens in the MSM.
It would take a whole forest of trees merely to catalogue all their lies over the years,
whether it's the Iraq Incubator Babies, the black Viagra fuelled rape gangs in Libya, the
Syrian Gas Hoaxes, 9/11, Iraq's WMD, Iran's non existent nuclear weapons, Skripal,
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, or the communist spy/ terrorist/ anti semitic smear campaign against
Corbyn. And that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. You could go back further to
Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, the "Holocaust", Zinoviev Letter, Bayonetted
Belgian Babies, Raped Belgian Nuns, Human Bodies Made Into Soap. The list is endless.
We have been lied to consistently for years, decades, and generations. And these lies have
been peddled endlessly in the MSM, no matter how ludicrous and transparently false they are.
In the absence of direct personal knowledge or very convincing evidence to the contrary, you
just have to assume that everything we have ever been told, are being told, and will be told,
and most of the accepted historical record, are simply false. Nothing, nothing at all, can
ever be taken at face value.
And those who rule over us and who are responsible for these lies are psychopathic
subhuman filth devoid of any moral values or any redeeming features whatsoever. They are a
thousand times worse than the worst mass murderers or child killers who have ever been
through our courts. The Moors Murderers, the Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, were seriously
damaged individuals who killed a handful of victims. And they did their own dirty work. The
Blairs, the Campbells, the Straws, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Allbrights,
the Macrons, the Camerons, the Netanyahus, the Trumps, have the blood of millions on their
hands. They and their wire pullers are responsible for the death, starvation and misery of
tens and hundreds of millions.
So when Blair, or Johnson, or Trump or whoever is interviewed on television, you have to
remember that individual is a thousand times worse than the Moors Murderers, and we would
actually be that much better off if Brady or Hindley were ruling over us. They deserve no
respect or deference or legitimacy. They plot the murders of millions and the starvation of
tens of millions – and laugh and giggle as they do so. They should be simply recognised
for what they awe – psychopathic subhuman filth.
I do agree with you Paul and of course all you say is true. One of the main problems is that
these people have the power to build artificial constructs sufficient for the masses to
believe and perpetuated through their bought and paid for MSM whose journalists are mere foot
soldiers and wish only to get their pay checks. They have no reason to question the lies and
distortions pedaled to them by TPTB – they merely repeat the false narrative:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it!" – Upton Sinclair
And we, the great 99%, have little power to change things except within our local network.
We can shout all we like on social media but it changes nothing until the great crisis
reoccurs and perhaps the masses will rise and demand a just and equitable system. Until that
day perhaps this little video will provide an understanding:
The business of the MSM throughout the ages has been to traumatise or at least just generally
worry the public with headlines focused on fear, envy, anger, revenge, and hate. Include all
five in your story and you're well on the way to a Pulitzer Prize, bestowed on the profession
by one of the great muckrakers of all time. It's not incidental that there have been a
disturbing number of winners that have turned out to be dissembling frauds. Add to this the
fact that 'journalism' training apparently does not teach entrants to distinguish the
difference between opinion and news, and the die is cast: propaganda as news.
Dungroanin ,
Here is what BellEndScat supporting Rusbridger is moaning about.
"For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been
dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the
owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the
World).
The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going
to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the
second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we
can only surmise what is going on.
But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than
£70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The
BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in
damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach
£1bn."
"Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the
Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise
what is going on."
-- --
Completely ignoring that the Integrity Iniative infested Guardian ITSELF objected to the
recommendation of Levesons thoroughly public Inquiry and opposition to a independent press
regulator!
It would have been a building block and certainly stopped most of the continued press
misbehaviour over the last 5 years.
Neither Fish nor Fowl Mr Rusbridger. More sinner that saint, more like.
Hugh O'Neill ,
Going to the heart of what Bellingcat, MI6 and CIA is Pompeo's: "We lie, we cheat, we steal."
These evil filth are devoid of any moral code and have no respect whatsoever for the laws of
God or Man. At which point, consider Moses' (how apt) Ten Commandments. There among them is:
"Thou shalt not bear false witness". Think what you will of these Ten, but as a moral code,
they were quite useful.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Would that all these scum could share the fate of their progenitor, Streicher-without the '
necktie party'. Life at hard labour would do the lot of them much good.
Brianeg ,
I looked at the Veterans Today link and it all sounds very plausible'
However in today's world nothing makes sense especially when the questions arise.
Is it possible to change the signal of an aircrafts transponder remotely. Can the target
acquisition radar on the missile be spoofed remotely. Just why did the flight control officer
sanction the take off of this plane in the middle of a war unless they were party to the
whole thing.. Just what were the six Israeli F-35 jets doing flying close to the Iranian
border?
Okay there is a lot of smoke but just where is the fire.
Just as interesting is that none of the twelve Iranian missiles was intercepted and there
are rumours that the Iranians were able to take out of action American air defences.
I am sure that like with Douma when the majority of NATO missiles were intercepted by
missiles that were decades old, you wonder what might happen when most of the middle east is
covered by the S-300 and later versions.
This is a story that has got a long way to run and we might never hear the ending.
Dungroanin ,
Facts are inconvenient.
Many planes took off.
This one was delayed by the pilot 'to remove overloading'.
Reports of Cruise missiles heading in.
The thing about 'chips' is they could easily be identified by putting them in a black box
and watching what they do using a chip which only does that!
The whole bs about it's THEM not US crap falls away. Just need some open source simple
'custodian' chip manufacturer to make that available. If it can be made a 'gate keeper' than
we are all safe.
Mucho ,
"It sounds a bit MAGA. "
After this, I will never, ever read any of your comments ever again. Get lost!
Mucho ,
You talk so much crap. Please, keep it to yourself
Dungroanin ,
I ain't saying that is your opinion am I?
The bit I watched was him being gung-ho about getting back 'control of microprocessors'
!!!
There is a big difference between designing chips and 'manufacturing' facilities'.
Have you never wondered why most actual building of small electrical component equipment
takes place in Asia?
I don't care wherher you read my comments- i am free to post what I want on whatevet
article and whoevers comment. And stick to facts.
Mucho ,
"The bit I watched ".
Honestly, I am so tired of people who comment on things they know nothing about. Everything
you say is wrong, because you are speaking from a position of total ignorance, because you
haven't watched the films.
Watch 1 to 3. Watch 22 and 23 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not skimming. Then comment. Every
inaccurate comment you make is covered in detail. Honestly it's no wonder we're so fucked.
From 2005 after one google search, time spent on this, 10 seconds:
"While Yona was developed in partnership with one of Intel's California centers, the 65nm
microprocessor product is the first to be developed in its entirety, both the architecture
and strategy, by Intel engineers at its Israel plants in Haifa and Yakum. " https://www.israel21c.org/intels-new-chip-design-developed-in-israel/
You know zilch, you understand nothing, you make assumptions, you don't watch or read the
material, and then in your total ignorance, you spew your feeble thoughts on this forum.
Moron
Mucho ,
You define the phrase "ignorant Brit"
Dungroanin ,
Mucho since you FAILED instantly in your promise to ignore me – i will respond to your
toy throwing out of the parambulator.
First just telling people to WATCH something without explaining what the salient point to
be learnt – is not the way to influence or educate.
I prefer reading an argument- I definitely do not spend hours watching TV or listening to
propaganda by msm / indy or 'shock jocks' – that last was the personality I saw and
didn't feel the need to hear anymore as I don't when Nigel Farage and his ilk do on the radio
here.
If you want to inform or prove something to me or anyone else kindly post a link to a
written piece.
Second, chips are designed eveywhere there is such competence. Chip manufacturing mainly
improved theough research in top universities.
The UK was a lead chip designer too.
None of that means the Israelis haven't monopolosed tech and own many patents. The fact is
the Israelis ARE part of the 5+1 eyed world Empire – they are the plus one. Snowdens
whistleblowing makes absolutely clear that the +1 gets a higher clearance than the +4.
That's as nice as I am prepared to be, so finally, that last paragraph is what is known as
PROJECTION. Look it up and learn that it comes from your fav bogeymen brainfuckers.
That is some serious self-hate you have going on – work on it.
Take it easy ok?
Mucho ,
Number 23 is totally relevant too, going deep into chips, backdooring and kill switch usage
Koba ,
So the mocking of maga is what set you off? Fuck maga and it's idiot supporters great nations
don't slaughter civilians for capital
chris morris is very funny has a fine body of twisted comedick works
for all his charm his role is too destroy society degrade
he is khazar after all
sacha baron co hen the names speaks for itself an empty cruel tool
never trust a coen cohen khan or cowen or co they cookoo
eliot mcfuck higgins is not oirish
he is not certainly related to snooker loopy or is it darts i cannot remember hero alex
higgins.
eliot"s dad is rita katz from site intel group amaq news
his mom barbera lerner spector
or is it vice versa
versa vice
whatever
shirley you
get my the friends of the oirish israel drift
so to speaks
or sum such
Mucho ,
Brilliant, insightful, logical hypothesis of the recent plane downing over Iran by Jeremy
Rothe Kushel. Ignore the video, this is about the written article.
For further info about Israeli tech domination, what it is, where it comes from and the
implications of this, go to Brendon O Connell's YT channel. Number 22 in his list is very
important.
Mucho ,
Jeremy Rothe-Kushel is a very important member of the truth community, in no small part due
to the fact that he is an Ashkenazi Jew. My personal belief is that in the end, the Jewish
community will play a pivotal role in weeding out the evil that rules over us. I wish we
didn't have these labels, that we could have true freedom to play our chosen role in our God
created realm, but at this stage in the game, we're stuck with our divide and rule labels and
systems of control.
Jeremy's style is to the point, he has great depth of knowledge, an encyclopedic knowledge of
his field and is a highly astute commentator. He presents a lot of complex information in
fairly easy to digest chunks with his co-host, Greg McCarron, on their show "The Antedote" on
YT, as well as doing a lot of guerilla style activism in US politics. Highly recommended.
norman wisdom ,
i met elliot many years ago
the chap on the 8 year old lap top above
we called him fat face down the synagogue ohh how we laughed
he laughed as well everytime someone said it
such fun
are rabbi one day organised a trip and lecture tour of chatham house the belly of the
beast.
we learnt all about how tough regime change was and how difficult it is to do on a bbc size
budget.
what we learnt was that having are people everywhere really helped
scripted up to speed influencer roles in media in public on track on page working cog
like.
a kind of khazar collective non semites only for security reasons of course.
we could work from a very low pound dollar and shekels base and still be very effective.
never under estimate the benjamins or elliots it is folks like this that are the real hero
of the oded yinon
yes sir
already my life
fat face eliot boy done good
and like all khazar he hates the sephardim jewisher and the unclean arab which is shirley
a bonus is it not
George Mc ,
First off, if folks haven't a clue who Harold Shipman is, you're not going to get far with
Titus Oats. At the most they might think it's a character from Gormenghast.
Second, I initially misread the article and thought that the figure from the 17th century
actually WAS Higgins of Bellingcat. And if that seems an absurd assumption to make, even
temporarily, it doesn't seem much more absurd than some of the stuff he says e.g.
I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.
The point has been raised that there are psyops perpetrated with a malicious sense of
humour as if to say, "These suckers will swallow anything". Higgins with his "education" from
Arnold and Rambo may be an example of one of those jokes.
Third, and to end on an optimistic note, I like the 17th century sentencing and recommend
we bring it back:
and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.
Dungroanin ,
Admin – a suggestion on keeping recent articles available from the top of the page.
Problem: As you add new aricles at top left the ones on the very right drop away! Almost
as if being binned into a memory hole.
Solution: allow a scroll at the right hand edge so that these older links are easily
available to readers. Only a minor coding change without any change to your front page.
Tallis Marsh ,
I concur! I'm sure many of us will appreciate a scroll on the right hand edge so we can
access the older articles. Thanks in advance, OffG!
Oliver ,
HM Armed Forces operations in Syria follow the doctrine of Major General Sir Frank Kitson who
learnt his stuff in Kenya in the 1950s. Murder, torture, rape the staples of the British
military's modern terrorist ability. NATO doctrine too.
This is an important article: one of the few that dares to express that Douma et al are not
mere false flags they a darkly psychotic form of 'snuff propaganda porn' (including the
recycling and rearanging of 'props' that were until recently animate human souls with a
lifetime of possibility abnegated for ideology). The Working Group on Syria is part of a
small counter-narrative subset – along with Sister Agnes Mariam, Vanessa Beeley, RT (on
occasion), UK Column, The Indicter, Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli – who are willing to
state plainly that this is child murder. Now I wholeheartedly commend Kevin that we should
name and shame the culprits and their supporters.
