Opvallend: een week voordat de VS besloot met hulp van Groot-Brittannie en Frankrijk, doelen in Syrië met raketten te bestoken n.a.v. de ‘gifgasaanval’ op Douma, was BBC Scotland (radio) niet te ontvangen via het internet……. Een goede dag na de aanvallen was BBC Scotland weer te horen op het net……..
‘Je zou bijna gaan denken’ dat de BBC in haar ‘wijsheid’ besloot deze zender ‘op zwart’ te zetten…… Zeker als je ziet dat het verzet in Schotland tegen een illegale aanval op Syrië groot was en is, zelfs de Schotse premier Nicola Sturgeon heeft zich openlijk uitgesproken tegen zo’n aanval en heeft deze na uitvoering daarvan intussen (volkomen terecht) veroordeeld…….
Veronderstel dat het Britse volk i.p.v. alleen oorlogshitserij en haatzaaien tegen Rusland, Syrië en Iran, genuanceerde en kritische geluiden te horen zou krijgen, Schotse geluiden die gehakt maken van deze smerige en gevaarlijke Britse propaganda………..
Je kan het niet bewijzen, maar het is wel heel toevallig dat na de woorden van Trump, May en Macron, als reactie op de ‘gifgasaanval’, men de zender op slot heeft gegooid (althans voor degenen die niet in Schotland wonen…..)
De nieuwsredactie van BBC Schotland kan zo af en toe heel wat kritischer zijn dan de BBC redacties in Londen, waar men volkomen achter het regeringsbeleid staat en fiks meedoet aan het demoniseren van Rusland, inclusief het oplepelen van leugens als het bijvoorbeeld over Syrië en Iran gaat…. Zo stelde men bij deze ‘onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde’ dat de gifgasaanval door het leger van Assad werd uitgevoerd, terwijl daar niet een flinter van bewijs voor was en is……. Tja, wiens brood men eet……..
Blijft de vraag: was hier sprake van een typisch gevalletje ‘censuur…???’
WDR 5 meldt zojuist dat de OPCW, de organisatie tegen chemische wapens, de bevindingen van de Britse overheid heeft bevestigd….. Met andere woorden de OPCW stelt dat de gevonden novitsjok uit Rusland moet komen…..
Lullig genoeg voor de OPCW heeft de Britse overheid (o.a.de kwaadaardige hufters May en Boris Johnson) haar bevindingen gebaseerd op de leugen dat het Britse onderzoekscentrum Porton Down zou hebben gesteld dat ‘de gevonden novitsjok’ uit Rusland komt….. Porton Down heeft dit in alle toonaarden ontkend…* ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Het Britse ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (onder Johnson) heeft e.e.a. intussen bekend!*
Tja, dat krijg je als je geen onafhankelijk onderzoek uitvoert, immers Rusland, NB lid van de OPCW, mocht niet meewerken aan het onderzoek…..**
Intussen is de dochter van Skripal uit het ziekenhuis ontslagen (dacht dat dit al eerder gebeurde) en ook Skripal zelf is aan de beterende hand, terwijl ‘deskundigen’ eerder stelden dat je een aanslag met novitsjok niet kan overleven, of hooguit als ‘plant….’
Jimmy Dore heeft zich op het novitsjok (novichok) verhaal gestort.
Hij bekeek de video waarin Jeremy Corbyn, de huidige Labour
voorzitter, gehakt maakt van dit verhaal en kan niet anders dan
concluderen dat het hier gaat om een dikke vette leugen van de Britse
regering May…..
Er
zijn (ook op deze plek) al veel argumenten gegeven waarom het aanslag
verhaal op Skripal grote onzin is en daar kunnen er met deze video
een paar aan toegevoegd worden. Zoals de vaststelling dat het
ongelofelijk dom zou zijn van de Russen, als ze Skripal al wilden
vermoorden, dit te doen met een zenuwgas dat is bedacht in de
voormalige Sovjet Unie, genoeg alternatieven voorhanden die niet naar
Rusland wijzen…….
Dan
nog: alsof Rusland niet bij machte zou zijn om bij een dergelijke
moord geen sporen na te laten…… Gezien de algehele hysterie van
de laatste paar jaar, waarbij Rusland zo ongeveer de schuld krijgt
voor alles wat er mis gaat in de wereld, zou het wel extra dom zijn
van de Russen een dergelijke aanslag uit te voeren!
Voorts
is er nog steeds geen hard bewijs voor de Russische schuld geleverd door de Britten, alsof de
regering May op haar ‘blauwe ogen’ is te vertrouwen…… ha! ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha!
Groot-Brittannie dat meehelpt aan de genocide in Jemen
G-B dat zelf met leugens kwam over ‘de massavernietigingswapens’ van Saddam Hoessein, waarna dit land ook nog eens meewerkte aan de illegale oorlog van de VS tegen dit land, een oorlog die in 2003 begon en in feite nog steeds niet is afgelopen, waarbij intussen meer dan 1,5 miljoen mensen om het leven zijn gekomen, of beter gezegd: zijn vermoord……. (waaronder een groot aantal kinderen, vrouwen en ouden van dagen….)
G-B dat
meehelpt aan de illegale oorlog tegen het democratisch gekozen Syrische bewind
G-B dat keihard mee liegt in het anti-Russische propaganda koor, zoals over de
annexatie van De Krim, terwijl ieder mens met 2 hersencellen kan
weten dat er een door internationale waarnemers gecontroleerd
referendum heeft plaatsgevonden in De Krim, waar het overgrote deel
van de bevolking zich uitsprak voor aansluiting bij Rusland….. Een
keus van de bevolking van de Krim, daar zij geen zin hadden te leven onder de
door de VS geparachuteerde pro-nazi regering van de zwaar corrupte
zakenman Porosjenko……….
G-B dat onder May durfde te stellen niet uit te sluiten in de toekomst een eerste aanval tegen een ander land (dus zonder zelf te zijn aangevallen) te doen met kernwapens…….. (laat staan dat zo’n regering er de hand niet voor om zou draaien om de Russen met een false flag operatie als de grote satan af te schilderen….)
G-B het land waar dagelijks meer dan 4 miljoen kinderen met honger naar school gaan……
‘Nee, echt heel betrouwbaar’ de Britse regering……….
Het volgende artikel op Brasscheck TV is van 3 april jl. en intussen is er al wat meer bekend, zoals het feit dat Porton Down, het Britse onderzoekscentrum voor o.a. chemische wapens, nooit heeft gesteld dat de gevonden novitsjok van Russische origine zou zijn, zoals o.a. Boris Johnson, de Britse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken keihard durfde te zeggen (of beter gezegd: durfde te liegen)……….
The
Russian nerve agent attack story
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?
“HE’S
SO REASONABLE, HE MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE”
The
UK claims that the Russians attacked two people in England with nerve
agents.
How
realistic is this?
Jimmy
Dore comments on Jeremy Corbyn’s statement.
“He’s
so reasonable, he makes me uncomfortable.”
Let’s
be realistic.
Why
would Russia kill someone with a weapon that can specifically traced
backed to them.
That’s
not too smart.
Until
now, the UK government has refused to make any of its evidence
available.
What
am I suggesting?
I’m
suggesting two things:
1
We don’t know and the fact is the UK government won’t release
the evidence – and that doesn’t help
2
Arms makers and the intelligence agencies they hold captive are
having a field day
Update:
It is completely false that only the Russians have access to this
particular nerve agent.
