Nukus – De Azijnpisser

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

=====