"No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people
for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks."
I had a similar epiphany in early 2016. The barbaric of murder of starved and thirsty
children at Rashidin – Syrian innocence lured by much needed sweets and drinks only to
be blown apart in front of their mothers. Anyone who supports the White Helmets terrorist
construct and their NATO-proxy child-murderers needs to be exposed. But what if that trail of
exposure leads back to the leader of the Labour party: who had just personally endorsed the
charity funding of the White Helmets? And continued to support the Jo Cox Foundation of
Syrian humanitarian bombers and R2P interventionists? Which itself is a front for the dark
money web of 'philanthrocapitalism' that is the shadow support network for regime change
crimes against humanity. This is when righteous indignation meets the dark wall of silence
around the social construction of reality. Especially if you put Jeremy Corbyn in the
frame.
What this means is the ability to frame dark actors for the true evil they are has to be a
two-way flow. Meaning is created across networks, not just by naming but by naming and
agreeing across narrative communities. Again, this is not abstruse: it is social reality.
Social reality is not reality: it is a consensual constructivism. Significant numbers of
others have to be in a position of consensual agreement in order to challenge the dominant
narrative(s). So I echo the sentiment that many can see that the dominant narrative –
especially concerning Syria – is deeply flawed. But they are as yet unwilling to admit
that the depth of the flaw is in fact a tear in social reality that cannot be easily
healed.
This is the aspect of social reality called 'universe maintenance'. Doxa is the reality
constructing belief set – the episteme of interacting beliefs. The narrative has two
main aspects: ortho-doxa and hetero-doxa – the orthodox maintaining and heterodox
subverting discourses. In order to truly subvert the hegemonic orthodoxy – there has to
be a social moment of criticality when the heterodox is no longer deniable. To reach that
point: the intrajecting true has to be believable to the hegemonic orthodoxy. Now we have a
third mode: para-doxa when the true 'state of affairs' is not believable – it is easily
rejected as paradoxical to the reigning consensus covenant of the true. This is universe
maintaining: whereby the the totality of the dominant discourse actually subsumes or repels
any paradox as a half-truth or ameliorated, disarmed less-than-true ('conspiracy theory').
This is known as 'recuperation'. Anything that meets the dominant discourse has to be
explained in the terms of the dominant discourse accommodative and recommending itself to the
dominant discourse. Which then becomes a part of the dominant universe of discourse.
A moment of the true is like a barb to a bubble. It has to be contained and wrapped in
narrative that describes and explains it into a consumable form. The full realisation of the
propagandic child murder in Syria – tacitly supported by the Labour Party and Jeremy
Corbyn in particular – would destroy the symbolic universe of social reality. Of which
it is my personal experience no one really wants to do. The correlations, direct and indirect
links, and universally maintained orthodoxy of narrative discourse point to an accomodation.
An explanation or multivariate set of explanations that problem shift and ascribe blame to
imaginary actors. To deflect or defend the personal self. Because the personal self is
independently situated outside the social sphere. Or is it?
Seeing the real event as it happens requires the perspicacity of social inclusion. We all
create social reality together: with our without layers of dualising exclusion that protects
us from the way the world really is. Who would vote to legitimise the supporters of NATO and
the child-murderers of Syria? 31 million legitimising independent social actors just did. Do
you suppose they did so in full knowledge that it is child-murder they were supporting? Or
did they create universe maintaining accommodations to the truth? That is how powerful the
screening discourses and legitimising orthodoxic narrative mythology is. It is not that it
cannot be subverted: its just that calling out the true evil has to be heard in unison by
large or social small assemblages willing to totally change everything – including
themselves. In order to transition to a different social reality one that accommodates the
truth. One which will look nothing like the social reality we choose to maintain as is.
Francis Lee ,
My first attempt didn't get through. Herewith second.
It seems to me that the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, although they may have
some impact on external geopolitical issues, are a matter for them. At the present time the
relevant question regarding the RF is as follows: Question 1. Is Russia a revionist state
intent on an expansionist foreign policy? Answer NO. But it is not going to tolerate NATO
expansion into its own strategic zones, namely, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucusas.
Question 2. Is the Anglo-Zionist empire in open of pursuit of a world empire intent on
destroying any sovereign state – including first and foremost Russia – which
stands in its way? Answer YES. This really is so blatant that anyone who is ethnically
challenged should seek psychiatric help. In Polls conducted around the world the US is always
cited as the most dangerous enemy of world peace, including in the US itself. Thus a small
influential (unfortunately deranged) cabal based in the west has insinuated its way into the
institutions of power and poses a real and present danger to world peace.
This being the case it is imperative to push all and any 'normal' western governments and
shape public opinion and discourse (except the nut-jobs like Poland and the Baltics) into
diplomacy. Wind down NATO just as the Warsaw Pact was wound down. that will do for starters.
Of course the PTB in all the western institutions – the media (whores) the deep state,
the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House the Arms merchants, the
security services GCHQ, the CIA, Mossad and the rest will oppose this with all the power at
their command. This is the present primary site of struggle, mainly propagandistic, cultural
and economic, but with overtones of kinetic warfare.
Similar diplomatic initiatives must be directed at China. Yes, I know all about China's
social credit policy, I don't particularly like the idea of 24 hour system of surveillance,
and I wouldn't want to live there, but is already a virtual fait accompli in the west. Again
it bears repeating that sovereign states should be left to their own devices. After all
'States have neither permanent friends of allies, only permanent interests. (Lord Palmerston,
19 century British Statesman). No more 'humanitarian interventions' thank you very much. How
about Mind our own Business non-interventions.
I make no apologies for being a foreign policy realist – if that hasn't become
apparent by this stage!
BigB ,
Francis:
The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating
the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?
Market mechanisms and methodology are exponentially expansionist, extractivist, and
extrapolative. Market propaganda is free and equal exchange coupled with mutual development
through comparative advantage. Everyone benefits, right?
No: markets operate as vast surplus value extractors that only operate unequally to
deliver maximum competitive advantage to the suprasovereign core. Surplus value valorises
surplus capital which cannot be contained in a single domestic market: so it seeks to exploit
underdeveloped foreign markets setting up dependencies and peripheries in the satellite
states. Which keeps them maldeveloped. In short: Russia and China's wealth is not just their
own.
Russia and China are globalisation now. Globalist exponential expansionism, extractivism,
and extrapolation is the repression of humanism and destruction of the biosphere. It can't
stop growing in the cancer stage of hyper-capitalism. We are currently consuming every
resource at a material throughput increase of 3% per annum year on year. That's a 23 year
exponential doubling of material resources. And a 46 year doubling of the doubling. How long
before globalisation uses everything? How far into the race to the bottom will the market
collapse?
It would be really nice to return to a Westphalian System of non-expansionist,
non-extractivist sovereign nation states. It is just not even plausible under market
mechanisms of extraction. There can be no material decoupling and development remains
contingent on an impossible infinity: because development remains parallel and assymetrically
maintained. And all major resources are depleting exponentially too. Including the nominative
renewable and sustainable ones.
Degrowth; self-sufficiency; localised 'anti-fragility', steady-state; asymmetric
development of the marginalised and the peripheralised; regenerative agroecological
agriculture; human development not abstract market development; are just some of the
pre-requisites of a return to sovereign states. Russia 'sovereigntist' globalisation is the
expansionist opposite to that. The RF is part of the biggest market in the world that hoovers
up as much surplus value as it can before sending a large tranche of it to London. As much as
$25bn a year in capital flight into the offshore nexus of secrecy jurisdictions. It's a
globalist expansionist market mechanism that hoovers all vitality out of the life-ground.
That: I call expansionist and imperialist of which Russia and China are now the major
part.
Francis Lee ,
"The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the
Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together
into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and
70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?"
No, I wouldn't actually. Building roads, rail connections and other trade routes doesn't
strike me as imperial expansion. No-one is being forced to join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) or into reconfiguring their internal political and economic structures, as
the US does in Latin America or as the British did in India and Southern Africa. (East India
Company and the British British South Africa Chartered Company). The SCO is a voluntary
arrangement. Uzbekistan for example has decided not to join the central Asian Eurasian
Economic Union – well that's its prerogative. No-one is going to send any gun-boats to
force them. (I am aware that Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, but I was talking
figuratively.)
The EEU's genesis has along with the SCO and BRI has been forced upon the China/Russia
axis as part of an emerging counter-hegemonic alliance against the US's imperial
aggrandisement with its kowtowing vassals in tow. Russia has no claims on any of its
neighbours since it is already endowed with ample land and mineral deposits. China is a key
part of this essentially geopolitical bloc quite simply because the US imperial hegemon is
determined to stop China's development by all means necessary including the dragooning of
contiguous military bases in US proxy states around China's maritime borders.
A distinction should be made between rampant imperialism of the Anglo-zi0nist empire, and
the response of an increasingly bloc of states who find both their sovereignty and even their
existence threatened by the imperial juggernaut. What exactly did you expect them to do given
the hostility and destructive intent of the Empire? Defence against imperialism is not
imperialism. The defence of autonomy and sovereignty of international society and the
creation of an anti-hegemonic have the potential to finally create a transformative new world
order (and goodness knows we need one) announced at the end of the Cold War in 1991. This
ambition finds support not only in Russia and China but in other countries ready to align
with them, but also in many western countries. I obviously need to put the question again.
Who is and who is not the greatest threat to world peace? Surely to pose the question is to
answer it.
Dungroanin ,
Agree Francis.
There is a move to suggest that the Old Empire retains a 'maritime' world and the SCO
confines itself to the Eurasian land mass.
Dream on.
The Empire is DEAD. Long live the new Empire!
BigB ,
Who is the greatest threat to world peace and to the world itself? We are. The global carbon
consumption/pollution bourgeoisie. It is the global expansionist mindset that is increasing
its demands for growth – as the only solution to social problems, maldevelopment, and
maldistribution caused by excessive growth. Supply has to be met by exponentially expanding
markets. Whether this is voluntaristic or coerced makes very little difference to the market
cancer subsuming the globe. Benign or aggressive forms of cancer are still cancer. And the
net effect is the same.
Russia and China – the 'East' – uphold exactly the same corporate model of
global governance that the 'West' does. Which has been made clear in every joint communique
– especially BRICS communiques. I have made the case – following Professor
Patrick Bond – that BRICS in particular (a literal Goldman Sachs globalist marketing
ploy) – are sub-imperial, not anti-imperial. All their major institutions are dollar
denominated for loans; BRI finance is in dollars; BRICS re-capitalised the IMF; Contingency
Reserve Arrangements come with an IMF neoliberalising structural adjustment policy; etc. It
is the same model East and West. One is merely the pseudo-benign extension of the other. The
alternative to neoliberal globalisation is neoliberal globalisation. This became radiantly
clear at SPIEF 2019: TINA there is no alternative.
The perceived alternative is the reproduction of neoliberalism – which has long been
think-tanked and obvious – and its transformation from 'globalisation 3.0' to
'globalisation 4.0' trade in goods and services, with the emphasis on a transition to
high-speed interconnectivity and decoupled service economies. Something like the
Trans-Eurasian Information Super Highway (TASIM)? With a sovereigntist and social inclusivity
compact. So the neoliberal leopard can change its spots?
No. Whilst your argument is sound and well constructed: it is reliant on the early 20th
century Leninist definition of 'imperialism' as a purely militarist phenomena. Imperialism
mutated since then – from military to financial (which are not necessarily exclusive
sets) – and is set to metastasise again into 'green imperialism' of man over man (and
it is an andrarchic principle) and man (culture) over nature. Here your argument falls down
to an ecological and bio-materialist critique. Cancer is extractivist and expansionist
wherever it grows.
Russia is the fourth largest primary energy consumer on the planet. Disregarding hydro
– which is not truly ecological – it has a 1% renewable penetration. It is a
hydrocarbon behemoth set to grow the only way it knows how – consuming more
hydrocarbons. They cannot go 'green': no one can. And a with a global ecological footprint of
3.3 planets per capita, per annum, this is not sustainable. Now or ever.