Op
CounterPunch werd afgelopen woensdag een artikel
van Colin Todhunter gepubliceerd. Hierin stelt Todhunter dat alles
erop lijkt dat we op weg zijn naar WOIII, maar dat de reguliere media de wereldbevolking op grove manier misleiden door dit te verzwijgen…….
De
illegale oorlog van de VS en de NAVO tegen het Libië van Khadaffi
hebben de sociale structuur en de infrastructuur van dat land volledig in puin
gelegd…….. Khadaffi moest vallen daar hij de westerse hegemonie
in Afrika probeerde te ondermijnen en het continent zelfstandig wilde maken….. Waar zijn wil voor de introductie van de gouden dinar niet vergeten
moet worden, een munt die anders dan de dollar op op de tegenwaarde
van goud gebaseerd zou zijn, terwijl de dollar lucht als tegenwaarde heeft…… Met de gouden dinar wilde Khadaffi de dollar
vervangen als internationaal betaalmiddel en als valuta voor de aan- en verkoop van olie en gas….. Tja met zulke plannen
heb je je doodvonnis, door de VS te voltrekken, al getekend, zelfs voor je deze plannen kan uitvoeren………
Met
enorme leugens, als het opkomen voor mensenrechten, democratie brengen of een dictator
verstoten, zogenaamde politieke argumenten, herhaald door de reguliere westerse media, werd de
westerse bevolking klaargestoomd voor deze illegale oorlog, zoals dit
eerder al gebeurde voorafgaand aan de door de VS (met behulp van o.a. NAVO landen) illegaal gevoerde oorlogen tegen Afghanistan en Irak…..
Todhunter
legt verder uit dat de demonisering van Rusland en China met maar
één doel wordt gevoerd: een oorlog van de VS tegen deze landen
om zo haar wereldhegemonie te kunnen vestigen over de gebieden die deze landen
vertegenwoordigen, of beter gezegd verder uit te
breiden, immers de VS heeft rond Rusland en China een enorm aantal
militaire bases gebouwd……….
Voor de oorlogen tegen Afghanistan,
Irak, Libië en Syrië, bediende de VS zich van dezelfde massa misleiding, waar zoals gezegd ook destijds het grootste deel van de westerse politici en de reguliere westerse media braaf aan mee hebben
gedaan…….
Uitermate
wrang dat de politici die met deze misleiding bezig zijn, inclusief
de door hen gesteunde media, nu het grootste woord voeren over ‘fake
news’ (of ‘nepnieuws’) terwijl zij in feite de grote verkondigers zijn van
fake news en dan fake news waarmee deze eeuw al meer dan 2 miljoen
mensen zijn vermoord (door de VS en haar hielenlikkende westerse
bondgenoten van de NAVO)…….
In
Libya, NATO bombed a path to Tripoli to help its proxy forces on the
ground oust Gaddafi. Tens of thousands lost their lives and that
country’s social fabric and infrastructure now lies in ruins.
Gaddafi was murdered and his plans to assert African independence and
undermine Western (not
least French)
hegemony on that continent have been rendered obsolete.
In
Syria, the US, Turkey, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have
been helping to arm militants. The Daily Telegraph’s March 2013
article “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels
through Zagreb’” reported that 3,000 tons of weapons dating back
to the former Yugoslavia had been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb
airport to the rebels. The New York Times March 2013 article “Arms
Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With CIA Aid” stated that Arab
governments and Turkey had sharply increased their military aid to
Syria’s opposition fighters. This aid included more than 160
military cargo flights.
Over
the last 15 years or so, politicians and the media have been
manipulating popular sentiment to get an increasingly war-fatigued
Western public to support ongoing wars under the notion of protecting
civilians or a bogus ‘war on terror’. They spin a yarn about
securing women’s rights or a war on terror in Afghanistan, removing
despots from power in Iraq, Libya or Syria or protecting human life,
while then going on to attack or help destabilise countries,
resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.
Emotive
language designed to instil fear about potential terror attacks in
Europe or myths about humanitarianism intervention are used as a
pretext to wage imperialist wars in mineral-rich countries and
geostrategically important regions.
Part
of the battle for the public’s hearts and minds is to keep people
confused. They must be convinced to regard these wars and conflicts
as a disconnected array of events and not as the planned machinations
of empire. The ongoing disinformation narrative about Russian
aggression is part of the strategy. Ultimately, Russia (and China) is
the real and increasingly imminent target: Moscow has stood in the
way of the West’s plans in Syria and both Russia and China
are undermining
the role of the dollar in
international trade, a lynchpin of US power.
The
countries of the West are effectively heading for war with Russia but
relatively few among the public seem to know or even care. Many are
oblivious to the slaughter that has already been inflicted on
populations with the help of their taxes and governments in far-away
lands. With the reckless neoconservative warmonger John Bolton now
part of the Trump administration, it seems we could be hurtling
towards major war much faster than previously thought.
Most
of the public remains blissfully ignorant of the psy-ops being
directed at them through the corporate media. Given recent
events in the UK and the ramping up of anti-Russia rhetoric, if
ordinary members of the public think that Theresa May or Boris
Johnson ultimately have their best interests at heart, they should
think again. The major transnational corporations based on Wall
Street and in the City of London are the ones setting Anglo-US policy
agendas often via the Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign
Relations, International Crisis Group, Chatham House, etc.
The
owners of these companies, the capitalist class, have off-shored
millions of jobs as well as their personal and company tax
liabilities to boost their profits and have bankrupted economies. We
see the results in terms of austerity, unemployment, powerlessness,
privatization, deregulation, banker control of economies, corporate
control of food and seeds, the stripping away of civil liberties,
increased mass surveillance and wars to grab mineral resources and
ensure US dollar hegemony. These are the interests the politicians
serve.
It’s
the ability to maximise profit by shifting capital around the world
that matters to this class, whether on the back of distorted free
trade agreements, which open the gates for plunder, or through
coercion and militarism, which merely tear them down.
Whether
it is the structural violence of neoliberal economic policies or
actual military violence, the welfare of ordinary folk around the
world does not enter the equation. In an imposed oil-thirsty,
war-driven system of globalised capitalism and over-consumption that
is wholly unnecessary and is stripping the planet bare, the bottom
line is that ordinary folk – whether workers in the West, farmers
in India or
civilians displaced en masse in war zones like Syria – must be bent
according to the will of Western capital.
We
should not be fooled by made-for-media outpourings of morality about
good and evil that are designed to create fear, outrage and support
for more militarism and resource-grab wars. The shaping of public
opinion is a multi-million-dollar industry.
Take
for instance the mass harvesting of Facebook data by Cambridge
Analytica to shape the outcomes of the US election and the Brexit
campaign. According to journalist Liam
O’Hare,
its parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL) has
conducted ‘behavioural change’ programmes in over 60 countries
and its clients have included the British Military of Defence, the US
State Department and NATO. According to O’Hare, the use of the
media to fool the public is one of SCL’s key selling points.
Among
its activities in Europe have been campaigns targeting Russia. The
company has “sweeping links” with Anglo-American political and
military interests. In the UK, the interests of the governing
Conservative Party and military-intelligence players are brought
together via SCL: board members include “an array of Lords, Tory
donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors.”
