VS plant een bombardement op een Iraanse kerncentrale, verkennende VS drone neergeschoten

Volgens
een onderdeel van The Jerusalem Post, is de VS van plan om een grote
aanval uit te voeren op een ‘aan het kernwapenprogramma gerelateerde
installatie’, ofwel een levensgevaarlijk bombardement op een
kerncentrale……

E.e.a.
zou ook nog eens op te maken zijn uit de zending van nog eens 1.000 VS militairen naar het gebied…. Trump zelf zou geen voorstander zijn, maar zou nu geneigd
zijn om oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo zijn zin te geven en een aanval uit
te voeren op Iran…… De reden daarvoor is de false flag operatie
die de VS hoogstwaarschijnlijk zelf uitvoerde, of heeft laten uitvoeren in de Straat van Hormuz, een operatie waar het in dit geval Iran de
schuld van geeft….

Caitlin
Johnstone, de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel haalt
o.a. Moon of Alabama en de oud-GB-ambassadeur voor Syrië, Peter Ford
aan, die wel geloven dat Iran de aanval heeft uitgevoerd, als was het
alleen al uit frustratie over de teloorgang van de Iran nucleaire
deal (P5+1 nucleaire deal), waarvoor de VS volledig verantwoordelijk is en
die zelfs een aantal partners van de VS te ver vinden gaan, daar voor
de beweringen van de VS, als zou Iran nog steeds werken aan een
kernwapen, geen enkel steekhoudend bewijs wordt gegeven…….. De sancties van de VS zorgen intussen voor veel ellende in Iran……*

Iran stelde eerder dat wanneer haar olie-export zal worden geblokkeerd, het zelf maatregelen zal nemen die alle uitvoer van olie uit het gebied zal tegengaan, een tweede reden voor o.a. Peter Ford om te denken dat Iran inderdaad de aanval heeft uitgevoerd. 

Johnstone
stelt dan ook dat het in feite niet uitmaakt of Iran de olietankers
nu wel of niet heeft aangevallen, de uiteindelijke schuld ligt bij de
VS dat Iran tot het uiterste heeft gedreven (en waar VS en Israëlische oorlogshitsers
al jaren aandringen op het aanvallen van Iran…….)

Vanmorgen
werd bekend gemaakt dat Iran een drone van de VS heeft neergehaald,
volgens de VS in internationaal luchtruim, echter volgens Iran
gebeurde dit boven het grondgebied van Iran…… BNR’s levende
rollade Hammelburg stelde vanmorgen op die zender dat het goed
mogelijk is dat Iran de drone in internationaal luchtruim heeft
neergehaald, ofwel hij vindt de VS versie uiterst geloofwaardig, ‘logisch’, immers de VS ‘houdt zich altijd aan internationale regels en
liegt nooit als het gaat om oorlog en vrede’ (het tegenovergestelde is het geval zoals je al begrepen had….). En dan durft Hammelburg keihard te zeggen
dat hij objectief en onafhankelijk is…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha!

Tussen
neus en lippen door liet Hammelburg weten dat hij de VS gelooft wat
betreft de olietankers die werden aangevallen, daar hij stelde niet
te begrijpen waarom Saoedi-Arabië niet heeft teruggeschoten……..
Wel Hammelburg wat zou je denken van de mogelijkheid dat de
reli-fascistische terreurstaat Saoedi-Arabië weet dat Iran er niet
achter zat en dat dit wel eens snel aan het licht kan komen,
sufferd!

Je moet
wel een imbeciel zijn om niet te zien dat de VS bezig is met het
uitlokken van de zoveelste illegale oorlog, te beginnen door de VS en
dat tegen Iran…… Gelukkig is de VS door diverse van haar hoge
oud-militairen gewaarschuwd geen oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen, daar
de uitkomst gegarandeerd heel anders zal uitpakken dan in Irak, waar
de oorlog in feite nog steeds niet is afgelopen en die intussen aan
meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen het leven heeft gekost……

Wat
betreft de VS drone nog het volgende: goed mogelijk dat deze de boel
aan het verkennen was voor een VS bombardement op een Iraanse
kerncentrale……

Report:
US Planning “Massive” Airstrike on an Iranian Facility

June
18, 2019 at 9:45 am

Written
by 
Caitlin
Johnstone

(CJ Opinion) — According
to 
a
new article
 from
English-language Israeli publication 
The
Jerusalem Post
,
the Hebrew-language Israeli publication 
Maariv has
reported that diplomatic sources in the UN are assessing a US plan to
conduct a “massive” airstrike on “an Iranian facility linked to
its nuclear program” in response to alleged attacks on two sea
vessels in the Gulf of Oman.