So a distinction needs to be made between the old rampant neoliberal globalisation model
(3.0) – the Anglo-Zionist imperialist model – and the emergent neoliberal
globalisation model (4.0) of Russia/China's rampant ecological imperialism? And a further
distinction needs to be made about what humanity has to do to survive this distinction
between aggressive and quasi-benign cancer forms. Because we will be just as dead, just as
quick if we cannot even identify the underlying cancer we are all suffering from.
Koba ,
Big B sit down ultra! China and Russia rent empires and have no desire to be! If you're a
left winger you're another poor example of one and more than likely a Trotskyist
Richard Le Sarc ,
Love the nickname, Josef.
Louis Proyect ,
This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it
seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a
fabrication.
And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal
to even establish the basic facts in the days following?
-- -
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories. The notion that this kind of slaughter took place to "facilitate" a false flag is
analogous to the 9/11 conspiracism that was on display here a while back and that manifested
itself through the inclusion of NYU 9/11 Truther Mark Crispin Miller on Tim Hayward's
Assadist propaganda team.
Sad, really.
Harry Stotle ,
Go on Louis, remind us about the 'terrorist passport' miraculously found at the foot of the
collapsed tower with a page coveniently left open displaying a 'Tora Bora' stamp – I
kove that bit.
I mean who, apart from half the worlds scientific community is not totally convinced by
such compelling evidence, especially when allied to the re-writing of the laws of physics in
order to rationlise the ludicrous 2 planes 3 towers conspiracy theory?
Next you'll be telling us it was necessary for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for
reasons few American'srecall beyond the neocon fantasy contructed on 11th Septemember,
2001.
Dave Hansell ,
It's clear to a blind man on a galloping horse from this comment of yours Mr Proyect that
concepts such as objective evidence, logical and rational deduction, the scientific method
etc are beyond your ken.
Faced with the facts of a collapsing narrative of obvious bullshit and lies you have
bought into, which you are incapable of facing up to, it is unsurprising that you are reduced
to such puerile school playground level deflections.
So come on, try getting out of the gutter and upping your game. Because this fare is
nothing short of sad and pathetic.
We know from the evidence of those who actually know their arse from their elbow on these
matters that the claims of an attack using chemical weapons on this site are
unsustainable.
Which leaves the issue of the bodies at the site. Given they did not lose their lives as a
result of the unscientific bullshit explanation you desperately and clearly want to be the
case the question is how did those civilians lose their lives? How did their corpses find
their way to that location?
Did Assad and his "regime" murder them and move the bodies to that site (over which they
had no control) in order to create a false flag event to get themselves falsely accused of an
NBC attack Louis? Because that's the only reasonable and rational deduction one can imply
from your argument and approach.
It is certainly more reasoned, rational and in keeping with the scientific method (you
might want to try it sometime) to surmise that the bodies on site, having not been the result
of the claimed and unsustainable narrative you have naively committed to, either died on site
from some other cause or were brought to the site for the purpose of creating your fantasy
narrative.
In the latter case it is further a matter of rational and reasoned deduction that such an
occurrence could only be carried it in circumstances in which whoever carried it out had
actual, effective and physical control of a geographical location and area situated within a
wider conflict zone.
Again, it remains a piece of factual reality that this location was not under the control
of the Assad 'regime.' Not least because otherwise there would be no logical or rational
military reason for the de facto Syrian Government and it's armed forces to waste resources
attacking it.
Unless of course he buys I to the conspiracy theory and hat they somehow organised a false
flag implicating themselves?
I'm sure everyone else here in the reality based community is waiting with bated breath
for you to 'explain' how they did this Louis.
I know I am. I could do with a good laugh.
George Mc ,
This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy
theories.
Umm – the assumption that Muslims DIDN'T do it is "Islamophobic"? Even on your own
terms you're not making much sense these days, Louis.
Hi I'm Louis an unrepentant Marxist and I willfully refuse to use block-quotes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
More proyectile vomitus in defence of child-murdering salafist vermin. How low can this
creature descend?
Louis Proyect ,
Richard, such abusive language only indicates your inability to discuss the matter at hand.
In general, a detached sarcasm works much better in polemics. You need to read Lenin to see
how it is done. I should add that I am referring to V.I. Lenin, not John Lenin who wrote
"Crippled Inside".
Richard Le Sarc ,
You defended the salafist butchers with lies, proyectile-do you not even comprehend your own
sewage? Or did someone else write it and you just appended your paw-print?
Dave Hansell ,
Apologies here. There is an open goal and the ball needs to be put in the back of the net:
Seems that Louis here is well ahead of the curve in terms of Fukuyama's well known
observation about the end of history.
For Louise history, in terms of the progress and development of human knowledge, stopped
around a century ago with whatever Lenin wrote.
But that's what happens to those who only read one book.
Sad really.
Dungroanin ,
You come across more as Yaxley – Lenin mr Tommy Proyect – but he is a MI5 stooge
unlike you cough cough.
Koba ,
Lenin hates Trotsky! Trotsky was a power mad maniac who wanted a permanent war state to
somehow spread his specific brand of "ahem" socialism, which won't win you friends! "Hi yeah
sorry we killed your family in a war we started to save you but yippee Trotsky is now in
charge so stop complaining"! You're just a bunch of liars the trots
Maggie ,
learn to use the internet which has the information you need to learn the truth:
Maggie don't take jimmy bore as some truth teller he's a bland progressive with revolutionary
slogans like proyect! He also has a habit of equating Stalin with Hitler in that god awful
nasal accent of his
Richard Le Sarc ,
Thems White Helmets is always so neat and tidy. Their mammies must have insisted that they
always look their best.
paul ,
The British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters in Syria routinely committed
massacres and filmed their victims. The resulting footage was passed off by tame media hacks
as "evidence" of regime atrocities.
Koba ,
Death to the Trotskyists
Fuck proyect your name calling says it all!
Islamophobes indeed?! What an idiot
Harry Stotle ,
The alternative media, and a smattering of truth tellers are locked in an asymmetrical
information-war with the establishment – with an all too obvious 'David & Goliath'
sort of dynamic underlying it.
The question asked at the heart of this article is how to break the vice like grip
information managers hold over various geopolitical narratives, referencing events in Douma
in particular.
Alnost reflexively 9/11 comes to mind – a fairly unambiguous example of mass murder
for which the official account does not withstand even the most cursory form of scrutiny.
Professionals even went so far as to purger themselves while the investigating committee
admitted they were 'set up to fail' (to quote its chairman).
Yet the public, instead of shredding Bush, limb from limb (for the lies that were told)
rolled onto their back while the neoncons tickled their collective belly as you might do with
a particulalrly adorable puppy,
So if we can't even get to the bottom of events in the middle of New York what realistic
chance of doing so in a hostile war zone like Douma?
On balance racism, together with other forms of collective loathing is the most likely
reason why this unsatisfactory state of affairs is unlikely to change.
A collective 'them and us' mindset makes it far easier for information managers to
manipulate a visceral hatred and fear of 'the other'.
Today it is Qasem Soleimani westerners are taugyt to despise, yesterday it was Bashar
al-Assad, before that Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Nicolás
Maduro . the list just goes on and on.
Information managers simply wind the public up so that collective anger can be directed
toward governments or individuals they are trying to bring down – recent history tells
us that the public are largely oblivious to this process, so thus never learn from their
mistakes.
Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the
ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave
threat to 'our way of life' while failing to notice that it is in fact our own leaders who
are carrying out the worst atrocities.
harry law ,
Harry Stotle, .."Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely
on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose
a grave threat to 'our way of life'. That's true Hermann Goring had it about right with this
quote
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk
his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for
that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and
dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.
A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific
evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.
The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog
organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most
consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the
ground in Douma.
He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that
OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced
another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.
"We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring
to the FFM team in Douma.
The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research
that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists
Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western
government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of
dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018.
Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.
The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a
chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military
assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN
authorization.
Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims
In May 2019, an internal
OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian
Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma
"were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having
been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both
cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from
aircraft."
After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and
International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that
the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised
reporting" and ignoring
scientific evidence .
WikiLeaks has published
numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff
doctored the Douma report.
As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José
Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW
investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already
had," Bustani stated.
"I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official
reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now,
although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.
OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma
On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging
suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council
Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.
( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full
transcript of Henderson's testimony .)
China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council
session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a
visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to
the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning
UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's
headquarters agreement .)
Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only
OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.
"My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent
management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report,"
Henderson explained.
Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to
the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples,
interviews with witnesses, and data collection.
In July 2018, the FFM published its
interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The
results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected
in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the
report indicated.)
"By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we
had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security
Council.
After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW
leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially
resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to
locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."
Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that
chemical weapons had been used in Douma.
"The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson
remarked at the UN session.
"The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in
the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or
ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was
understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018,"
Henderson stated.
The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering
and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support
for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."
A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council
that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their
findings were suppressed and reversed
The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking
Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula
meeting.
Acting US representative Cherith
Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN
that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets"
– a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda
and have been involved in
numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by
Islamist extremists .
The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush
administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured
him to resign.
In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an
agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors
to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US
government.
Then-Under Secretary of State John
Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants
you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to
leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways
to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."
Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson
While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an
interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop,
aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics,
including Ian Henderson.
Bellingcat is funded by the US government's
regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative
bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.
Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat
to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who
debated Higgins, has noted that
Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that
OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised
reporting.
Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The
New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his
skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours
he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be
cracked."
In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking
out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.
Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe
himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider
this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."
Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and
representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate
in the session.
Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report
Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :
Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council
"My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about
12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the
Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa
waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will
now add a short introduction.
I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm
a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and
appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.
Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the
professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must
stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in
certain sensitive missions.
The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on
the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other
inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later
analysis and compilation of a final report.
There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field
deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called
FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had
been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings
and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with
what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the
time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious
misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the
team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this
stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis
in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering,
and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what
was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies
into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there
had not been a chemical attack.
This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and
engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a
political debate surrounding this.
Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who
developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC
facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two
inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex
at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.
That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."
You are likely confusing the US with the UK. I tried to look up the tale of the "Basra
bombers" again, but it appears to be pretty well scrubbed from the web.. Here's some of what
I could scramble to find:
"... The definition of a diplomat being one who 'lies abroad for his country' should always be at the front of the mind of anyone seeking truth. Diplomats should always be assumed to be lying, honourably of course, until proven otherwise. ..."
Yesterday the UNSC held a special panel to discuss the reliability and impartiality of the OPCW, most specifically
regarding the alleged Douma "chemical attack". The expert panel reviewed and revealed some worrying evidence.
Most important was the testimony of Ian Henderson, former OPCW inspector and leader of the engineering sub-team
who visited Douma.
Ian Henderson, the source of the famous leaked "dissenting report" on the placement of gas cylinders at the Douma
site, was speaking via video link due to being denied a VISA by the US authorities (we don't know why this happened,
but I'm sure it was all honest and above board, and not just petty politicking).
He told the UNSC that findings of the experts on the ground were totally ignored by their OPCW bosses.
He said:
By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings
that a chemical attack had occurred."
And added that the final report was a "complete turnaround" on these findings, and authored by a separate group
who had
never visited the site
.
Unsurprisingly, efforts to smear Mr Henderson, or otherwise minimise his testimony, were quick to appear.
Thomas Phipps, a UK diplomat to the UN chimed in with some rather xenophobic snobbery:
Four Russians and one Syrian make up the 'expert' panel at Russia's
#UNSC
Arria meeting on
#Syria
Chemical Weapons. Four are
diplomats and one an academic whose credentials are unclear. These are not impartial actors without an agenda.
pic.twitter.com/y2PSv4QYOw
You'll notice he doesn't mention Henderson at all.
Plus, there were the usual non-arguments from the usual unqualified, NATO-backed mouth pieces:
Meanwhile, the Western press is simply keeping shtum, with the testimony of Henderson, and the UN panel in
general, not mentioned in any mainstream outlet we can find.
That seems unlikely to change.
Rhys Jaggar
,
The fact that Thomas Phipps calls himself a diplomat should alert all that he is 'lying for his country',
whether that be abroad or if he happened to be based in the UK when he uttered his smear.
The
definition of a diplomat being one who 'lies abroad for his country' should always be at the front of the
mind of anyone seeking truth. Diplomats should always be assumed to be lying, honourably of course, until
proven otherwise.
It is what diplomats do, after all.