O’Hare
says it is clear is that all SCL’s activities have been
inextricably linked to its Cambridge Analytica arm. He states:
“International deception and meddling is the name of the game for
SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors
using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these operators
aren’t operating from Moscow… they are British, Eton educated,
headquartered in the City of London and have close ties to Her
Majesty’s government”
So,
what are we to make of the current anti-Russia propaganda we witness
regarding the nerve agent incident in Salisbury and the failure of
the British government to provide evidence to demonstrate Russian
culpability? The relentless accusations by Theresa May and Boris
Johnson that have been parroted across the corporate media in the
West indicate that the manipulation of public perception is
everything and facts count for little. It is alarming given what
is at stake – the escalation of conflict between the West and a
major nuclear power.
US
social commentator Walter Lippmann once said that ‘responsible men’
make decisions and have to be protected from the ‘bewildered herd’
– the public. He added that the public should be subdued, obedient
and distracted from what is really happening. Screaming patriotic
slogans and fearing for their lives, they should be admiring with awe
leaders who save them from destruction.
Although
the West’s political leaders are manipulating, subduing and
distracting the public in true Lippmannesque style, they aren’t
‘saving’ anyone from anything: their reckless actions towards
Russia could lead towards a war that could wipe out all life on the
planet.
De
reactie, of beter gezegd de hysterie na de ‘aanslag’ gepleegd op Skripal en zijn dochter is
werkelijk ongelofelijk, zonder ook maar één flinter van bewijs werd
en wordt Rusland (het liefst gebruikt men de naam Putin) de schuld in
de schoenen geschoven…. Alsof het een oorlogsdaad betrof, wezen een aantal NAVO landen Russische diplomaten uit, nogmaals op
basis van nul komma nada bewijs…… VVD volksverlakkers Rutte en Blok spraken zelfs over ‘plausibel bewijs….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Drie dagen geleden werd bekend gemaakt dat de dochter van Skripal uit het ziekenhuis werd ontslagen, terwijl eerder vorige week werd gesteld dat wanneer de Skripals de aanslag zouden overleven, ze de rest van hun leven zwaar gehandicapt zouden zijn, als een soort van levende planten…….. Met het ontslaan uit het ziekenhuis van Skripals dochter werd de internationale hysterie nog eens verder aan de kaak gesteld en moeten er nog grotere vraagtekens worden gezet bij de beschuldigingen aan het adres van de Russen…………
Rob
Slane schreef eerder een artikel genaamd: ’30 More Questions That
Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case’ (de link naar
dat artikel vindt je als eerste link in het tweede artikel van Slane,
dat hieronder is opgenomen). 30 vragen waarmee Slane duidelijk maakt
dat de Britse versie over de ‘aanslag’ is gebaseerd op lucht.
Intussen
is er weer heel wat meer bekend over de leugens waarmee Rusland
werd/wordt beschuldigd, reden voor Slane om een vervolg te schrijven
op zijn eerste artikel met de titel: ’20 More Questions That
Journalists Shoul be Asking About the Skripal Case’. (zoals gezegd hieronder te vinden)
Slane vraagt zich o.a. af hoe andere landen dan Groot-Brittannië op 26
maart het besluit hebben kunnen nemen Russische diplomaten uit te
zetten, terwijl de Organisation
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) het
onderzoek naar de zaak nog niet had afgerond en de bloedmonsters nog niet kon analyseren (voor toestemming dit bloed te onderzoeken door de OPCW, was godbetert een proces nodig….)……
Zelfs de analyse van de bloedmonsters door Porton Down laten vragen open……. (Porton Down is een instituut van de Britse overheid, dus gekleurde onderzoeksuitslagen, die in het straatje van de regering May passen, zijn niet te ontlopen, ofwel: Porton Down ondersteunt de anti-Russische propaganda* van de Britse overheid en de reguliere westerse media…..)
Gezien alles wat intussen bekend is geworden, ‘zou je je zelfs af kunnen vragen’, of het hier niet om een false flag operatie gaat, ofwel een operatie gedaan om in dit geval een ander land (Rusland) in een kwaad daglicht te stellen.
20
More Questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal
Case
To
my knowledge, none of the questions I wrote in my previous piece – 30
questions That Journalists Should be Asking About the Skripal Case –
has been answered satisfactorily, at least not in the public domain.
Yet despite the fact that these legitimate questions have not yet
been answered, and many important facts surrounding the case are
still unknown, the case has given rise to a serious international
crisis, with the extraordinary expulsion of Russian diplomats across
many EU countries and particularly the United States on March 26th.
This
is a moment to stop and pause. A man and his daughter were poisoned
in the City of Salisbury on 4th March. Yet despite the fact that
investigators do not yet appear to know how they were poisoned, when
they were poisoned, or where they were poisoned, a number of Western
nations have used the incident as a pretext for the co-ordinated
expulsion of diplomats on a scale not witnessed even during the
height of the Cold War. These are clearly very abnormal and very
dangerous times.
I
pointed out in my previous piece that it is not my intention to
advance some sort of conspiracy theory on this blog. It remains the
case that I simply don’t have any holistic theory — “conspiracy”
or otherwise — for who carried this out, and I continue to retain
an open mind. But since the Government of my country has rushed to
judgement without many of the facts of the case being established,
and since this has led to the biggest deterioration in relations
between nuclear-armed nations since the Cuban Missile Crisis, it
seems to me that it is more important than ever to keep asking
questions in the hope that answers will come.
And
so, for what it’s worth, here are 20 more important questions that
I think that journalists ought to be asking regarding this case:
1. Have
the police yet identified any suspects in the case?
2. If
so, is there any evidence connecting them to the Russian Government?
3. If
not, how is it possible to determine culpability, as the British
Government has done?
“It
is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
military-grade nerve agent of
a type developed by Russia. This
is part of a group of nerve agents known as ‘Novichok’.
Based on the positive
identificationof
this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science
and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down” [my emphasis added].
In
the judgement at the High Court on 22nd March on
whether to allow blood samples to be taken from Sergei and Yulia
Skripal for examination by the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW), evidence submitted by Porton Down to the
court (Section 17 i) stated the following:
“Blood
samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or
related compound.
The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class
nerve agent or
closely related agent”
[my emphasis added].
So
the Prime Minister said that Porton Down had positively
identifiedthe
substance as a Novichok nerve agent. The statement from Porton Down
says that their tests indicated that it was a Novichok
agent orclosely
related agent.
Are these two statements saying exactly the same thing?
5. Why
were the phrases “related compound” and “closely related agent”
added to the statement given by Porton Down, and is this an
indication that the scientists were not 100% sure that the substance
was a “Novichok” nerve agent?
6. Why
were these phrases left out of the Prime Minister’s statement to
the House of Commons?
7. Why
did the Prime Minister choose to use the word “Novichok” in her
speech, rather than the word Foliant,
which is the actual name of the programme initiated by the Soviet
Union when attempting to develop a new class of chemical weapons in
the 1970s and 1980s?
8. When
asked in an
interview with Deutsche Welle how
scientists at Porton Down had found out so quickly that the nerve
agent was of the “Novichok” class of chemical weapons, the
Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, was asked whether Porton Down
possesses samples of it. Here is how he replied:
“They
do.
And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I
said, ‘Are you sure?’ And he said there’s no doubt” [My
emphasis].
If
Mr Johnson’s statement is correct, and the Defence Science and
Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down has samples of “Novichok”
in its possession, where did they come from?
9. Were
they produced at Porton Down?
10. How
long have they had them?
11. Why
has the DSTL not registered possession of these substances with the
OPCW, which it is legally obliged to do under the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC)?