The
sources added that President Trump himself was not enthusiastic about
a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and
would grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for
action, what he wants,” 
The
Jerusalem Post
 reports.

This
news comes after 
public
statements by Pompeo
 that
the US is considering a “full range of options” against Iran. It
also comes as 1,000 additional US troops are 
being
sent to the Middle East
 to
“address air, naval, and ground-based threats” there. It also
comes amid 
sightings
of depraved war criminal Henry Kissinger
 at
the Pentagon.

So
that’s great.

Arash Karami

@thekarami

in response to unproven claim that Iran attacked a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf the US is going to bomb an Iranian nuclear facility. https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran-News/UN-officials-US-is-planning-a-tactical-assault-in-Iran-592832 


982

7:56 PM – Jun 17, 2019

U.N. officials: U.S. planning a ‘tactical assault’ in Iran

The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

jpost.com

Ryan Browne

@rabrowne75

Spotted today at the Pentagon: former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger


152

11:43 PM – Jun 17, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Many
comparisons are being made today between the unforgivable Iraq
invasion and the agendas that this administration is attempting to
advance in Iran, and rightly so. But make no mistake, Iran is not
Iraq. A full-scale war against Iran would be many times more deadly,
costly and destabilizing than Iraq; the UK’s Admiral Lord
West 
told The
Daily Star Online
 last
month that winning such a war would require no less than a million
troops. And it’s not difficult to imagine how the Trump
administration’s brinkmanship could lead to all-out war.

If
the US does decide to attack Iran over the 
highly
suspicious Gulf of Oman allegations
,
for example, it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario in which Iran
defends itself or retaliates and kills US servicemen. Once you’ve
got the names and faces of US military personnel blaring on news
screens all across America, you’ll see the war hawks converge and
demand far more aggressive retaliations against Iran, and if the
pressure works we could easily see an all-out war between the two
nations. It just takes the right spark to land in the right place at
the right time for the whole thing to go up in flames, and there are
a lot of people trying to create sparks.

It
would not be difficult for Trump to find himself in such a situation.

This
is actually a line that both the Saudis and the Israelis have been
making to Washington for quite some time,” Iranian foreign policy
analyst Trita Parsi 
told
CNN International
 in
response to the question of whether Iran would just allow an attack
without retaliation. “This is essentially saying that Iran is no
different from Syria. You can strike yet they won’t have the guts
to respond. We actually know that that’s not true because just two
weeks ago when there was a ratcheting up with tensions the US
intelligence itself picked up that as US warships were heading
towards the middle east, the Iranians started putting some of their
missiles on boats and started moving them around, appearing as if
they were either wanting to protect those missiles or preparing for
counter strikes.”

So
the idea that this will just be a limited strike and the Iranians
won’t respond seems extremely unlikely, but this is how you sell a
big war: you pretend that you are selling a small war,” Parsi
continued. “Because that’s much more digestible. That’s
something perhaps that Trump could agree to. If you actually try to
say ‘Look, let’s have a big war,’ not only would the American
public be strongly against it, I personally think that Donald Trump
himself would not be in favor of it.”

(voor de video van 1.39 min. in onderstaand Twitterbericht zie het origineel)

Embedded video

Trita Parsi

@tparsi

My interview on @cnni regarding Trump’s escalation with Iran and the idea that you can have a small, limited war with Iran.

“But this is how you sell a big war. You pretend you’re selling a small war because that is much more digestible.”


314

7:37 AM – Jun 18, 2019

As
proof of its Gulf of Oman claims against Iran, the US has circulated
grainy,
Loch Ness Monster-quality video
 which
shows nothing whatsoever and which 
one
analyst attests
 has
been edited in a misleading way, as well as 
a
few photographs
 which
prove absolutely nothing.

It
is worth noting, however, that some typically reliable
anti-imperialist voices have been saying it’s likely that Iran was
indeed behind the attacks, including 
Moon
of Alabama
Elijah
J. Magnier
,
and 
former
UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford
.
They argue that Iran has been backed into a corner with economic
sanctions, so now it’s fighting dirty to force the Trump
administration to either end the sanctions in order to come to the
negotiating table or enter into a costly, unpopular war right before
election time. Magnier claims to have sources in Tehran who confirm
this, saying that we can expect more such incidents in the future.