JudyJ
,
That would be Thomas Phipps
MBE
. Having worked for over 5
years at Tate & Lyle he qualified for a 'desk officer' job at the FCO in 2009 as a diplomatic 'fast
streamer' (i.e. someone with 'recognised potential' to progress up the grades to the highest level).
After just over 2 years he transferred to the diplomatic service, working in Manila until 2016. It was
for that work that he was awarded his MBE in 2015.
When I was a civil servant many 'fast streamers who worked for the Foreign Office or diplomatic
service' unofficially earned themselves another job title – w..kers! They really considered themselves
to be something special when they were anything but. And believe you me, I came across many in my
years of service. Once you had your foot in the door the only way was up as long as you were a 'yes'
man or woman. Phipps resoundingly meets this criterion. As I have commented previously, he is clearly
intended to be
Dame
Karen Pierce's replacement when she moves
on to spread her lies, xenophobia and arrogance elsewhere.
Yarkob
,
"last minute Visa waiver issues" caused Mr. Henderson to have to give evidence by video link instead of
in person as planned.
What were they, I wonder an ESTA lasts 2 years last time I checked. Did he forget to renew it before
coming to New York? Doesn't sound like something somebody as apparently meticulous as Mr. Henderson would
do
Many of us already knew that it was nothing but a false flag brought to you by George Clueless' favorite
group the White Helmets since it made no sense why Assad would desperately launch a chemical attack when
1) he was winning 2) he's never done so in the past even and 3)he doesn't have the means to do it even if
he wanted to .
Some of us tried to tell Trump this but it seems that his head was so far up Bibi's ass
he never listened to us and said damn the torpedos or the cruise missiles in this case and at that point
gave the finger to the base that elected him.
He's currently been impeached but like Clinton for the wrong high crimes and misdemeanors so his fat
lying ass won't be convicted.
Antonym
,
The CIA is not run from Jerusalem, or Washington for that matter. More from Langley or central New
York (not Trump!!).
Tallis Marsh
,
The truth will out, despite the propaganda-by-omission MSM!
On a different (yet also important) subject
of the Opposition Leadership Election – good news!
Rebecca Long Bailey is showing her principles, steel, political astuteness, and a true sense of
democracy! 'Open Selections' will be immensely popular with the membership and is a game-changer which
will help her win. This will put the spanner in the works for Keir "Trilateral Commission" Agent Starmer.
Vote for Rebecca Long-Bailey for Leader and Richard Burgon for Deputy Leader!
Protect
,
After hundreds of years of murder and theft, Western Civilisation is now capable of propping its
relevance ONLY by resorting to Lies and Deceit to justify wanton violence against nations they dont like.
unknown drill
,
"Western Civilisation" – that's a good one, that is ! I like the idea of that. When can we start,
then.
Jack_Garbo
,
You stole that one from Gandhi
Richard Le Sarc
,
The comment by that swine Higgins MUST win some prize for filthy hypocrisy, but at least they show,
emphatically, that the metastasis has NO interest in the truth, just ensuring his NATO pay-cheque keeps
on coming.
norman wisdom
,
the chap above mr henderson
should avoid country walks with friendly mi5 sas or oded yinon mossad types
and if invited for country supper he should not carry pocket knife
while walking in the country
arm in arm with mossadick henchmen on way 2 n snuff out event
like dr kelly
or mountain top romantick snuff walk like robin cook
henderson should avoid all suicided push jump trip thoughts while mountain high
or avoid suicided pocket knife wrist attacks upon himself
while being carried too the designated ritual killing zone
certainly avoid any khazar company on designated chabad holiday
already
Rhys Jaggar
,
Eliot Higgins discussing 'establishing ones credibility' has to go down as joke of the decade, and we
only in January 2020 ..
George Mc
,
Whatever the outcome of the planned challenge to OPCW officials by dissidents at a November 25th
conference, the burden will fall upon them to make a compelling case for a false flag.
No, the burden always falls on those who make the initial claim. And that intial claim is what
Henderson is disputing.
paul
,
I wouldn't take too much notice of Soros funded CIA Front NGOs if I were you. They'd swear that
the moon was made of green cheese for a few bucks from Soros.
There you go with your racist
dismissal of the head choppers again. They're not capable of making a hole in a roof or moving a
couple of canisters around. And apparently local people (if there are any left in the area) have
nothing better to do than scrutinise the activities of the head choppers to report on anything
they do that is not 100% kosher.
paul
,
As to where the corpses came from, there are 3 options.
-The plastic dummies they use in their "atrocity" videos.
– The live "extras" who lie on sheets, pretending to be dead, until they get bored and start
yawning and scratching their noses.
– Victims chosen at random from the hostages they have seized as human shields,
women and children driven round in cages on the backs of lorries. Or just villagers killed at
random as grisly props in their latest theatrical production.
You seem to have a touching
faith in the "reputation" of people who like to film themselves cannibalising corpses,
beheading children, and slitting the throats of prisoners.
lundiel
,
Yes. I saw such an underground machine shop come munitions factory in a video by Vanessa Beeley
filmed just after the liberation of Eastern Ghouta. It was full of European made precursors and
British mortar shells in various stages of dismantling. All in preparation for "the final
assault on Damascus" which was intercepted by the SAA.
paul
,
Luckily, the British special forces running the show managed to bug out through Israel after
donning the obligatory white helmets.
When General Mad Dog Mattis was the US Secretary of Defence he publicly asserted that the US had no
evidence that Assad had ever used chemical weapons. The corporate media largely ignored this admission.
After his gaffe, Mattis subsequently stated that he was certain that Assad had used chemical weapons
(although he offered nothing other than is certainty to support the assertion). The corporate media, of
course, gave this claim a completely acritical platform, reporting it as though it was an established
fact.
Richard Le Sarc
,
And isn' t it illuminating of the true nature of the Western Free Press and its presstitute denizens
that this stonking great story has had virtually NO coverage, and that which appears is proyectile
level disinfo and agit-prop for the child-killer salafists.
Should use quotes around "free". Unless your referring to its use as toilet paper, wrapping fish or
lining the bottom of a bird cage.
JudyJ
,
Ian Henderson has more dignity and integrity in his little finger than Phipps and Pierce put together.
They are either corrupt or seriously lacking in intellect. As a former UK HQ civil servant myself, I am
ashamed that we appear to have sunk to an all time low in what they stand for and their willing
subservience to the morally unscrupulous.
SO.
,
Henderson has probably forgotten more about chemical munitions design and deployment than a little
turd like Higgins would ever know.
The fact Higgins *didn't* know who he is just goes to show you how well he understands the subject
matter.
I do agree with Robert that the visa difficulties would suggest that the UN needs to find a
new home in a country that would not bring such matters to that unhelpful conclusion.
Establishing the UN in one country was fine in the days of poor speed telecommunications.
The entire Un should be a multi national establishment and distributed across the globe where
technical and administrative mechanisms suit. There is no reason for Un to be centralised in
USA in these day of excellent communications systems. Multinational corporations and vast
states like Russia that span half the planet can achieve these things.
The blatant hoax of the OPCW Douma exercise is simply an insult to the common sense of
humanity. The fact that so many children were sacrificed to give gravity to this hoax is
simply macabre beyond belief. The OPCW is complicit in a crime against humanity and refuses
to acknowledge it. Each and every one of the scientists that participated should give
recorded testimony of what they know of the origins and fate of those children. THAT is an
absolute priority evidence collection.
I entirely agree. The really shocking thing was to denial of a visa for Henderson. That
undermines the entire functioning of the UN as an entity at least to an extent independent of
the US. The UN cannot function like that. It can only be a puppet of the US - and an open
puppet, not concealed control (as many here have accused over the years).
Trump is not very subtle, he has wrecked many US policies, by exposing them in the open -
for example, the treatment of the EU as a prime enemy. Nobody knew (though they guessed) how
much the US treated the EU as a competitor. Now it's declared in the open.
This is a relevant quote from a commentary in NYT, March 26, 2018 by Kadri Liik (@KadriLiik)
is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and the former
director of the International Center for Defense Studies in Estonia.
"The world does not yet know the full details of the Skripal poisoning, but it does not
feel like waiting, as the expulsions make clear. Too often in the past, Moscow has denied its
involvement in cases that later end up being traced to the Kremlin or its proxies. The result
is that its denials lack credibility. Now, the successful use of "plausible deniability" in
all the previous cases collides with the Kremlin's current interests and contributes to the
verdict: guilty until proven innocent."
Punishment before the proof, if you reverse the order you [do what Putin wants|make Putin
happy], the outcome so ghastly that we cannot risk it. The truth has to be declared, and
then, optionally, proven. Another option is to just repeat that, say, Qassim Suleimani was a
terrorist. And punish.
Bombing of Barzeh as a punishment for un-investigated crime follows the template, duly
approved by the sophisticated Europeans from a myriad of outfits like International Center
for Defense Studies in Estonia. I would move all of them to Tiksi (check accuweather), a
quiet and somewhat depopulated city on the shore of beautiful Arctic ocean, with an airport,
a few thousand of empty apartments should accommodate them (if not, there are also former
mining towns in the interior, although the may be colder). Cold Warriors should embrace the
cold.
"... Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing' in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta. ..."
"... Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. ..."
"... Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial hegemony over Europe. ..."
somebody@94
Don't underestimate the transformation of residual 'blood and soil' themes in fascism into
foundations of the Green movements. They were not simply dissenters within the communist
tradition but rabid anti-communists. It was the intellectual traditions and the residual
popular support among generations schooled in fascism-often literally schooled- which were
preserved and amplified by the wave of anti-communism which came in from America. Like the
legendary 'cavalry' rescuing the embattled settlers the US swooped into Europe, when all
seemed lost, and turned the remnants of fascism into heroes.
Many of those who sneaked out to Argentina and concealed themselves would have done
better to have waited for Canada and the States to invite them to come and 'do their thing'
in Cleveland, Chicago, Montreal and Edmonton, Alberta.
Which leads me to the point I came here to make: the astonishing thing about the OPCW
hearing is that Henderson was denied a visa. That really is shocking and a measure of how
brutal, intellectually and actually, the US government has become. It has long been bad
but things have reached the stage now where it has become clear that the likes Of Al Capone
and the models for The Godfather movies, were babes in arms compared with the likes of Bolton
or Pompeo.
When we consider Trump and the key, almost impossibly apt, fact that Roy Cohn was his mentor
it is easy to forget that, in a sense, Roy Cohn was America's mentor. Cohn, who got the job
of McCarthy's counsel, in competition with Bobby Kennedy, turned the Wisconsin Senator from a
loose cannon into a guided missile against the residual American left and, a much easier
target, the Intelligentsia.
And Cohn and McCarthy and the forces that they represented- the primordial forces of
Capitalism- put the fear of poverty into them. It is impossible to understand the USA today,
and its role in the world, without understanding that its intellectuals were intimidated into
exile, silence, compromise, retreat and impotence as the new Imperialism set about its
ruthless work. Look at the late forties, from Taft Hartley (and the crushing of the Unions)to
such forgotten but signatory interventions as that in Guyana against Cheddi Jagan (repeated
by JFK in 1960) Guatemala and Iran. Not to mention the imposition of semi colonial
hegemony over Europe.
All these things have lasted. And Cohn's role in producing them was crucial-it was the
bipartisanship of bigotry and brutality and Tammany gangsterism. (An old alliance that,
between Jim Crow and the Machines.)
Trump is one of Cohn's kids but much more representative of them is Hillary Clinton,
daughter of a John Bircher, a Goldwater girl, a 'feminist'-of the thoroughly sickening
variety- and imbued with a hatred of Russia.
The Soviet Union won the war, the United States won the peace... That didn't happen by
accident.
The Outlaw US Empire immediately initiated the Cold War as soon as V-E day happened by
collecting SS and Gestapo for redeployment into Eastern Europe to commit acts of terrorism, a
preplanned exercise. It later held the farcical trials at Nuremburg. Walter's provided lots
of nice insight into the aims of the Manhattan Project and real reason for murdering hundreds
of thousands of innocent Japanese. The Great Evil that's today's USA got its start during
WW2, but its philosophical underpinnings are as old as the Republic.