12. Does
this admission by Mr Johnson not indicate that “Novichoks” can be
made in any advanced chemical weapons facility, as indeed they were
under the auspices of the OPCW
in Iran in 2016?
13. If
so, how can the Government be sure that the substance used to poison
Mr Skripal and his daughter was made in or produced by Russia?
“Either
this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or
conceivably, the Russian government could have lost control of a
military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of
others.”
Other
than the actual substance used, is there any hard evidence that led
the Government to conclude these as being the only two plausible
scenarios?
15. On
March 26th, a number of countries expelled Russian diplomats in an
apparent response to the incident in Salisbury. Yet at this time, the
OPCW had not yet investigated the case, nor analysed blood samples.
Why was the clearly co-ordinated decision to expel diplomats taken
before the OPCW’s investigation had concluded?
16. Has
this not put huge pressure on the OPCW to come up with “the right”
conclusion?
17. It
is reckoned that the OPCW’s investigation into the substance used
will take at least three weeks to complete, whereas it took Porton
Down less than a week to analyse it. What accounts for this
difference?
18. Will
the OPCW be using the samples of “Novichok” that Boris Johnson
says are held at Porton Down to compare with the blood samples of Mr
Skripal and his daughter?
19. If
not, on what basis will this comparison be made, since the first
known synthesis of a “Novichok” was made by Iran in 2016?
20. If
the OPCW discovers that the substance is indeed a “Novichok”,
will this be sufficient evidence with which to establish who carried
out the attack on the Skripals or — given that other countries
clearly have the capability to produce such substances — would more
evidence be needed?
===================================
* Anti-Russische propaganda waarvan de zaak Skripal maar één voorbeeld uit velen is……
Moet wel toegeven dat ik de vraagstelling van Slane niet helemaal begrijp, immers de hijgerige reguliere westerse massamedia brengen met grote graagte zoveel mogelijk ‘nieuws’ (voornamelijk ‘nepnieuws’) waarmee Rusland als de slechterik wordt afgeschilderd….. Neem alleen al het continu volhouden door deze media van de leugen dat Rusland De Krim heeft geannexeerd, terwijl men dondersgoed weet dat de bevolking van De Krim (inclusief de oorspronkelijke bevolking) zich in een door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed beoordeeld referendum hebben uitgesproken voor aansluiting bij Rusland. Vooral de VS coup tegen de door hen democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj, stak de bevolking van De Krim, waar de door de VS geparachuteerde fascistische junta (gecontroleerd door neonazi’s) de druppel was, die hen tot het besluit brachten te stemmen voor aansluiting bij Rusland……
Op deze
plek heb ik een paar artikelen en berichten gebracht over de aanslag
op ex-dubbelspion Skripalski en zijn dochter. Keer op keer blijkt het
hele novitsjok (novichok) verhaal doorgestoken kaart om Rusland nog
verder te demoniseren.
VVD volksverlakker Rutte stelde eerder nog dat hij onomstotelijk bewijs wil zien voor de Russische verantwoordelijkheid (en nee, dat had ik niet verwacht), echter een theekransje met leiders van EU landen was voldoende om z’n mening om te doen slaan, zo werd vanmorgen gemeld….. Het ‘bewijs’ dat Groot-Brittannie opvoert is nu wel voldoende voor het pedant onzelfstandige ventje……
Ook in
het volgende artikel van Moon of Alabama op Information Clearing House, wordt het novitsjok verhaal
doorgeprikt als onzin (o.a. met ‘de onthulling’ dat de georganiseerde misdaad in Rusland ook over dit soort gif beschikt):
Russian
Scientists Explain ‘Novichok’ – High Time For Britain To Come Clean
By
Moon Of Alabama
March
21, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” –A
week ago we asked if
‘Novichok’ poisons are real. The answer is now in: It is ‘yes’ and
‘no’. Several Russian scientist now say that they once researched and
developed lethal poisons but they assert that other countries can and
have copied these. ‘Novichok’, they say, is a just western
propaganda invention. They see the British accusations as a cynical
plot against Russia. The people who push the ‘Novichok’ accusations
have political and commercial interests.
The
British Prime Minister Theresa May insinuated that
the British-Russian double agent Sergej Skripal and his daughter
Yulia, who collapsed
on March 4 on
a public bench in Salisbury, were affected by a ‘Russian’ nerve
agent:
It
is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
military-grade nerve agent of
a type developed by Russia.
It is part of a group of nerve agents known
as Novichok.
Theresa
May’s claims are highly questionable.
Maria Zakharova, spokeswomen of the Russian Foreign Ministry: “‘Novichok’ has never been used in the USSR or in Russia as something related to the chemical weapon research” – bigger
A
highly potent nerve agent would hurt anyone who comes in contact with
it. But the BBC reported that a doctor who administered first aid to
the collapsed Yulia Skripal for 30 minutes was not
affected at all.
Another doctor, Steven Davies who heads the emergence room of the
Salisbury District Hospital, wrote in
a letter the London Times:
“… no
patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in
Salisbury and
there have only been ever been three patients with significant
poisoning.”
The
name ‘Novichok’ comes from a
book written
by Vil Mirzayanov, a 1990s immigrant to the U.S. from the former
Soviet Union. It describe his work at Soviet chemical weapon
laboratories and lists the chemical formulas of a new group of lethal
substances.
AFP interviewed the
author of the ‘Novichok’ book about the Salisbury incident:
Mirzayanov,
speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced
Russia carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President
Vladimir Putin.
…The
only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the
formulas in his book to make such a weapon.
“Russia
did it”, says Mirzanyanov, “OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK”
A
‘Novichok’ nerve agent plays a role in the current seasons of the
British-American spy drama Strike
Back which
broadcasts on British TV. Theresa May might have watched this
clip (vid)
from the series. Is it a source of her allegations?
The
Russian government rejects the British allegations and demands
evidence which Britain has not provided. Russia joined the Chemical
Weapon Convention in 1997. By 2017 it had destroyed all
its chemical weapons and chemical weapon production facilities. Under
the convention only very limited amounts of chemical weapon
agents are
allowed to
be held in certified laboratories for defense research and testing
purposes. The U.S. has such laboratories at Fort Detrick
in Frederick, Maryland, the British lab is in Porton Down, a few
miles from Salisbury. The Russian lab is in Shikhany in
the southern Saratov Oblast. The Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) audits these laboratories and their declared
stocks “down to the milligram level”.
The
spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry and famous high
heels folk dancer (vid)
Maria Zakharova explains ina
TV interview (vid,
English subtitles) that ‘Novichok’ was not and is not the name of any
Soviet or Russian program. The word was introduced in the “west”
simply because it sounded Russian.
Western
media claimed that Vil Miranzayanov is the developer of the
‘Novichok’ chemicals. It turns out that this is not the case.
Interviews with two retired Russian chemists, both published only
yesterday, tell the real story. The Russia news agency RIA
Novostni talked
with Professor
Leonid Rink (machine
translation):
Did
you have anything to do with creating what the British authorities
call the “Novice”?
–
Yes. This was the basis of my doctoral dissertation.
At
that time I worked in Shikhany, in the branch of GosNIIOKhT (State
Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, during Soviet
times was engaged in the development of chemical weapons), was a
leading researcher and head of the laboratory.
Professor
Rink says that:
‘Novichok’
or ‘novice’ was never used as a program name. New Soviet formulas
had alphanumeric codes.
Several
new nerve agents were developed in Shikhany in the 1970s and 80s.
These
new substances can cause immediate deadly reactions when applied to
humans.