I’m
not taking a position either way, but I do think it would be a
mistake to make the possibility of a false flag into the entire
argument against attacking Iran for the Gulf of Oman incident. If
Iran did indeed attack a Japanese and Norwegian vessel to obstruct
trade in accordance with 
Tehran’s
pledge

that “if Iran cannot export oil through the Persian Gulf, no-one
will do this,” it’s important to recognize that Iran would only
be doing this in response to extremely aggressive economic warfare by
the United States. As 
we
discussed recently
,
sanctions are an act of war, and if Iran is behind this and any other
attacks, the US will have been the aggressor.

In
any case, things could get very, very ugly, very, very fast, and if
it does it will be entirely the Trump administration’s fault.

(voor de video van 1.37 min. in onderstaand Twitterbericht zie het origineel)

Embedded video

Tulsi Gabbard

@TulsiGabbard

Here we go again! The US sending more troops to Middle East for what will be disastrous war with Iran. To prevent Trump and future presidents from waging war illegally (without Congress approval) we must sign my No More Presidential Wars Act. Join me: http://tulsi.to/iran10 


5,396

3:08 PM – Jun 18, 2019

Our
one saving grace through all this has been Trump’s incompetence in
manufacturing any kind of coalition or broad support for increased
aggressions against Iran. 
EU
foreign ministers
 have
joined 
Japan and Germany in
demanding further proof of Washington’s Gulf of Oman claims, and
China is now denouncing US pressure on Iran and cautioning against
opening
Pandora’s box

in the Middle East with further escalations. At home, the
political/media class has been far less eager to help manufacture
consent for war in this case than it generally is, with 
even
virulent neocon Max Boot

advocating for diplomacy and a return to the Iran deal, and
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard 
actively
plugging
 her
No More Presidential Wars Act in response to the administration’s
Iran brinkmanship.

I
don’t know exactly what’s going on with Washington’s plans for
Iran, but what I do know that 
30
million people
 marched
worldwide against the war in Iraq and it didn’t make a whit of
difference. The same dangerously evil people who bullied, lied and
cheated their way into getting their war with Iraq are pretty much
the same bunch of assholes who are attempting to do the same with
Iran today. Not only did none of them go to jail for that diabolical
crime against humanity, most of them are still in positions of
influence, and most of them are using that influence to push the
world 
again into
another war that nobody wants. How long do we put up with this crap?

Do
you want to know the truth about what’s going on with Iran? The
real truth? The real truth is that there’s an ever-growing,
globe-spanning, oligarch-run power alliance with the United States at
its center, an alliance which functions as a single empire and works
relentlessly to bully other nations into either joining it or
collapsing. Iran is by far the strongest nation in the region that
has refused to allow itself to be absorbed into the blob, so its
government has found itself in the imperial crosshairs  being
commanded to either submit or be toppled. That’s all that’s going
on here. Everything else is camera-friendly window dressing.

Opinion
by 
Caitlin
Johnstone
 /
Republished with permission / 
CaitlinJohnstone.com / Report
a typo

===========================================

* Zie: ‘VS verwijt Iran nucleaire chantage, chantage waar de VS zichzelf schuldig aan maakt

Zie ook:

Bernard Hammelburg rijp voor oorlogshitsclub Atlantic Council: Al Qaida opereert vanuit Iran

Spanningen met Iran: VS geschiedenis van false flag operaties en andere manipulaties die tot oorlog hebben geleid

VS plant een bombardement op een Iraanse kerncentrale, verkennende VS drone neergeschoten‘ (zie ook de links in dat bericht)

VS heeft stok ‘gevonden’ om oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen: Iran zou tankers hebben aangevallen

Twee olietankers aangevallen in Golf van Oman: VS oorlogsbodem in de buurt

VS stuurt 500 militairen naar Saoedi-Arabië als inzet tegen ‘Iraanse agressie’

Israël maakt zich op voor oorlog tegen Iran

Groot-Brittannië saboteert de Iran deal en de belofte van de EU de VS sancties te compenseren: Iraanse olietanker werd op verzoek VS overvallen

De VS en niet Iran is een schurkenstaat

VS chanteert de wereld: geen olie import uit Iran, anders……..