If History is going to be remembered correctly, then ALL of that History must be
revealed--true and raw, just as Putin and the Russians propose to do with their historical
memory project.
another benefit for the u.s., all those german scientists via operation paperclip. helped
keep the mic running after it would normally ramp down postwar.
pretzelattack , Jan 22 2020 18:01 utc |
115karlof1 , Jan 22 2020 19:02 utc |
116
bevin @103--
Yes, Standing Ovation!! So much of that's now swept under the rug. Henry Wallace was all
too correct about US Fascism in his 1944 essay. During WW2, Charles Beard wrote a book that
was initially serialized in Life magazine beginning on 17 Jan 1944, The Republic:
Conversations on Fundamentals , which was read by and sold more copies than any of his
works--ever--and was the last major book he produced. Yet, when you look at the short
bibliography at Wikipedia or the one provided by its link to the American History
Association, it is omitted--WHY? I used it as a teaching tool for both history and polisci
because of its brilliant construction--the way in which Beard composed it as a series of
conversations. This link provides a hint , or
you can join the
archive and "borrow" it as there's no open downloading of this book available--WHY? Lots
of his other works are feely available. It's not hard to find used first editions for under
$4, which attests to the number published. But it certainly seems like we're not supposed to
know of this work as its airbrushing from his AHA bibliography suggests.
Maybe what Beard wrote about was too contrary to The Plan. Aha!! Beard wrote that it was
his rebuttal to Henry Luce--the owner/publisher of Life and Time magazines--and
his idea of an American Century meaning American Empire a la Rome/Britain--Pax Americana. The
mystery gets deeper upon reading the introduction at the first link above. I wish I could
copy/paste, but I'm barred from doing that, so you'll need to read it yourself. One can
envision Bradbury's Firemen rushing out to eliminate just such a book with its heretical
ideas about how the US federal government's supposed to operate and for whom.
But back to bevin and his recounting of a critical historical chapter that's also being
airbrushed. Some of us barflies are akin to Bradbury's "Train People" from Fahrenheit
451 , but how confident are we that the stories we have to tell are being heard AND
remembered so they don't vanish with us?
This is more for Bubbles @71, but applies to all.
This is from 2017 upon the release of UN Holocaust files held back on request by the
Outlaw US Empire and its vassal Britain as reported in an excellent article by Finnian
Cunningham:
"In other words, the Cold War which the US and Britain embarked on after 1945 was but a
continuation of hostile policy towards Moscow that was already underway well before the
Second World War erupted in 1939 in the form of a build up of Nazi Germany. For various
reasons, it became expedient for the Western powers to liquidate the Nazi war machine, along
with the Soviet Union. But as can be seen, the Western assets residing in the Nazi machine
were recycled into American and British Cold War posture against the Soviet Union. It is a
truly damning legacy that American and British military intelligence agencies were
consolidated and financed by Nazi crimes.
"The recent release of UN Holocaust files – in spite of American and British
prevarication over many years – add more evidence to the historical analysis that these
Western powers were deeply complicit in the monumental crimes of the Nazi Third Reich. They
knew about these crimes because they had helped facilitate them. And the complicity stemmed
from Western hostility towards Russia as a perceived geopolitical rival.
" This is not a mere historical academic exercise . Western complicity with Nazi
Germany also finds a corollary in the present-day ongoing hostility from Washington, Britain
and their NATO allies towards Moscow. The relentless build up of NATO offensive forces around
Russia's borders, the endless Russophobia in Western propagandistic news media, the economic
blockade in the form of sanctions based on tenuous claims, are all deeply rooted in history.
[My Emphasis]
"The West's Cold War towards Moscow preceded the Second World War, continued after the defeat
of Nazi Germany and persists to this day regardless of the fact that the Soviet Union no
longer exists. Why? Because Russia is a perceived rival to Anglo-American capitalist
hegemony, as is China or any other emerging power that undermines that desired unipolar
hegemony.
"American-British collusion with Nazi Germany finds its modern-day manifestation in NATO
collusion with the neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine and jihadist terror groups dispatched in proxy
wars against Russian interests in Syria and elsewhere. The players may change over time, but
the root pathology is American-British capitalism and its hegemonic addiction.
"The never-ending Cold War will only end when Anglo-American capitalism is finally
defeated and replaced by a genuinely more democratic system."
The picture becomes clearer as we begin to realize that today's monsters--Pompeo, Pence,
Bolton, Abrams, Rove, and others--are the same as yesterday's monsters, although they've
moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other. What's currently happening ought to make
informed people think again about who the Arc of Resistance is actually defending and what
message Trump's murder of Soleimani is meant to convey--it's TINA once again: Neoliberal
Fascism. It should also be noted that the release occurred soon after Trump became POTUS,
giving a strong secondary motive for Russiagate and the Skripals shortly afterward.
Thanks for your reply. Are you aware of Operation Unthinkable , Operation
Sunrise from which the former sprang, and Allen Dulles's activities in Italy and Germany
during 1945?
AntiSpin @121--
Good to hear from you! I had a hard time digging up a copy of Life to read Luce's
screed on the American Century which I photocopied. Today, a quick search now finds it
online here (PDF), while here's a
dissection that sets up the conflicting outlooks of Beard and Luce that IMO's useful.
Indeed, Luce's views are quite the read given what the USA's become--do note the political
party that feared and predicted such an outcome. It's a great misfortune that a discussion of
the two doesn't even enter into graduate seminars about WW2; at least my undergrads got some
exposure and learned of the two essay's existence.
@ Russ | Jan 22 2020 8:33 utc | 86 (about the gas cylinder(s).
Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some calculus
can tell you, give you, a range of terminal velocities in air at that elevation. You have to
assume that the thing fell in the "best" attitude, and also the "worst" attitude - a matter
of aerodynamic drag. Obviously there's a terminal velocity - somewhere about 200 feet per
second. There's a minimum altitude above which it doesn't fall any faster because of
drag...and it has a krappy drag coefficient. You have to work with the numbers to get a fine
understanding...but it's the sort of question you'd see in a university engineering exam.
The mass is assumed to be something like 100 pounds. Do the math.
Then there's the question of concrete quality...it's highly heterogeneous..but you can
assume it's top quality, and estimate the rebar density and thickness from the pretty
pictures.
And you can assume zero projectile deformation (not even straps torn off!!?) and the
hole's not big enough.
somebody @96: "But Western main stream media does not report on it."
Of course not. The western corporate mass media does not have among their workforce
"Any bright high-school kid who's been through the math curriculum and has some
calculus..." that Walter @95 points out as being a prerequisite to see how bogus is the
narrative they are tasked with amplifying. The workforce chose to major in Journalism
specifically because they had difficulties with basic arithmetic, with such heartless and
unyielding topics as addition and subtraction being forever beyond them in the absence of a
calculator.
Many think I exaggerate or am joking, but this is literal truth. These individuals of
which the corporate mass media are composed get their conception of physics from crappy syfy
movies in which spaceship blasters make "Pew-pew!!" noises in the vacuum of space. If
it is necessary for the plot that a flimsy canister is able to punch through steel rebar
reinforced concrete with barely a scratch, then they are fine with it. If these new age
journalists' "contact" in Langley (what we know to be their "handler" or
"operator" ) says it is believable, they won't pause for an instant to question.
After all, earnest delusion and ignorance serves the Mockingbird mass media's
handlers in the CIA far better than does cynical and deliberate deception, though that last
does have a sizable role to play as well. Deliberate deception is difficult and requires some
skill, while any American can do stupidity with the greatest of ease.
UN Security Council Hears OPCW Inspector Testimony About The Manipulation Of 'Chemical
Attack' Reportspretzelattack , Jan 21 2020 14:07 utc |
4
We have
long maintained that the alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria, on April 7 2018 was
faked by Jihadists shortly before they were evicted from that Damascus suburb.
By the end of last year leaked documents and a whistle blower from the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
had proven that the OPCW managers had manipulated the report their staff had written
about the incident. The OPCW inspectors who had investigated the case on the ground in Douma
found that there was evidence that a chemical attack had happened. The murdered people seem
in videos from the alleged attack must have died of other causes. The yellow canisters found
at the locations of the alleged attack were not dropped from helicopters but clearly manually
placed.
Using the
Arria-formula , a procedure to have witnesses testify to the UN Security Council, Russia
and China invited other UN
members to listen to the testimony of OPCW inspector Ian Henderson. He denounced the
false final report the OPCW management had published. Henderson, a South African engineer,
was a team leader at the OPCW where he had worked for more than twelve years.
Posted by b at
13:34 UTC |
Comments (58) the u.s. can veto any proposed action, but at least the representatives had
to sit still and listen. they'll probably look hard for some way to kneecap him like the
first head of the opcw ("we know where your kids are") or julian assange.
The Arria meeting at UNSC was skimpily reported. RT and some other sources focused on Russian
accusations. Google hits only one western report, The Times of London. I skip here little:
Western nations accused Russia of sowing misinformation ...
Yesterday Russia convened an "Arria" meeting, in which the Security Council hears from
civilians and experts outside the United Nations. Alexander Shulgin, Russia's ambassador to
the OPCW, said that the gas cylinders had been placed on the scene by Syrian opposition
groups "for provocative purposes".
Showing the council a series of slides, he claimed that a hole in a roof did not
correspond to the shape of one of the gas cylinders and questioned how one of them had come
to rest on a bed. "Now, I weigh about 90kg," he said. "If I incautiously throw myself down on
the bed I always break something, the strut falls out, the slat falls out or something else."
Yet here, he said, was a gas cylinder, apparently filled with chlorine, that had rebounded
"at a wild angle" and came to rest "like a light swan".
Russia presented a video featuring Ian Henderson, who worked with the fact-finding team
but differed with the OPCW's conclusions in internal emails that were leaked last year. It
also presented Maxim Grigoriev, director of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy, who
claimed that his group's research on the ground showed that no chemical attack had taken
place.
The German ambassador, Christoph Heusgen, said that the Russian intelligence service
itself had conducted a cyber attack on the OPCW last year, adding that this "shows how far
Russia is prepared to go" in its efforts to discredit the organisation.
Mr Heusgen also questioned the expertise of the Foundation for the Study of Democracy,
saying that its experts "belong to the school of Russian scientists that believes Ukraine
invaded Russia".
Mr Heusgen said that, listening to the presentation, "I was thinking of Alice in
Wonderland. This belongs in literature to the genre of fantasy and absurdity. While Alice in
Wonderland is a great fiction, what we heard today is a very sad fiction."
Karen Pierce, Britain's representative at the United Nations, said that Russia had shut
down an investigative body that assigned responsibility for chemical attacks after it showed
that the Syrian Arab Republic was responsible for a sarin gas attack in Syria in 2017.
Mr Henderson's challenge to the conclusions of the report reflected "any scientific
process" in which "there are bound to be robust exchanges of views" before a conclusion was
reached. She added: "Someone in Russia is a fan of English literature, specifically they are
very fond of Lewis Carrol."
We should remember that the US, UK, and France (sort of - they missed the launch sequence)
attacked without even waiting for this fake report/excuse. And the western media applauded
widely. It is sad. https://www.georgemjames.com/blog/what-is-the-us-military-legacy-since-2003
I never thought that I would write such things. GMJ
/div> Time to sue the hell out of these liars and drag them to ICC by Syria.
Let them prove their innocence there and it will also solve visa problem when these liars will
feel the heat and stop travelling to other countries for the fear of being arrested. State
sponsored terror by those who are pretending to fight the terror!
Time to sue the hell out of these liars and drag them to ICC by Syria. Let them prove their
innocence there and it will also solve visa problem when these liars will feel the heat and
stop travelling to other countries for the fear of being arrested. State sponsored terror by
those who are pretending to fight the terror!
A War Crimes Tribunal is awaiting America, Britain, France, and their allies.
The Douma scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of the American Axis' lies
regarding not only Syria but many other nations (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) that these
war criminal "democracies" have attacked.
Waging wars of aggression based on deceptions like "Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction"
cannot go unpunished.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jan 21 2020 14:37 utc | 8
Just checked. It is outside of the reporting of German main stream media. Same as
wikileaks - they don't mention their leaks any longer.
According to opinion polls most Germans are against German military involvement in
Syria.
If you ask people in Germany about "disinformation, misrepresentation and absurdities"
most would connect it to Trump not Putin. The German government took the extraordinary step
to confirm that they had been blackmailed versus Iran by Trump threatening tariffs for the
car industry. There is also the case of Nord Stream II which will be built though the US
threw everything they had at it.