Vil
Mirzayanov was head of the chromatographer group, chemists who deals
with the separation and analysis of various mixtures of substances.
He was responsible for environmental control and not a developer of
any new substances.
The Associated
Press summarizes other
parts of the interview with Professor Rink:
Rink
told Russia’s state RIA Novosti news agency Tuesday that Britain
and other western nations easily could have synthesized the nerve
agent after chemical expert Vil Mirzayanov emigrated to the United
States and revealed the formula.
Echoing
Russian government statements, Rink says it wouldn’t make sense for
Moscow to poison Sergei Skripal, a military intelligence officer who
spied for Britain, because he was a used asset “drained” by both
Russia and Britain.
He
claims Britain’s use of the name Novichok for the nerve agent is
intended to convince the public that Russia is to blame.
The
English-Russian magazine The Bell interviews another
Russian scientists involved in the issue:
The
Bell was able to find and speak with Vladimir Uglev, one of the
scientists who was involved in developing the nerve agent referred to
as “Novichok”. […] Vladimir Uglev, formerly a scientist with
Volsk branch of GOSNIIOKHT (“State Scientific-Research Institute
for Organic Chemistry and Technology”), which developed and tested
production of new lethal substances since 1972, spoke for the first
time about his work as early as the 1990s. He left the institute in
1994 and is now retired.
– The
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs insists that there was no
research nor development of any substance called “Novichok”, not
in Russia, nor in the USSR. Is that true?
– In
order to make it easier to understand the subject matter, I will not
use the name “Novichok” which has is now commonly used by
everyone to describe those four substances which were conditionally
assigned to me to develop over a period of several years. Three of
these substances are part of the “Foliant” program, which was led
by Pyotr Kirpichev, a scientist with GOSNIIOKHT (State
Scientific-Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology).
The first substance of a new class of organophosphorous chemical
agents, I will call it “A-1972”, was developed by Kirpichev in
1972. In 1976, I developed two substances: “B-1976” and “C-1976”.
The fourth substance, “D-1980”, was developed by Kirpichev in the
early 1980s. All of these substances fall under the group referred to
as “Novichkov”, but that name wasn’t given to the substances by
GOSNIIOKHT.
All
four chemical agents are “FOS” or organophosphorous compounds
which have a nerve paralyzing effect, but they differ in their
precursors, how they were discovered and in their usage as agents of
chemical warfare.
The
four substances were developed by Pyotr Kirpichev and Vladimir Uglev.
These substances were not readily usable by the military as they
could not be safely transported and used in the field like binary
chemical weapons can.
Once synthesized they were extremely dangerous. Professor Leonid
Rink, working later in a different group, tackled the problem but did
not succeed. Uglev confirms that Vil Miranzayanov was not involved in
the development at all. His group was responsible chemical analysis
and for environmental control around the laboratory.
Vladimir
Uglev, like Renk and Miranzayanov, notes that these agents “of a
type developed by Russia” can now be produced by any
sufficiently equipped laboratory, including private ones.
Uglev
mentions a criminal use of one of the agents in the 1990s:
One
of these substances was used to poison the banker, Ivan Kivelidi and
his secretary in 1995. A cotton ball, soaked in this agent, was
rubbed over the microphone in the handset of Kivelidi’s telephone.
That specific dose was developed by my group, where we produced all
of the chemical agents, and each dose which we developed was given
its own complete physical-chemical passport. It was therefore not
difficult to determine who had prepared that dose and when it was
developed. Naturally, the investigators also suspected me. I was
questioned several times about this incident.
Journalist
Mark Ames, who worked in Moscow at that time, remarks:
This
muddles the narrative a bit —”novichok” used in 1995
Moscow mafia poison hit on top mobster Ivan Kivelidi. So:
1)
novichok [is] in mob hands too
2) used during reign of #1
Mobfather Boris Yeltsin, Washington’s vassal
Uglev
further notes that blood samples from the Salisbury victims, which
Moscow demands but Britain has not handed over, can show what agent
(if any) were involved and “where the specific dose was produced
and by whom.”
A
new article in the New Scientists confirms the
claims by the Russian scientists that the ‘Novichok’ agents which may
have affected the Skripals may have been produced elsewhere:
Weapons
experts have told New Scientist that a number of countries legally
created small amounts of Novichok after it was revealed in 1992 and a
production method was later published.
In
2016 Iranian scientists, in cooperation with the
OPCW, published production
and detection methods for such agents. It is likely that the various
government labs secretly re-developed and produced these chemicals
for their own purposes even prior to the Iranian publication.
[UPDATE]
In an interview with Deutsche Welle British Foreign
Minister Boris Johnson admits that
Proton Down had (illegal?) ‘Novichok’ agents when the incident
in Salisbury happened:
DW:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia.
How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does
Britain possess samples of it?
Boris
Johnson: Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I
mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …
DW: So
they have the samples …
Boris
Johnson: They
do. And
they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said,
“Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt.
But
Porton Down did not agree with the British government to claim that
the supposed nerve agent was “made by Russia.” It only
agreed to the compromise formulation “of
a type developed by Russia” i.e. it could have been made
anywhere. [End Update]
The
claims by the British government that a. the Skripals were affected
by a nerve agent and that b. Russia was involved in the Skripal
incident because it has some exclusive access to these agents seem
both baseless. Unless there is significant further evidence the
British incrimination of Russia looks like a cynical plot invented
for political and/or commercial purposes.
As
usual in the military-industrial complex the people who push such
scares, are the ones who profit from them.
The
British Morning Star points to
one former British military intelligence officer, Colonel (rtd)
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, as a common protagonist in the Skripal
case, in the claims of Syrian chemical weapon use and in commercial
interests around chemical weapon defense:
Quoted
daily by multiple media outlets on the Skripal case, de
Bretton-Gordon has become a very public expert, relied upon for
unbiased comment and analysis by the British and foreign media on
chemical weapon threats from Salisbury to Syria.
He
is a former assistant director of Intelligence Surveillance and
Reconnaissance Land Forces with the Ministry of Defence. Before that
de Bretton-Gordon was commanding officer of Britain’s Chemical,
Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and Nato’s
Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion.
While
his CBRN background is often mentioned, his military intelligence
links are rarely referred to publicly.
Long
before the Salisbury event, de Bretton-Gordon was urging greater
government expenditure on chemical protection counter-measures and
equipment.
…
de Bretton-Gordon is managing director CBRN of
Avon Protection Systems, based in Melksham, Wiltshire.
…
In
2017, the company made £50m from its US military contracts and a
further £63.3m from other “protection and defence” revenue.
The
former(?) army intelligence officer is also deeply involved in the
“moderate rebels” chemical weapon scams in Syria:
On
April 29 2014, the [Daily Telegraph] reported that it “obtained
soil samples collected from sites of chemical attacks inside Syria by
Dr Ahmad — a medic whose real identity cannot be revealed for his
own protection — who had previously received training in sample
collection by western chemical weapons experts.
“Mr
de Bretton-Gordon, a British chemical weapons expert and director of
Secure Bio, a private company, was one of the trainers.”
And
who carried out the tests? None other than de Bretton-Gordon himself.
The
“White Helmets” propaganda group in Syria was founded and
is run by the former(?) British army intelligence officer James Le
Mesurier with British and U.S. government money. His former(?)
colleague de Bretton-Gordon is running the parallel Syria chemical
weapon scam. Both profit from their government financed operations.