Pompeo (VS minister BuZa): Iran is de grootste sponsor van terrorisme….. Goh, nooit geweten dat Iran subsidie geeft aan het Pentagon

Kapitein Japans schip spreekt Trump administratie tegen over Iraanse kleefbom op zijn tanker



VS heeft stok ‘gevonden’ om oorlog tegen Iran te beginnen: Iran zou tankers hebben aangevallen



Twee olietankers aangevallen in Golf van Oman: VS oorlogsbodem in de buurt

US Continues to Escalate Tensions, Raising Fear of Imminent War With Iran

US Might Send 10,000 More Troops to Middle East

VS dreigt Iran met militair geweld op beschuldiging van terreur die de VS zelf op grote schaal uitoefent

Yemen Be Damned, Pompeo Doubles Down on US Support for Saudi Arabia

Het verborgen motief achter de Israëlische agressie tegen Iran en Syrië

Iraanse protesten allesbehalve compleet spontaan (zoals VS ambassadeur bij de VN Haley durfde te stellen…)….

Protesten Iran opgezet door de VS en Israël

Iran, de protesten en wat de media je niet vertellen………

De VS gaf meer dan 1 miljoen dollar uit om protesten tegen Iraans bewind uit te buiten (en te organiseren)

Lt. General McInerney says Obama helped build ISIS with Weapons from Benghazi

Rex Tillerson (VS BuZA) geeft toe dat de VS een staatsgreep wil uitvoeren in Iran…….. Het is nog ‘iets te rustig’ in dat gebied……..

VS liegt schaamteloos om het westen verder op te zetten tegen Iran……..

VS bewandelt dezelfde weg richting Iran, als die voor de illegale oorlog tegen Irak in 2003, aldus één van de verantwoordelijken voor die oorlog……..

Netanyahu vergelijkt Iran met nazi-Duitsland en stelt dat Iran een bedreiging is voor de wereldvrede….. ha! ha! ha! ha!

Washington uit op oorlog met Iran……

Oliemaatschappijen weigeren n.a.v. VS sancties de jet van Iraanse minister af te tanken

Israël bezig met voorbereiding op meerdere fronten oorlog…….. (met hulp van de VS

John Bolton heeft beloofd dat Iran voor 2019 onder een ander regime zal leven…….

Saoedi-Arabië dreigt Iran aan te vallen voor vanuit Jemen afgevuurde ‘raketten’ op Saoedische ‘doelen……….’

VS rechter gelast Iran miljarden te betalen aan de families van 911 slachtoffers…..‘ (terwijl 9/11 niet werd uitgevoerd noch werd geregisseerd door Iran)

Iran moet hangen en Iran-deal moet van tafel……. Israël speelt wolf in schaapskleren

VS ambtenaren: Israël zoekt steun VS voor oorlog tegen Iran…….

VS, de werelddictator: Iran-deal is van nul en generlei waarde (op basis van leugens en achterklap)…….

Iran houdt zich aan de nucleaire deal dit in tegenstelling tot de VS……..

Israël laat er geen twijfel over bestaan: met het uit de Iran-deal stappen van de VS is definitief de oorlog verklaard aan Iran………

Machthebbers en elite misbruiken media en fake news voor uitbreiding en bestendiging van macht…….

Oké
mensen, niets nieuws, maar gezien het continu volhouden van leugens
in de reguliere westerse media (en door het grootste deel van de
politici), kan de waarheid niet vaak genoeg herhaald worden (als was het tegengif), inclusief het noemen van de bewijzen dat het om
leugens gaat. Dat geldt bijvoorbeeld voor alle leugens over ‘fake
news’ (nepnieuws), maar ook die over de illegale oorlogen van de VS
tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië, Syrië, Iran en Venezuela (de laatste
2 een economische oorlog die deze landen op de knieën moeten krijgen voor
de VS…..)…….

Overigens zijn de reguliere westerse (massa-) media in handen van super welgestelden (plutocraten) en investeringsmaatschappijen, die daarmee die media al sturen, ofwel winst über alles! Die winst gaat op zeker ver voor de waarheid, waarbij het inhumane neoliberalisme (‘fascisme light’) ten koste van alles moet worden beschermd en gepropageerd……. Over manipulaties gesproken……

Kit
Klarenberg is de schrijver van het hieronder opgenomen artikel,
eerder geplaatst op Sputnik, daarin beschrijft zij het boek van T.J. Coles met de
volgende titel: ‘Real Fake News: Techniques of Propaganda
and Deception-based Mind Control’.