There is a German-Russian community and they watch Russian media. There used to be a push
by Russia to "protect" "our Russians" against immigrants in Germany but after some stern
talks this has stopped. I guess Russian support for AFD has also stopped.
It is obvious that Germany will insist on trade with Russia and China. All Putin has to do
is wait for Trump (and Boris Johnson) to cut the last Atlantic bridge.
There is a German version of RT, I just had a look, they sound pretty mainstream and
relaxed on the disinformation front. Actually most of the non-Western stuff nowadays looks
like this - Press TV, Xinhua. I guess they feel they can be a contrast to Donald Trump's post
fact era - which Bush's "truthiness" for invading Iraq has started.
A War Crimes Tribunal is awaiting America, Britain, France, and their allies
in 2011 the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found former US president George W Bush and
former British prime minister Tony Blair guilty
of crimes against humanity, so they have a head start, but yeah, you just know that these
criminal fuckers are shaking in their boots, what with the way things are trending and all.
it'll be psychologically devastating for masses of Americans, though perhaps by that time the
worst effects will have been ameliorated by all the writing on the wall.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found Bush and Blair guilty ... and subsequently
Malaysia seems to have been forced to pay a heavy price, namely MH370 and MH17.
The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal found Bush and Blair guilty ... and subsequently
Malaysia seems to have been forced to pay a heavy price, namely MH370 and MH17.
Posted by: BM | Jan 21 2020 16:33 utc | 18
Yes, apparently the final straw was when the President refused to accept US aid,
rebellions ensued and a S compliant and apparently quite corrupt govt is now in place.
As described by Times of London - an extremely poor response by western representatives at
the UNSC, all ad hominem attacks and incredulity. This story has been brewing for months,
with a fair amount of established detail on the process used to arrive at the published
report. To attempt to use the OPCW's own weak retort that it was merely a "robust exchange of
views" rather than conscious manipulation, a line of argument long superseded by the
collected facts, shows the western representatives are feigning ignorance, and they do so
confident that most news "consumers" are in fact ignorant of these matters because they are
simply not reported.
"Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible
things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always
did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!"
Corruption and manipulation in western influenced and controlled institutions has become the
norm in the West. The public has been normalized to blindly accepting lies by the political
and corporate elites. The people are easily kept under control by narratives of fear and
hate.
Truth and honesty from anything the western elites touch is now rare and precious.
A quick note about the chlorine "bombs" that were seen in Douma: Those are 100#
propane tanks. ASME, DOT, and UN standards only require they have a burst pressure of up to
400psi (ASME is only 275psi). In normal operation propane only pressurizes the tanks to
around 100psi. Because of this the tank walls are usually made of 10 or 11 gauge mild
steel... about .125" thick.
For comparison SCUBA tanks operate up to 3000psi and have wall thicknesses of over .25"...
twice as thick as a 100# propane tank. They are also made from higher grade steels and not
plain old cold rolled.
Large high pressure gas cylinders are fairly rugged items, but even so I have a difficult
time imagining one punching through steel reinforced concrete and remaining largely
undamaged.
Propane gas tanks are NOT high pressure gas cylinders. They are flimsy in
comparison. It is not surprising that the OPCW team that actually visited the site of the
supposed bombing dismissed the terrorists' narrative. What is surprising is the number
of supposedly non-stupid people who believe that the tanks were dropped from helicopters,
punched through steel reinforced concrete, and came to rest in the condition seen in the
photographs. It takes habituated suspension of disbelief of a population perpetually plugged
into the boob tube to accept that nonsense.
In addition to the falsification of the report, now presented as undeniable fact to the
Security Council, b takes note of two other atrocities - first:
"...Videos from Douma at the time of the incident showed some 30 bodies of dead persons.
Most were children. It is up to day unknown who they were and who had murdered them. The OPCW
manipulation of the original reports of its inspectors' findings is a cover up for that huge
crime..."
There should be a thorough investigation of the identities of these victims. I am guessing
the atrocities were perpetrated in a school, if most of the victims were children. Was it in
this very building? Had some sort of hostage situation been taking place?
Secondly, the building totally destroyed and seen in b's coverage was one which researched
medical and agricultural concerns for Syria - a huge loss in itself, not to mention if there
were people within. I don't remember seeing news of that, would appreciate a link if anyone
has it.
Thanks b, for your coverage here; it is most important. I had mentioned an argument with
an anti-Assad person a while back. (Told him to come here and read; I hope he did.) His main
point was the lie that Assad had 'gassed his own people.' Maybe I'll encounter him again.
I further think if the UN Security Council ignores this it will take on the same shade of
black currently shrouding the USA. It's currently grey in my book.
As I see it the real problem is the UN based in the US. Not mentioned is that the OPCW
inspector's testimony had to be given by Tele conference because he could not get a visa to
attend. Remember too that the Iranian foreign minister has been refused a visa to attend the
UN. Remember that Bustani was forced to resign as the head of OPCW because of vile,naked
threats against his family.
"What is surprising is the number of supposedly non-stupid people who believe that the tanks
were dropped from helicopters, punched through steel reinforced concrete, and came to rest in
the condition seen in the photographs."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 21 2020 18:21 utc | 31
Agreed. I've never understood why the Russians haven't filmed the dropping of a few
similar cylinders from helicopters at various heights....onto flat roofs of concrete
apartment blocks.....so that everyone can see the result for comparison instead of endless
theorising. You'd have thought the OPCW inspectors would have done this....but no mention of
it.
Having watched the UNSC meeting concerning the OPCW perfidious economy with fact, the British
permanent envoy to the UN's 'performance' made it hard to not think the 'woman' would make
the perfect character to fill the part of the lead concubine for Star Wars Jabba the
Hutt, the demeanour, the ethics (doubtlessly supplied by Integrity Initiative), the
appearance.
Wondrous things are made on that small island just off the coast of Europe, and some should
be best kept there. Poor Europe, so far from heaven, so close to Britain.
Based on other online news I have seen in the past, I think it is likely that the dead
children shown in the videos had been kidnapped by the takfiris in various villages and other
communities, targeted for being Orthodox Christian or Alawite believers, over the years. If
the videos have no time stamps on them, then we have no way of knowing how long these
children have been dead; they could have been dead for years and the videos themselves of
equal vintage before the takfiris decided to make them public. The children may not all be
from the same community or school; they could have been grouped together before they were
killed or their bodies removed from where they were murdered and then grouped together.
The children may not even have been killed by CWs. I have seen some online photos of
Syrian children said to have died from CW suffocation and in some of those photos, there was
evidence of blunt force trauma around the hairline near the foreheads and ears.
The only way we'd know the identities of the children is if their families and communities
are able to come forward and see the videos and other visual evidence. That's if the
relatives are still alive or still in Syria.
Mother Agnes Mariam el Sahib , speaking to RT, on the video footage purporting to show
dead victims of CW attacks (August 2013) in East Ghouta:
"... I have carefully studied the footage, and I will present a written analysis on it a
bit later. I maintain that the whole affair was a frame-up. It had been staged and prepared
in advance with the goal of framing the Syrian government as the perpetrator.
The key evidence is that Reuters made these files public at 6.05 in the morning. The
chemical attack is said to have been launched between 3 and 5 o'clock in the morning in
Guta. How is it even possible to collect a dozen different pieces of footage, get more than
200 kids and 300 young people together in one place, give them first aid and interview them
on camera, and all that in less than three hours? Is that realistic at all? As someone who
works in the news industry, you know how long all of it would take.
The bodies of children and teenagers we see in that footage – who were they? What
happened to them? Were they killed for real? And how could that happen ahead of the gas
attack? Or, if they were not killed, where did they come from? Where are their parents? How
come we don't see any female bodies among all those supposedly dead children?
I am not saying that no chemical agent was used in the area – it certainly was.
But I insist that the footage that is now being peddled as evidence had been fabricated in
advance. I have studied it meticulously, and I will submit my report to the UN Human Rights
Commission based in Geneva ..."
The girls may have been separated from other hostages to be married off to takfiris or
used in sex trafficking schemes; or if dead, their bodies disposed of somehow. The extreme
religious beliefs of ISIS, al Nusra and other takfiris probably don't allow them to touch the
bodies of dead women and girls.
"... Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018. The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former, said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group. ..."
"... A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack. ..."
Russia urged to convene a briefing with the participation of OPCW
Fact-Finding-Mission (FFM) experts, who worked on the report on alleged chemical attack in
Syria's Duma in April 2018, to reach an agreement on this controversial case, Alexander
Shulgin, Russia's envoy to OPCW, said at a Security Council meeting. On Monday, members of the
UN Security Council, at the request of the Russian mission,
held an informal meeting to assess the situation around the FMM's Final Report on the incident
in the Arab Republic .
In November, whistleblowing website WikiLeaks published an email, sent by a member of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) mission to Syria to his superiors,
in which he voiced his "gravest" concerns over the redacted version of the report in question,
which he co-authored. According to the OPCW employee, the document, which is understood to have
been edited by the secretariat, misrepresented facts, omitted certain details and introduced
"unintended bias," having "morphed into something quite different to what was originally
drafted."
"We once again propose to resolve the conflicting situation through the means of holding of a briefing under the auspices of the OPCW and, possibly, with the assistance of
all concerned countries and with the participation of all experts of the
Fact-Finding-Mission, who worked on the Duma incident, to find a consensus on this resonant
incident," Shulgin said on Monday.
Shulgin also suggested that the working methods of FFM must be improved, stressing the
necessity for its members to personally visit sites of alleged use of chemical weapons and
collect evidence samples, as well as strictly adhere to the chain of custody over the items of
evidence and guarantee geographically-balanced makeup of the mission.
In July, Shulgin said that the head of the mission probing claims of a chemical attack in
Duma had never travelled to this city.
Reports about an alleged chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta's Duma emerged on April 7, 2018.
The European Union and the United States promptly accused Damascus of being behind it, while
the Syrian government denied any involvement. Syria and Russia, a close ally of the former,
said that the attack was staged by local militants and the White Helmets group.
A week later, without waiting for the results of an international investigation, the United
States, the United Kingdom and France hit what they called Syria's chemical weapons facilities
with over 100 missiles in response to the reported attack.
But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably
arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?
Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief
rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.
The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence
hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job,
reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to
say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say
that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or
precisely what they were searching for."
So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted
"experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians
could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of
information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the
Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and
the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats
have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was
meaningless as well.
But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was
permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the
candidate that they and Trump fear the most.
"Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan,
international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice
president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe
Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign
interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our
elections."
If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees
him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that
antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as
"the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to
blast her right back.
"Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and
personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally
come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a
concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know
– it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and
war machine ."
If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual
anti-Russian clichés:
"The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American
history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas
company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle
in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the
New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle
in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting
systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."
And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the
intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible
for putting Trump over the top in 2016.
Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic
National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as
well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but
two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence
indicates
that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July
2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source
is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly,
there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads
purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert
Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent
on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were
politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.
All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian
hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to
cover his derrière by hopping on board.
It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as
the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up
looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end
up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With
impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he
settles into his second term.
After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same
billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by
the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his
outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's
that he's not enough.
In a statement
, No. 10 Downing Street said: "He was clear there had been no change in the U.K.'s position on
Salisbury, which was a reckless use of chemical weapons and a brazen attempt to murder innocent
people on U.K. soil. He said that such an attack must not be repeated."
There was no immediate statement by the Kremlin, but Putin has rejected the British
allegations as baseless and Russian officials repeatedly demanded that U.K. authorities come
forward with hard evidence.
In its statement, No. 10 portrayed Johnson as unbudging in his insistence that Russia end
its extra-territorial mischief and said he had reiterated the two countries' responsibilities
as world powers.
"The Prime Minister said that they both had a responsibility to address issues of
international security including Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran," the statement said. "The Prime
Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends
the destabilizing activity that threatens the U.K. and our allies and undermines the safety of
our citizens and our collective security."
Johnson and Putin were in the German capital for an international
conference aimed at achieving a cease-fire to end a long-running civil war in Libya.
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped
out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and
then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they
suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark
affaire
and the
object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?