Other
British agents involved in the Skripal case are Pablo
Miller who recruited Skripal
for the MI6. He was a friend of Skripal, also lived in Salisbury and
worked for Christopher Steele, the former(?) MI6 agent who produced
the ‘dirty dossier’ about Donald Trump for the Clinton campaign. Both
are involved with
Russian mafia emigres in Britain like Boris Berezovski and the
deceased Alexander Litvinenko who’s father says that
he was killed by an MI6 or CIA guy.
While
the British government blamed the Russians just a week after the
incident in Salisbury happened it now seems interested in delaying
any further investigations. It took more than two weeks after the
incident for the British government to invite the OPCW to help with
the case. The head of the OPCW says it
will take another three weeks for
the organization to analyze the samples the British laboratory now
handed over. The British police requires several
months to
find out what happened to the Skripals.
How
could the British government be sure of “Russian”
involvement within a week and even expel Russian diplomats when the
primary chemical experts on the issue will need three weeks for their
first analyses and the British police predicts a several months long
investigation?
The
Russian scientist and their government have explained their history
and position in relation to ‘Novichoks’ and the Skripal incident. It
is high time now for the British government, its scientists at Porton
Down and its greedy mafia of former(?) British intelligence officer
and their criminal Russian emigres to come clean about their own
roles in it.
This
article was originally published by “Moon
of Alabama”
–
—
Previous Moon
of Alabama reports on the Skripal case:
Ondanks
de internationale hysterie over ‘de aanslag’ op ex-dubbelspion Skripal en zijn dochter,
waar de westerse reguliere media, de EU (en politici van
afzonderlijke EU lidstaten), de VS en de NAVO zich achter de beschuldiging
van Groot-Brittannië aan het adres Rusland hebben gesteld, is er geen bewijs voor Russische schuld aan deze aanslag (als het al een aanslag is en geen afrekening in het misdaad milieu, immers Skripal werkte in een netwerk van ex-spionnen, de kans dat dit netwerk zich schuldig maakt aan ordinaire misdaden als huurmoord is levensgroot…..)
Deze
steunbetuiging aan GB van de VS, de EU en de NAVO werd al vlak na de aanslag gegeven, terwijl GB niet
eens het bewijs tegen Rusland rond kon hebben! Sterker nog: Porton Down, het
instituut dat het gifgas novitsjok onderzocht, was niet eens in
het bezit van een Russische staal van dit gif, m.a.w. hoe kon dit
instituut op basis van een chemische formule* Rusland aanwijzen als
dader….?? Waar nu zelfs twijfels bestaan of dit gifgas wel werd
gebruikt, daar het praktisch onmogelijk is dat er niet meer mensen het
slachtoffer zijn geworden van dit gif dat NB in een restaurant zou
zijn gebruikt……
Bovendien:
waarom zou Rusland juist nu zo’n aanslag plegen, terwijl het land al
wordt beschuldigd van alles wat er zo ongeveer fout gaat in het
westen en aan de vooravond van het WK Voetbal staat….. Voorts heeft Rusland meer dan genoeg mogelijkheden om
zo’n aanslag te plegen, zonder ook maar één spoor na te laten!!
Niet
vreemd dus dat Rusland nu excuses eist van de Britse regering voor
het willens en wetens demoniseren van Rusland en zoals gezegd,
gebaseerd op een hele berg onzin!
Hier een artikel van Jason Ditz, zoals gepubliceerd op ANTIWAR over deze zaak:
Russia
Demands British Apology as EU, NATO Express Solidarity With Britain
Russia,
which has repeatedly expressed annoyance at the accusations, is
getting even more direct about the matter. They are now insisting
Britain must either offer
real proof for the claims, or a public apologyfor
blaming them.
Britain
is unlikely to do either, with signs that they simply don’t
have proof, and too many top officials committed to ever admit they
were wrong. Since evidence (or indeed truth) were only ever secondary
concerns, being wrong is not likely to be a serious impediment.
This
is especially true because
both the European Union and NATO have issued statements expressing
“solidarity” with
the British over the allegations. Even if they are wrong, British
officials may take comfort in being in good company in their
wrongness, and given the amount of acrimony between Britain and
Russia, that may be all that matters to the government.
In
twee artikelen, van Craig Murray die Information Cleariung House
publiceerde, geeft hij aan wat een enorm oor ons werd en word aangenaaid aangaande het gifgas ‘novitsjok’ en de aanslag op Sergei Skripal en zijn dochter…….
De
constatering van May dat deze stof alleen in militaire laboratoria
kan worden gemaakt, is een leugen van formaat…
Nog één: Porton Down, het onderzoekscentrum gaf aan dat ‘de gevonden novitsjok’ uit Rusland kwam, echter dat is volkomen onmogelijk, daar Porton Down nooit beschikte over een Russische staal van dit spul. Porton Down heeft op basis van de formule het gif gemaakt, maar dat kan overal ter wereld gemaakt worden en bepaald niet alleen in ‘militaire laboratoria!’
Niet voor niets dan ook, dat de Britse regering een onafhankelijk onderzoek naar het gevonden gif weigert…… Dit weigert deze regering zelfs aan de OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons). Deze VN organisatie is trouwens 10 jaar lang bezig geweest met het vernietigen van de Russische voorraden chemische wapens en ook de centra waar deze stoffen werden gemaakt, zijn ontmanteld, ook die waar volgens een Russische getuige, Mirzayanov zogenaamd novitsjok werd gemaakt, zijn ontmanteld……
Waar niemand over lult, zijn de Israëliërs, die enorme voorraden gifgas hebben en nog steeds chemische wapens maakt en ontwikkelt…… Israël maakt geen deel uit van de Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), een organisatie die een internationaal verbod op chemische wapens wil bewerkstelligen, noch is Israël lid van de eerder genoemde OPCW. Ook buurland Egypte beschikt over grote voorraden chemische wapens. De gifgasaanvallen in Syrië door de ‘gematigde rebellen’ werden dan ook gedaan met voorraden uit of Israël dan wel Egypte, beiden landen die schijt hebben aan mensenrechten en/of oorlogsmisdaden……..
Het hele novitsjok verhaal is daarom precies zo betrouwbaar als het verhaal over de massavernietigingswapens van Saddam Hoessein, de enorme leugen die tot de illegale oorlog tegen Irak leidden, deze heeft tot nu toe aan dik meer dan 1,5 miljoen doden geleid…….
‘Je zou bijna gaan denken’ dat de VS en/of GB deze gifgasaanval hebben gepleegd om Rusland verder te demoniseren, ofwel de aanslag zou heel goed een ‘false flag operatie’ kunnen zijn…………. (‘false flag’ in dit geval: een aanslag plegen en deze op zo’n manier doen dat het op een vijandige aanslag lijkt….)
Lees
en het volgende artikel en geeft het ajb door, de kring van leugens
moet doorbroken worden, voordat er echt grote ongelukken gebeuren!
The
Novichok Story Is Indeed Another Iraqi WMD Scam
By
Craig Murray
March
16, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” –As
recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at
the UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former
colleague of Dr David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious
scientific journal that the evidence for the existence of Novichoks
was scant and their composition unknown.
In
recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth
generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed
in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’
programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise
defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been
sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident
Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation
of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been
published. (Black, 2016)
Robin
Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical
Warfare Agents. Royal Society of Chemistry
Yet
now, the British Government is claiming to be able instantly to
identify a substance which its only biological weapons research
centre has never seen before and was unsure of its existence. Worse,
it claims to be able not only to identify it, but to pinpoint its
origin. Given Dr Black’s publication, it is plain that claim cannot
be true.