Coles
gaat ook in op de geschiedenis van fake news, maar dan wel het ‘fake
news’ dat machthebbers gebruiken om hun positie veilig te
stellen…… Het eerst bekende gebruik van fake news was dat door de
Babylonische heersers, die daarmee hun goddelijke aanwijzing
probeerden te bewijzen (en dat lukte destijds wonderwel goed, later
nam het christelijk geloof het over om de koning en koningin als door god gegeven functies neer te zetten, deze achterlijke gedachtekronkel werd ook in de bijbel opgenomen). Terwijl de adel aanvankelijk bestond uit de sterkste en
wreedste boeren die de boel met veel geweld onder hun duim wisten te houden en het volk uitbuitten tot het erbij neerviel…….. 

Trouwens
over religies of geloven gesproken: als er één groot fake gebeuren
is zijn het de religies wel, al gaat het dan in het westen wel over ‘lang’ vervlogen tijden, tegenwoordig gebruikt men zoals gezegd de media (en de
politiek) als vehikel om ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws) te brengen……. De voorbeelden
van het verkondigen van fake news zijn overweldigend zie wat dat
betreft niet alleen het bericht hierna, maar ook de links die na dat
artikel zijn opgenomen.

HOW
ELITES USE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO ‘MAINTAIN AND EXPAND THEIR POWER’

Tags:
NOVEMBER
18, 2018
 FRIENDS
OF GREED 3
ELITISMFAKE
NEWS
MEDIAPOLITICSPROPAGANDA,SPUTNIK

Fake News

(Sputnik)
– 
For
quite some time, debate about ‘fake news’ has reverberated
clamorously in both mainstream and alternative discourse. One could
easily conclude the issue was a pressingly new plague, restricted to
certain corners of the web – but academic TJ Coles begs to differ.
In fact, he tells Sputnik fake news has been ubiquitous for thousands
of years.

It’s
difficult to pinpoint the precise moment the term ‘fake news’
entered the Western political and media lexicon, but the
election of Donald Trump as US President certainly
turbocharged its usage. For the controversial leader and his
supporters, the label can be automatically applied to any and
all media reporting critical of him, while his opponents play
much the same game when roles are reversed.

This
tit-for-tat sparring inspired TJ, director of the Institute
for Peace Research, to write a book on the subject —
the fruit of his labours, 
Real
Fake News: Techniques of Propaganda and Deception-based Mind
Control
,
was published in September.

All
that talk made me think ‘hang on a minute, we’ve always had
fake news’. It’s the nature of power — all power
structures want to maintain and expand their power, so it’s
therefore important to present information that benefits them,
and keeps populations in a psychological and/or intellectual
prison. The ‘fake news’ peddled by elite financial,
commercial and political financial interests, duly regurgitated
by major media organizations, eclipses any bogus story
perpetuated by alleged ‘bots’ on Twitter, or whatever,”
TJ says.

BABYLONIAN
BEGINNINGS

In
his work, TJ traces the birth of fake news all the way back
to ancient Babylon, when rulers sought to perpetuate the
notion they were descended from Gods and thus had a right
to dominate and control the populace — history’s first
recorded instance of the ‘divine right of kings’.

Similarly,
Plato famously popularized the idea of the ‘noble lie’ —
privileging untruths told for the benefit of elites and the
population alike. These ideas very much endure in the modern
day — TJ notes Wikileaks’ dump of the Clinton
campaign’s internal emails amply demonstrates her team felt it
wouldn’t be good, or necessary, for Hillary’s supporters
to be aware of her close connections to Wall Street,
so did their utmost to conceal the mephitic kinship.

Elites
the world over are acutely aware information is power, and
actually quite open about their use and abuse of the news
to shape public perceptions and preserve sociopolitical
conditions benefitting them. For instance, the UK Ministry of Defence
regularly publishes projections of how planners think the world
will look in 10 — 20 years, and they routinely note the
media is one of the key ways to maintain the current
paradigm, and discuss the various ways information can be
‘weaponized’ against the public,” he says.

TJ
suggests elites shape and control the public mind so effectively
because they exploit fundamental facets of human nature. First,
the well-established instinctive inclination to reflexively
believe something reinforcing one’s existing beliefs, rather
than assessing whether alternative facts or viewpoints have any
value, or indeed considering whether what one believes might be
wrong, or informed by confirmation bias.