The police received a call that day at
4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The Skripals
were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to look like
attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before they might know
what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided that
it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former
intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four
years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory
hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the
British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect
in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had
been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian
government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24 hours to
respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of chemical weapons
or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma,
were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
" (italics
added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into English
(beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced
this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly likely
" that
the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister said in
the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the
Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed
it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014
alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian
Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the destruction of MH 17, the United States
and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is
the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the
Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called
novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose
control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia
guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no
evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in
Alice
in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy informed
the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the Salisbury
incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian
foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British démarche as a "circus
show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to
such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister, Sergei
Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the
poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our
experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal
Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The
[Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit
Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British
side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of
the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in
The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and
shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to
their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to appease
the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to join the
stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and closed the
Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions and the closure of
the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a major confrontation. The
British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin weighed
in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and
nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian]
presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry,
investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to
Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it
blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall apart almost from
the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter alia
,
that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified the substance,
which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia". Both these
statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the
origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the formula for making a
so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now
lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in 2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright undergraduate
chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst those governments
having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The Russian embassy in London
noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named
'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of chemical
poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a series of new
chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by Russian expat
researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an attempt to artificially
link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation did
not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the
shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated
to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the
British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crâne
, as preposterous as
any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be directly
involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to
determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British government at first refused to
go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to
the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British
authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain
itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a
resolution to the executive council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the
required vote of approval. The British were
attempting to hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked.
On 12 April the OPCW released
a
report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I read
the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used
against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report
avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant
acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing.
Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling
mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a
meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a
substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant
acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have
developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. Traces of A-234 were also
identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to
anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious
as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have
tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic
chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a
well-known Swiss
lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they
said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton
Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW,
or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent. The
British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued
on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO
countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain
the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the
prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of
evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be made
that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always falls upon
those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical
smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which
explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government
appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These
stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual reminds me
of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany,
purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist
revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924
and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the
red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities
claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to
ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and
understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the
letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if they
have something to hide. It is
déjà vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth?
Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest that
the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought
to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an
unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen
in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which
the British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family
in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks
grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of
Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new
identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her
father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a
fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British authorities
are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is
underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that they
are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that
they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the
same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?
The Tories are trying doggedly to
maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied
deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and
security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British
electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who
risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
May
OPCW
United Kingdom
Print this article
Michael Jabara Carley
April 18, 2018 |
World
The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?
On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy
day
in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia
stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby
restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had
happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some
dark
affaire
and the object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an
accidental victim?
The police received a call that day
at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The
Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to
look like attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before
they might know what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.
The Conservative government decided
that it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate
a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was
released four years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians,"
so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident
in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian
government was the prime suspect in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei
Skripal.
On 12 March the
foreign secretary summoned
the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234,
had been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the
Russian government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian
ambassador 24 hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any
stockpiles of chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.
Later that day, the British prime
minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a
coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent
of a type developed by Russia
"
(italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into
English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to
have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was "
highly
likely
" that the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.
Here is what the prime minister
said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our
country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging
nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations
were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in
the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine.
Within hours
of the
destruction of MH 17, the United States and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of
being responsible.
The western
modus operandi
is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum
to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the
so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did
Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect
declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no
presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as
the Red Queen declared in
Alice in Wonderland
.
On 13 March the Russian embassy
informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the
Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The
eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British
démarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that
Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to
provoke a negative Russian reply.
The Russian foreign minister,
Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership,
about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic]
substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign
ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign
ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another
crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive'
measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that."
The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be
examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague,
according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in
1997.
On 14 March the British government
expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British
diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the
British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling
Russian diplomats.
Twenty-eight countries
did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to
appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to
join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled
sixty
diplomats and
closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions
and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a
major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of
military action
.
In the meantime, President Putin
weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete
absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the
eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In
any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did
the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?
Momentum is sometimes like a
balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall
apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper
Kommersant
leaked
a British PowerPoint presentation
sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted,
inter
alia
, that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified
the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia".
Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could
not
determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the
formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and
chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in
2008), which includes the formula, on
Amazon.com
. In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright
undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst
those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The
Russian embassy in London noted in
a published report
that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent
named 'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types
of chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a
series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by
Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an
attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."
The British PowerPoint presentation
did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity"
including,
inter alia
, the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the
Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All
of these claims are
audacious lies
, easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced
events are also unrelated to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the
Russian Federation. In fact, the British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda,
bourrage de crâne
, as preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.
As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the
Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be
directly involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other
evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British
government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the
Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals.
That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure
laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the
Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive council, that it
should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of approval. The British
were
attempting to
hijack
the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem
has not worked. On 12 April the OPCW released
a report
stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the
identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The
report said
nothing
about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British
accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.
What I could not understand when I
read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic
chemical used against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW
published report avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it
should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have
survived at the time of this writing. Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a
simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.
On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at
a meeting in Moscow
provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced
with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than
an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO
countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so.
Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the
A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover,"
according to the Russian embassy in London
, "considering its high volatility, the detection
of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely
suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh
authorities have tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers
only to a "toxic chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the
substance to a
well-known
Swiss lab
, which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus
lied when they said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical".
Unless
Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin,
and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a
novichok nerve agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its
independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ
toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the
Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury,
did MI5 or MI6 authorise
a false flag attack
against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by
the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail
of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.
A
prima facie
case can be
made that the British government is lying about the Skripal
affaire
. Suspicion always
falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and
rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret
evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the
British government appears to have leaked it to the press.
The Times
published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire
across the Mainstream Media.
The Daily Mirror
put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual.
These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman"
that gullible?
The secret assassin's manual
reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in
Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a
socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in
October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It
was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority
government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third
party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done
now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took
seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit.
The Tories are again acting as if
they have something to hide. It is
déjà vu.
Will it take seventy-five years to get at
the truth? Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?
There is other evidence to suggest
that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police
have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered
Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities
access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any
chapter of international law, which the British government now respects? British authorities
have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's
cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on
the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they
induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United
States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on
a statement
attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it
begins to look that way
. Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite
simply a fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that
British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even
German
politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia.
Damage control is underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to
think critically believe
anything
the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?
"They are liars. And they know that
they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we
know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British,
but all the same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present
government in London?
"... That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug. ..."
"... The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility ..."
"... What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors! ..."
B, under the "major stories covered" title you should include Skripal, about which you wrote
many important articles; I believe ultimately - like OPCW and Russiagate - it will prove to
be history-making event in terms of impact on public perceptions of media and the ability of
the media to control public opinion. Probably eventually whistleblowers will come forward
like the OPCW, and only thin will it have it's maximum impact.
(Well, the original event was 2018 not 2019, but some of the reports were in 2019
anyway)
My predictions on these issue for next year are:
...
Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if
major new evidence comes to light.
That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a
permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to
pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main
agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the
rug.
The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on
behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility.
There are a few factors that could influence this independently of major new evidence, such
as the behaviour of a few outlier MSM's that decide to release information (and whether or
not that information then takes off in the public consciousness); pressure that could build
up in social media calling for the MSM to respond and attacking MSM credibility; or other
forms of pressure from the public calling on the MSM to respond. It is therefore a dynamic
that is not entirely predictable.
Both of the above are distinct from the emergence of new major evidence, although both
cases would seem likely to provoke new revelations in turn.
What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well,
for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors!
In the very early spring of this year, I gave a lecture to European military personnel interested in the Middle East. It was scarcely
a year since Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chlorine
gas against the civilian inhabitants of the
Damascus suburb of Douma on 7 April 2018, in which 43 people were said to have been killed.
Few present had much doubt that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which represents 193 member states
around the world, would soon confirm in a final report that Assad was guilty of a war crime which had been condemned by Donald Trump,
Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May.
But at the end of my talk, a young Nato officer
who specialises in chemical weapons – he was not British – sought me out for a private conversation.
"The OPCW are not going to admit all they know," he said. "They've already censored their own documents."
I could not extract any more from him. He smiled and walked away, leaving me to guess what he was talking about. If Nato had doubts
about the OPCW, this was a very serious matter.
When it published its final report in March this year, the OPCW said that testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and
toxicological and ballistic analyses provided "reasonable grounds" that "the use of a toxic chemical had taken place" in Douma which
contained "reactive chlorine".
The US, Britain and France, which launched missile attacks on Syrian military sites in retaliation for Douma – before any investigation
had taken place – thought themselves justified. The OPCW's report was splashed across headlines around the world – to the indignation
of Russia, Assad's principal military ally, which denied the validity of the publication.
Then, in mid-May 2019, came news of a confidential report by OPCW South African ballistics inspector Ian Henderson – a document
which the organisation excluded from its final report – which took issue with the organisation's conclusions. Canisters supposedly
containing chlorine gas may not have been dropped by Syrian helicopters, it suggested, and could have been placed at the site of
the attack by unknown hands.
Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday reported in detail on the Henderson document. No other mainstream media followed up this
story . The BBC, for example, had reported in full on the OPCW's final report on the use of chlorine gas, but never mentioned the
subsequent Henderson story.
And here I might myself have abandoned the trail had I not received a call on my Beirut phone shortly after the Henderson paper,
from the Nato officer who had tipped me off about the OPCW's apparent censorship of its own documents. "I wasn't talking about the
Henderson report," he said abruptly. And immediately terminated our conversation. But now I understand what he must have been talking
about.
For in the past few weeks, there has emerged deeply disturbing new evidence that the OPCW went far further than merely excluding
one dissenting voice from its conclusions on the 2018 Douma attack.
The most recent information – published on WikiLeaks, in a report from Hitchens again and from Jonathan Steele, a former senior
foreign correspondent for The Guardian – suggests that
the OPCW suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who
became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed
in order to represent the truth . (The OPCW has said in a number of statements that it stands by its final report.)
At first, senior OPCW officials contented themselves by merely acknowledging the Henderson report's existence a few days after
it appeared without making any comment on its contents. When the far more damaging later reports emerged in early November, Fernando
Arias, the OPCW's director general, said that it was in "the nature of any thorough enquiry for individuals in a team to express
subjective views. While some of the views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that
I stand by the independent, professional conclusion [of the investigation]." The OPCW declined to respond to questions from Hitchens
or Steele.
But the new details suggest that other evidence could have been left unpublished by the OPCW. These were not just from leaked
emails, but given by an OPCW inspector – a colleague of Henderson – who was one of a team of eight to visit Douma and who appeared
at a briefing in Brussels last month to explain his original findings to a group of disarmament, legal, medical and intelligence
personnel.
As Steele reported afterwards, in a piece published by Counterpunch in mid-November 2019, the inspector – who gave his name to
his audience, but asked to be called "Alex" – said he did not want to undermine the OPCW but stated that "most of the Douma team"
felt the two reports on the incident (the OPCW had also published an interim report in 2018) were "scientifically impoverished, procedurally
irregular and possibly fraudulent". Alex said he sought, in vain, to have a subsequent OPCW conference to address these concerns
and "demonstrate transparency, impartiality and independence".
For example, Alex cited the OPCW report's claim that "various chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) were found" in Douma, but said
that there were "huge internal arguments" in the OPCW even before its 2018 interim report was published . Findings comparing chlorine
gas normally present in the atmosphere with evidence from the Douma site were, according to Alex, kept by the head of the Douma mission
and not passed to the inspector who was drafting the interim report. Alex said that he subsequently discovered that the COCs in Douma
were "no higher than you would expect in any household environment", a point which he says was omitted from both OPCW reports. Alex
told his Brussels audience that these omissions were "deliberate and irregular".
Alex also said that a British diplomat who was OPCW's chef de cabinet invited several members of the drafting team to his office,
where they found three US officials who told them that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack and that two cylinders found
in one building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors, Alex remarked, regarded this as unacceptable pressure and a
violation of the OPCW's principles of "independence and impartiality".
Regarding the comments from Alex, the OPCW has pointed to the statement by Arias that the organisation stands by its final report.
Further emails continue to emerge from these discussions. This weekend, for example, WikiLeaks sent to The Independent an apparent
account of a meeting held by OPCW toxicologists and pharmacists "all specialists in CW (Chemical Warfare)", according to the document.
The meeting is dated 6 June 2018 and says that "the experts were conclusive in their statements that there is no correlation between
symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure."
In particular, they stated that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported
by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos
were recorded". When I asked for a response to this document, a spokesman for the OPCW headquarters in Holland said that my request
would be "considered". That was on Monday 23 December.