The
world’s international chemical weapons experts share Dr Black’s
opinion. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) is a UN body based in the Hague. In 2013 this was the report
of its Scientific Advisory Board, which included US, French, German
and Russian government representatives and on which Dr Black was the
UK representative:
[The
SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the
Convention would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might
be utilised as chemical weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not
listed in the Annex on Chemicals but which may nevertheless pose a
risk to the Convention, the SAB makes reference to “Novichoks”.
The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet
scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents
suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it
has insufficient information to comment on the existence or
properties of “Novichoks”. (OPCW, 2013)
OPCW:
Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science
and technology for the Third Review Conference 27 March 2013
Indeed
the OPCW was so sceptical of the viability of “novichoks” that it
decided – with US and UK agreement – not to add them nor their
alleged precursors to its banned list. In short, the scientific
community broadly accepts Mirzayanov was working on “novichoks”
but doubts he succeeded.
Given
that the OPCW has taken the view the evidence for the existence of
“Novichoks” is dubious, if the UK actually has a sample of one it
is extremely important the UK presents that sample to the OPCW.
Indeed the UK has a binding treaty obligation to present that sample
to OPCW. Russa has – unreported by the corporate media – entered
a demand at the OPCW that Britain submit a sample of the Salisbury
material for international analysis.
Yet
Britain refuses to submit it to the OPCW.
Why?
A
second part of May’s accusation is that “Novichoks” could only
be made in certain military installations. But that is also
demonstrably untrue. If they exist at all, Novichoks were allegedly
designed to be able to be made at bench level in any commercial
chemical facility – that was a major point of them. The only real
evidence for the existence of Novichoks was the testimony of the
ex-Soviet scientist Mizayanov. And this is what Mirzayanov actually
wrote.
One
should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232
or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that
can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such
products as fertilizers and pesticides.
Vil
S. Mirzayanov, “Dismantling the Soviet/Russian Chemical Weapons
Complex: An Insider’s View,” in Amy E. Smithson, Dr. Vil S.
Mirzayanov, Gen Roland Lajoie, and Michael Krepon, Chemical Weapons
Disarmament in Russia: Problems and Prospects, Stimson Report No. 17,
October 1995, p. 21.
It
is a scientific impossibility for Porton Down to have been able to
test for Russian novichoks if they have never possessed a Russian
sample to compare them to. They can analyse a sample as conforming to
a Mirzayanov formula, but as he published those to the world twenty
years ago, that is no proof of Russian Nukus origin. If Porton Down can
synthesise it, so can many others, not just the Russians.
And
finally – Mirzayanov is an Uzbek name and the novichok programme,
assuming it existed, was in the Soviet Union but far away from modern
Russia, at Nukus in modern Uzbekistan. I have visited the Nukus
chemical weapons site myself. It was dismantled and made safe and all
the stocks destroyed and the equipment removed by the American
government, as I recall finishing while I was Ambassador there. There
has in fact never been any evidence that any “novichok” ever
existed in Russia itself.
To
summarise:
1)
Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any
Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no
“fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely
attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton
Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the
Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks”
even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the
OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to
be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The
Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly
developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make
them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in
Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans
during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.
With
a great many thanks to sources who cannot be named at this moment.
Of
A Type Developed By Liars
By
Craig Murray
March
16, 2018 “Information
Clearing House” –I
have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that
Porton Down
scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian
manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on
them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of
a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where
this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were
allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation
of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available
precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a
“novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing
on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one
was made in China.
To
anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several
days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in
Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation
“of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in
parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris
Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type
developed by Russia” is the
precise phrase used
in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and
Germany yesterday:
This
use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia,
constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since
the Second World War.
When
the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know
it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise. My FCO
source, like me, remembers the extreme pressure put on FCO staff and
other civil servants to sign off the dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD, some
of which pressure I recount in my memoir Murder in Samarkand. She
volunteered the comparison to what is happening now, particularly at
Porton Down, with no prompting from me.
Separately
I have written to the media office at OPCW to ask them to confirm
that there has never been any physical evidence of the existence of
Russian Novichoks, and the programme of inspection and destruction of
Russian chemical weapons was completed last year.
Did
you know these interesting facts?
OPCW
inspectors have had full access to all known Russian chemical weapons
facilities for over a decade – including those identified by the
“Novichok” alleged whistleblower Mirzayanov – and last year
OPCW inspectors completed the destruction of the last of 40,000
tonnes of Russian chemical weapons.
By
contrast the programme of destruction of US chemical weapons stocks
still has five years to run.
Israel
has extensive stocks of
chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the
OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention
nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify
as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical
weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any
state to synthesise “Novichoks”.
Until
this week, the near universal belief among chemical weapons experts,
and the official
position of
the OPCW, was that “Novichoks” were at most a theoretical
research programme which the Russians had never succeeded in actually
synthesising and manufacturing. That is why they are not on the OPCW
list of banned chemical weapons.
Porton
Down is still not certain it is the Russians who have apparently
synthesised a “Novichok”. Hence “Of a type developed by
Russia”. Note
developed, not made, produced or manufactured.
It
is very carefully worded propaganda. Of a type developed by liars.
UPDATE
This
post prompted another old colleague to get in touch. On the bright
side, the FCO have persuaded Boris he has to let the OPCW investigate
a sample. But not just yet. The expectation is the inquiry committee
will be chaired by a Chinese delegate. The Boris plan is to get the
OPCW also to sign up to the “as developed by Russia” formula, and
diplomacy to this end is being undertaken in Beijing right now.
I
don’t suppose there is any sign of the BBC doing any actual
journalism on this?
Craig
Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was
British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and
Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to
2010. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk
De
Britse vertegenwoordiging bij de VN heeft een enorme bok geschoten
met een Twitterbericht waarin wordt gewezen op het belang van een
vrije en onafhankelijke nieuwsgaring……
Daar
is in Groot-Brittannië al lang geen sprake meer van, zo volgt de
BBC, NB een onafhankelijke zendgemachtigde, braaf het Britse
buitenlandbeleid en brengt voor het overgrote deel berichten die
‘geheel toevallig’ dit beleid steunen en verdedigen…….. De BBC is
dan ook niet vrij, dit daar deze zendgemachtigde afhankelijk
is van de subsidie verstrekker….. de Britse overheid!
Niet
vreemd dus dat Assange volkomen terecht opmerkt dat de Britse
regering vooral wil voorkomen dat de vrije en onafhankelijke
nieuwsgaring op de sociale media de waarheid vertellen. Overigens is dit in de hele westerse wereld aan
de hand, vandaar ook de hysterische pleidooien en berichtgeving
tegen ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws), daar juist op de sociale media echt onafhankelijke
en vrije nieuwsgaring is te vinden, berichtgeving die lijnrecht
ingaat tegen de leugens die westerse reguliere (massa-) media en het
grootste deel van de westerse politici ons dag in dag uit
voorkauwen….
Uiteraard
is Wikileaks de grote doorn in de handen van de voornoemde media en
politici, daar op die website een enorm aantal leugens worden
doorgeprikt, leugens die ons eerder keer op keer werden
voorgeschoteld als de enige waarheid (en dat op een manier die je hersenspoeling zou kunnen noemen…)……..