This
tendency is greatly exacerbated by the use of internet and
social media algorithms that present a ‘personalized’ picture
of the world to users, unfailingly presenting individuals
with content they want to see, and tacitly suppressing
information contrary to their existing opinions.

Elites
also know how easy it is to exploit guilt, which is why atrocity
propaganda is so widespread today. Most sympathize with the
victims of major atrocities, and naturally want to do
something to help, so this aspect of human nature can be
easily manipulated to justify aggressive foreign policy
actions — ‘look at what we’re letting happen to poor
defenceless people, we have a responsibility to protect them’
etcetera. It’s funny, when it comes to the economy, the
powerful are quick to say people are naturally selfish, so it’s
everyone for themselves, but when it comes to foreign
policy, we should care about our fellow human beings and do
something to help,” TJ says.

ABSENCE
IS EVIDENCE

As
the academic’s work makes clear, atrocity propaganda doesn’t even
need to have any grounding in reality whatsoever. In the
lead-up to the NATO-backed violent overthrow of Libyan
leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the mainstream media was awash
with reports government forces fuelled by viagra were
conducting mass rapes of civilians, and planning a borderline
genocidal massacre of rebel forces — claims used
to justify the imposition of a no-fly zone over the
country, and NATO airstrikes.

The
stories were subsequently found to be 
entirely
without foundation
 —
similarly, serious question marks hover over the veracity
of 
numerous
claimed
 chemical
weapons attacks in Syria, which likewise have provided a pretext
for Western attacks on the country.

It’s
especially easy to exploit guilt when you present bite-sized
news reports about an atrocious event stripped of all
context, and exclude the voices of people who are actually
on the ground. Occasionally, contradictory voices do filter
through the system, although largely by accident. For
instance, the BBC made the mistake of inviting Peter Ford,
former UK ambassador to Syria, on air to discuss
chemical weapons attacks — he quickly demolished their
propaganda. He hasn’t been invited back since,” TJ says.

Ford
is surely but one of a great many talking heads
to effectively be banned from appearing on the BBC
for daring to state views and evidence contrary
to ascendant elite narratives. However, the British state
broadcaster’s blacklisting activities also extend to its own
employees — 
in April
2018
,
the BBC admitted that for decades, job applicants and serving
staff were subject to political vetting by MI5, in an
effort to prevent “subversives” gaining employment with the
Corporation.

Often,
individuals were ostracized on extremely tenuous grounds. For
instance, respected film director John Goldschmidt was blacklisted
in the late 1960s, with two projects he was working on for
the Beeb cancelled midway through production without warning
or explanation — MI5 deemed him a potential subversive as he’d
spent a few weeks in Czechoslovakia in his youth, as part
of a student exchange program. Similarly, award-winning
journalist Isabel Hilton was refused a job by BBC Scotland
in 1976 — that she spoke Chinese and had been a member
of Scottish China Association at Edinburgh University made
MI5 extremely anxious.

Under
the policy, popular children’s book author and playwright Michael
Rosen was also outright sacked from the BBC in 1972 while a
graduate trainee for a number of ‘transgressions’, including
student activism at Oxford, and producing a film featuring clips
of US soldiers being tested with LSD. The American Embassy
in London complained about the project to both MI5 and
the BBC directly, whereupon Rosen was shown the door.

The
policy was wound down in the 1990s, and it’s unknown whether
any comparable structures existed at other major news
organizations — although 
City
University research
 suggests
dissenting voices remain rare in the British mainstream media.
The 2016 study concluded UK journalists are overwhelmingly white,
male, and elite-university educated — and are far more
trusting of politicians, the government, police and military
than the general population, which the study’s authors partly
attributed to reporters’ “reliance on these
institutions as sources of information”.

Such
widespread faith in the establishment may account for why
so many prominent reporters see no problem with maintaining
close relationships with the intelligence services. The
Guardian’s Luke Harding has frequently, openly and proudly
advertised his warm bond with British spying agencies
in articles and books — and equally frequently been
condemned for uncritically running stories of questionable
probity potentially provided to him by agency staff. 
In
a September article
 he
claimed Russian diplomats had held secret talks in London
with associates of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in an
attempt to assist in his escape from the UK. The
covert action would’ve allegedly seen Assange smuggled out of
the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge under cover
of Christmas Eve in a diplomatic vehicle and transported
to Moscow.