Any international organisation, of course, has a right to select the most quotable parts of its documentation on any investigation,
or to set aside an individual's dissenting report – although, in ordinary legal enquiries, dissenting voices are quite often acknowledged.
Chemical warfare is not an exact science – chlorine gas does not carry a maker's name or computer number in the same way that fragments
of tank shells or bombs often do.
But the degree of unease within the OPCW's staff surely cannot be concealed much longer. To the delight of the Russians and the
despair of its supporters, an organisation whose prestige alone should frighten any potential war criminals is scarcely bothering
to confront its own detractors. Military commanders may conceal their tactics from an enemy in time of war, but this provides no
excuse for an important international organisation dedicated to the prohibition of chemical weapons to allow its antagonists to claim
that it has "cooked the books" by permitting political pressure to take precedence over the facts. And that is what is happening
today.
The deep concerns among some of the OPCW staff and the deletion of their evidence does not mean that gas has not been used in
Syria by the government or even by the Russians or by Isis and its fellow Islamists. All stand guilty of war crimes in the Syrian
conflict. The OPCW's response to the evidence should not let war criminals off the hook. But it certainly helps them.
And what could be portrayed as acts of deceit by a supposedly authoritative body of international scientists can lead some to
only one conclusion: that they must resort to those whom the west regards as "traitors" to security – WikiLeaks and others – if they
wish to find out the story behind official reports . So far, the Russians and the Syrian regime have been the winners in the propaganda
war. Such organisations as the OPCW need to work to make sure the truth can be revealed to everyone. Tags
Politics
Congratulations from me too!
Especially your work on OPCW! Even a MSM "alpha journalist" like Hitchens was forced to give
props to you reporting those otherwise not reported information about the hospital "victims"
being there even before the alleged attack!
Sadly i dont see the US pulling out of Iraq. The US is wanted there by a huge part of the
Iraqis (As counterweight to Iran), not only by Sunni, but also by many Shias.
Even a totally pro-Shia reporter like Elijah reports that. So with that large Anti-Iran
sentiment the US will not be forced to leave until Iraqis from ALL confessions, tribes,
political factions and other groups agree to force the US out.(I dont claim the Anti-Iran
sentiment in Iraq is as valid as those people think, and it certainly is fueled by Gulf state
and US propaganda, but it is a fact this sentiment is prevalent).
As Elijah writes, Iraqis are "emotional", in this context meaning easily manipulated by
(anti-Iran) propaganda/fake news, and just like the protests/riots without coherent political
plan, and realistic objectives.
Also Iran was pretty crude and Qassem Soleimani not as subtle as needed when they tried to
use their soft power in the political struggle, opposed to the gulf states and the US. At
least this is the prevailing view of the Iraqis, which makes it real for them, no matter how
valid it is or not is.
Many Iraqis felt offended by this, and they now have a very strong patriotism, which
fueled the riots and attacks on Iranian linked targets. They felt their honor was attacked,
and they acted as their culture and society demands when someone offends you: They hit back,
violently.
That the US has this time not used their power as much as before to influence Iraq in the
elections, likely made Iran's use of soft power more visible, and therefore led many Iraqis
to see the US and gulf states as the smaller evil.
This unreflected, emotional and often violent patriotism now seems to be universally for
most Iraqis. Even the Shia religious leaders agitate for a sovereign Iraqis, without any
interference from Iran or US. So the US clearly won the battle here for the moment in a
hybrid war/soft power view concerning the public image of Iran in Iraq.
Only thing that could turn this around fast would be a public outcry against the US.
If the current air strikes are enough? i dont think so. The US can claim they only
attacked Iran linked soldiers, even though they are now part of the Iraqi army command
strucure, and many Iraqis have no problem with that.
And as Iraqis are sick of war, understandable, they also dont want those Iranian linked
forces to use Iraq as a battleground against the US. And the multiple attacks in the last
weeks against US installations to which the US did not react militarily, are seen by many
Iraqis as just that; Iran misusing Iraq as a proxy battleground to fight the US. They think
the US had to react sometime.
Then there is Al Sadr, who is rumored to be the main man who instigated the riots against
Iranian targets with his forces. But he may change sides and now turn (again) against the US,
who knows.
All in all, the US now seems less interested to influence politics in Iraq directly like the
US always did before. Trump seems to really want to get out of the MENA and focus on China
etc.
But Iran would have to act more cleverly with a soft power approach to turn the Iraqis
currently bad image of Iran into something more positive and leverage that situation where
the US is less focused on the Middle East.
Then, and only then, if the Iraqis would not see Iran as a threat to sovereignty anymore,
would they force the US out of Iraq.
But all that may not matter anyway, as Iraq is on a downward spiral, and the whole political
system reeks of Weimar.
Democracy is seen by the majority now as the rule of the corrupt. The protesters rallied
for the Shia general (connected to the US) who (in their mind) saved them from Isis to take
over and clean the corrupt politicians out. Just like Saddam was a hope for most Iraqis back
in the day.
An "enlightened despot".
And while it may send shivers down many of our western political minds who believe that
our ideology is universal to humanity(Social Democracy, Neo Liberal Democracy, Socialism,
..):
Maybe it is the only realistic option; The best realistic result based on realpolitik.
The Middle East is not Western Europe. Democracy does work not in tribalism, islamic
tradition and law, sectarianism, without any real civil society whatsoever.
The only options are living like the last 1500 years politically; Anarchic and tribalistic.
Or with a central state hold together by a ruthless despot that gouverns respecting popular
demands.
Western Democracy in Iraq is an imperialistic project doomed to fail. As sad as this may be
for many of us westerners.
Russia has received a lot of criticism over the bombing of alleged 'hospitals' in Syria
which were registered on a UN sponsored list. The Russian military argued that the positions on
the UN list were not of real hospitals but of ammunition depots or command centers of the
Jihadists. After it had published dozens of articles bashing Russia's campaign the New York
Times has finally admitted that Russia was right:
United Nations officials only recently created a unit to verify locations provided by relief
groups that managed the exempt sites, some of which had been submitted incorrectly, The Times
found. Such instances of misinformation give credibility to Russian criticisms that the
system cannot be trusted and is vulnerable to misuse.
...
The groups give locations of their own choosing to the United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the agency that runs the system.
A document prepared by the agency warned that participation in the system "does not
guarantee" the safety of the sites or their personnel. The document also stated that the
United Nations would not verify information provided by participating groups.
...
While investigating an airstrike in November, The Times discovered that a relief group had
provided coordinates for its health center that were around 240 meters away. When another
hospital was bombed in May, The Times found that the coordinates submitted by its supporting
organization pointed to an unrelated structure around 765 meters north.
After questions from The Times prompted the organization to review its deconfliction list,
a staff member discovered that it had provided the United Nations with incorrect locations
for 14 of its 19 deconflicted sites . The original locations had been logged by a pharmacist.
The list had been with the United Nations humanitarian agency for eight months, and no one
had contacted the organization to correct the locations, a member of the organization's staff
said.
Interesting news. ANNA NEWS, in a recent report, announced an investigation into the infamous
"White Helmets". The material promises to be very interesting, with an abundance of exclusive
video, details, interviews etc. The film should be released tomorrow (December 30 at 19h
Moscow time).
Btw, I do not exclude the possibility that when this movie is released, the ANNA NEWS
youtube channel account will suddenly be blocked again without explanation. Will see.
Breaking news from the NYT: 19 of the 20 reports so far of the destruction of the last
hospital in Idlib were untrue. The incorrect locations were submitted by the White Helmets
(just an honest mistake).
I linked to ZeroHedge's reposting because of the comments which reflect skepticism about
the apparent death of Jeffery Epstein as well as James Le Mesurier:
Zappalives This guy is probably having a cocktail with epstein and his new girl whores.
Kreator Coroner concluded that this suicide was one of the most unusual ones that he ever saw.
Founder of White Helmets was found stabbed, hanged and shot.
Colonel Klinks Ghost This has CIA/Mossad written ALL over it. And Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. Got
it!
Cluster_Frak White Helmet is a CIA fraud, and the founder retired with full pension and benefits.
Suicide was just a cover for a job well done exit.
Baghdadi's killing was also rather strange.
One either believes the Empire kills those in its service when they have become
inconvenient liabilities or these guys (Le Mesurier, Epstein, Baghdadi) were extracted and
are living comfortably in retirement.
I didn't see it in the NYT article, but the false reporting of the hospital locations by
"multiple NGOs" was supposedly just done "accidently". That's according to an NYT
investigator who used to work for Bellingcat. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1211384089472843778
My previous comment about the last hospital in Idlib was a joke, but the NYT's Mr.
Triebert seems to be serious about the accidental fake news about hospital locations. RIP
satire.
The take away quote
"
Up until the OPCW leaks, WikiLeaks drops always made mainstream news headlines. Everyone
remembers how the 2016 news cycle was largely dominated by leaked Democratic Party emails
emerging from the outlet. Even the relatively minor ICE agents publication by WikiLeaks last
year, containing information that was already public, garnered headlines from top US outlets
like The Washington Post , Newsweek, and USA Today. Now, on this exponentially more important
story, zero coverage.
The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of
equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole
litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world;
questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they
normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the
existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such
conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to
account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in
that conspiracy of silence?
"
Imbecilization of discussion of controversial issues like in case of your comment is a normal
development typical for the periods of intellectual declines which naturally follows the economic
decline of a given empire.
There's growing evidence the West is going through the same process as the USSR.
Mike Figueroa from The Humanist Report has got a bunch of angry leftists hating on Tulsi
Gabbard for her Christmas greeting
today on twitter and youtube, they are claiming Tulsi is "too religious" or "she is pandering
to evangelicals." They have gone insane obviously and are hating on Tulsi for other reasons
(she dares challenge Bernie for president). Pam Ho breaks it all down for you at Like, In The
Year 2024
The take away quote
"
Up until the OPCW leaks, WikiLeaks drops always made mainstream news headlines. Everyone
remembers how the 2016 news cycle was largely dominated by leaked Democratic Party emails
emerging from the outlet. Even the relatively minor ICE agents publication by WikiLeaks last
year, containing information that was already public, garnered headlines from top US outlets
like The Washington Post , Newsweek, and USA Today. Now, on this exponentially more important
story, zero coverage.
The mass media's stone-dead silence on the OPCW scandal is becoming its own scandal, of
equal or perhaps even greater significance than the OPCW scandal itself. It opens up a whole
litany of questions which have tremendous importance for every citizen of the western world;
questions like, how are people supposed to participate in democracy if all the outlets they
normally turn to to make informed voting decisions adamantly refuse to tell them about the
existence of massive news stories like the OPCW scandal? How are people meant to address such
conspiracies of silence when there is no mechanism in place to hold the entire mass media to
account for its complicity in it? And by what mechanism are all these outlets unifying in
that conspiracy of silence?
"
"Why do so many people in the West have this knee-jerk need to try to build false
equivalencies between their criminal empire and other systems, or voice cynical and unfounded
assumptions of malfeasance by those other systems whenever those other systems demonstrate
superiority? It is an egotistical tribal sickness."
It is a symptom of the "West is Best" syndrome.
Or in its specific American incarnation, the ideology that America is the Shining City on
Hill, Exceptional Country, and Indispensable Nation.
People indoctrinated into this belief system cannot brook the idea that there may be an
alternative to their own way of life that is, in some respects, better. Hence, they will
instinctively attack and smear this alternative as bad.
In many ways, Western Liberal "Democracy" (or what passes for democracy) is a secular
religion and fundamentalist ideology.
As Francis Fuckuyama stated at the end of the Cold War with his pronouncement of the End
of History, Western Liberal Democracy is the highest form of human socio-political evolution
and government.
Thanks for pointing that out,
Caitlin Johnston may be revealing the extent to which Integrity Initiative or maybe
Institute for Statecraft have now bought even more editors than previously revealed in those
leaked papers. OUTRAGE is the mildest term that comes to mind. What spineless media bedevils
this world.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page story suggesting that Russian intelligence had hacked a Ukrainian energy firm known as Burisma Holdings in order to get dirt on Joe Biden and help Donald Trump win re-election.
Strategic Culture
Search World The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?
Michael Jabara Carley
Print this article
Also by this author Michael Jabara Carley Professor of history at the Université de Montréal. He has published widely on Soviet relations with the West
What Poland Has to Hide About the Origins of World War II
To the top