Assange
Lashes Out: “Hypocritical Motherf*ckers… Remember How I
Exposed Your Secret Deal With The Saudis”
Wikileaks
founder Julian Assange lashed out at the UK government over Twitter
on Friday after Britain’s official UN account (UK Mission to the
United Nations) tweeted “A free and independent media fulfils a
vital role in holding the powerful to account and giving a voice to
the powerless,” with a link to a puff
piecewaxing
eloquent over the UK’s commitment to free speech.
Assange
– apparently not included in the UK’s definition of “free and
independent media” (facing arrest and detention should
he leave the Embassy), fired off a stunning reply – claiming
that the UK’s has spent roughly twice as much spying on him as it has
on their entire international human rights program.
And
that is exactly why you have detained me without charge for eight
years in violation of two UN rulings and spent over 20 million pounds
spying on me you hypocritical mother fuckers. Your entire
international human rights programme is £10.6m you pathetic frauds.”
And that is exactly why you have detained me without charge for eight years in violation of two UN rulings and spent over 20 million pounds spying on me you hypocritical mother fuckers. Your entire international human rights programme is £10.6m you pathetic frauds. https://twitter.com/UKMissionGeneva/status/972057244593479680 …
Assange
then followed up with “Remember
how I exposed your secret deal to put Saudi Arabia on the Human
Rights Council?”referring
to a 2015 vote-trading deal in which the UK approached Saudi
Arabia in secret, promising it a seat on the UN Human Rights Council
in exchange for council support.
Assange,
46, remains confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London
following a failed
appeal of
his arrest warrant for skipping bail to enter the embassy in 2012 to
avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault (which
Sweden has dropped).
The
UN, meanwhile, has twice ruled that Assange’s detention is unlawful.
Despite this, the judge in his most recent appeal – Emma
Arbuthnot, who said “I find arrest is a proportionate response
even though Mr Assange has restricted his own freedom for a number of
years.”
Judge Arbuthnot’s
impartiality in the Assange matter has been called into
question, while her husband and ex-Conservative MP, Baron
James Arbuthnot,
is listed as the director of a security company along with the
former head of MI6. Not exactly friends of WikiLeaks.
Moreover,
a February report from the Guardian reveals
that Sweden wanted to drop their case against Assange as early
as 2013, but
was pressured by the UK to maintain it.
The
newly-released emails show that the Swedish authorities were eager to
give up the case four years before they formally abandoned
proceedings in 2017 and that the CPS dissuaded them from doing so.
The
CPS lawyer handling the case, who has since retired, commented on an
article which suggested that Sweden could drop the case in August
2012. He wrote: “Don’t
you dare get cold feet!!!”.
–The
Guardian
Assange
Drops Bombs
In
yet another angry tweet by the WikiLeaks founder, Assange replied to
a two-week old comment by former Eric Holder – blaming the
former Attorney General for putting him in the position to release
emails from the DNC, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta during the 2016
US election.
Ostensibly
getting ahead of the upcoming midterm elections in November, Holder
tweeted “Russian threat to our upcoming elections: do
something!” Holder then called for sanctions, ending the tweet
with “We
were attacked!”
Russian threat to our upcoming elections: do something! Do anything. Impose sanctions overwhelmingly approved by even this dysfunctional congress. Are you simply unfit, without the necessary nerve or do they have something on you? We were attacked!
Assange
replied: “Attacked? By what? The truth? It’s entirely your
own fault, Eric. Thanks
to your unconstitutional grand jury against @WikiLeaks you left me
with nothing to do but work 24/7, in harsh conditions, for
years–and I’m good, very good, at my job.”
It’s entirely your own fault, Eric. Thanks to your unconstitutional grand jury against @WikiLeaks you left me with nothing to do but work 24/7, in harsh conditions, for years–and I’m good, very good, at my job.
Holder,
who was President Obama’s Attorney General, attempted to prosecute
WikiLeaks and Assange personally over the publication of military
documents and US diplomatic cables regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Russia-theorists”
– particularly neoconservatives and hawkish Democrats, have
maintained that WikiLeaks is a “cutout” for Russian to
engage in information warfare, and blame Moscow for the theft
and publication of the leaked emails.
Assange
added to his response to Holder, tweeting “Next time, not that
there will be one, try following the constitution you swore to
uphold,” with a link to a 2014 article calling for Holder to
drop the investigation against WikiLeaks or resign.
In
de jaarlijkse toespraak in het Russische parlement over de staat van
het land, noemde Putin o.a. een nieuw ontwikkelde kernraket, die niet
tegen kan worden gehouden door anti-raket systemen. Hij had dit nog
niet gezegd of de de hypocriete politiek in het westen stond op de
kop, de NAVO en de leden van de lidstaten kwamen met een storm van
protest en noemden zijn verklaring onacceptabel………
Macron,
de Franse president, Merkel, de Duitse premier en VS president Trump,
lieten weten daar zeer bezorgd over te zijn en vragen zich af wat de rede van Putin betekent
voor de wapenbeheersing…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Waar haalt dit geteisem
het lef vandaan om nog over wapenbeheersing te durven spreken? Nog in 2016 durfden de VS en Groot-Brittannië te
stellen dat ze het bij een eerste aanval (een aanzet tot oorlog tegen een ander land, Ap) in het
vervolg mogelijk achten, meteen kernwapens in te zetten….. Daarnaast was
de VS al onder Obama bezig met de vernieuwing van de kernwapens en de
ontwikkeling van nieuwe kernwapens……. In Groot-Brittannie is de regering May bezig met de modernisering van de kernwapens……
Daarnaast
heeft de NAVO zich uitgebreid tot voor de westgrens van Rusland, dit
volkomen in tegenspraak met akkoorden die de voormalige Sovjet president Gorbatsjov maakte met het westen….. Zo ging Rusland
bijvoorbeeld akkoord met de eenwording van Duitsland, als de NAVO
zich niet uit zou breiden richting Moskou……..
Het
meest hypocriet van al is wel dat Trump in zijn ‘State of the Union’
bekend maakte dat de VS het beste en grootste kernwapenarsenaal aan
het ontwikkelen is, waarbij de VS zelfs een aanval met kernwapens als reactie op een cyberaanval niet uitsluit……. Waar waren de
westerse politici en de reguliere westerse (massa-) media met hun
verontrustte kritiek op de woorden van Trump..??!!!
NATO
Leaders Fault Putin for ‘Unacceptable’ Nuclear Weapons Statement
Trump,
others claim ‘serious concerns’ about Putin’s comments
Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s state of the nation address on Thursday
came with a surprising amount of rhetoric about the development of
the Russian Federation’s nuclear arsenal, and their ability to
evade US missile defense systems.
This
has resulted in a flurry of statements Friday from NATO and its
member nations saying Putin’s statement was “unacceptable,”
and that it was counterproductive to efforts to shore up arms control
agreements.
President
Trump, along with French President Emmanuel Macron and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel all spoke Friday about the
matter, expressing “serious
concerns”
about what Putin had said, and its impact on arms control.
Yet
all these attempts by the West
to position themselves as favoring arms control, and
Putin undermining it are a dramatic revision of the past several
years, which have seen the US repeatedly threatening to withdraw from
such deals on the basis of perceived Russian violations.
Indeed,
the Putin statement came just on the heels of President Trump’s own
public statements vowing to dramatically grow the US nuclear arsenal
in the name of having a superior arsenal to the Russians, with talk
of efforts at lower yield, more usable nuclear arms, and bringing US
nukes to bare in retaliation for things like cyber-attacks.