The
story was entirely based on the testimony of anonymous
sources, the identity of which Harding didn’t even hint at in
the piece. In response, Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador
to Uzbekistan, slammed the article, calling it a “quite
extraordinary set of deliberate lies” and “entirely black
propaganda” published by an “MI6 tool”.

I
was closely involved with Julian and with Fidel Narvaez
of the Ecuadorean Embassy at the end of last year
in discussing possible future destinations for Julian. It
is not only the case Russia did not figure in those plans, it is
a fact Julian directly ruled out the possibility as undesirable.
The entire story is a complete and utter fabrication. It is very
serious indeed when a newspaper like the Guardian prints a
tissue of deliberate lies in order to spread fake news
on behalf of the security services. I cannot find words
eloquent enough to express the depth of my contempt
for Harding and Katherine Viner, who have betrayed completely
the values of journalism,” Murray wrote.

Similarly,
in 2007 the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention
in Iran 
published
an analysis
 of
44 articles written by Daily Telegraph Defence Editor Con
Couglin on Iran — including stories suggesting North
Korea was helping Tehran prepare a nuclear weapons test, and the
country was grooming Bin Laden’s successor. They found the pieces
almost invariably were based on “unnamed or untraceable” sources
in intelligence agencies or the UK Foreign Office and “published
at sensitive and delicate times” when there’d been
“relatively positive diplomatic moves” towards Iran, and
contained ‘exclusive revelations’ about Iran combined
with eye-catchingly controversial headlines, which were
typically based on a single sentence in the wider article.

PRISON
BREAK

Despite
his bleak analysis, TJ does not view the elite monopoly
on information as insurmountable, or invincible —
there’s much individuals and groups can do to shatter the
stranglehold.

People
should keep a keen eye on sources that analyse news reporting
and misreporting, such as 
Glasgow
University Media Group
 and MediaLens,
which offer alternative information and tell you what media coverage
is actively omitting from the real story. However, change must
come from within too — people should divorce themselves
from preconceptions, and question their beliefs wherever and
whenever possible. When presented with information that doesn’t
conform to our predispositions, we should ask ourselves whether
it’s true, rather than reflexively dismissing it outright,”
TJ says.

While
having less trust in the media more generally is a must, the
academic also warns against placing too much faith
in alternative news outlets and social networks, despite them
being valuable resources with a significant positive potential.

Independent
media is growing in size and strength, but its overall
reach is still relatively tiny — while print circulation is
obviously down, people still get the vast bulk of their
information from mainstream outlets. Similarly, social media
could’ve democratized the spread of information, but it
hasn’t — and in fact any such potential has probably
been neutered by the proliferation of ‘fact-checking’
resources, which are anything but unbiased and disinterested
arbiters of truth,” TJ notes.

One-such
‘fact-checker’ is the Atlantic Council, a NATO-offshoot
with a 
board
of directors
 comprised
of a ‘who’s who’ of contentious US political figures,
including Henry Kissinger, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Robert
Gates, Michael Hayden and David Petraeus, among others.

It
partnered with Facebook in May to “independently monitor
disinformation and other vulnerabilities” and combat the spread
of fake news on the platform. 
To
date
,
the collaboration has resulted in untold hundreds of pages
and personal accounts being shut down — rather than being
promulgators of propaganda though, the overwhelming bulk of the
banished were alternative news sources, political organizations and
individuals, highlighting issues and events the mainstream media
downplays or ignores, such as US interventionism, drug
legalization and police brutality.

Moreover,
that elites exploit social media’s information-sharing capabilities
to suit their own objectives is well-established.

The
US State Department has used major social networks to recruit
revolutionaries on several occasions, most notably during the
‘Arab Spring’, connecting ‘moderate rebels’ — actually
violent jihadist lunatics — in select countries.
Washington wanted Assad, Gaddafi and Mubarak gone, because they
weren’t following orders — but there were no
Twitter or Facebook ‘revolutions’ in the Gulf states,
because the American empire wanted their rulers to remain
in place. In Cuba, the CIA even went as far as creating
a social network for the same purpose,” TJ concludes.

The
views and opinions expressed by the contributors do not
necessarily reflect those of Sputnik

This
report prepared by 
Kit
Klarenberg
 for Sputnik

=========================================

Zie ook:

New York Times: eerste Israëlische inval in Gazastrook sinds 2014 >> fake news!

Noord-Koreaans ‘bedrog met nucleaire deal’ is fake news o.a. gebracht door de New York Times

‘Fake News’ misbruikt door dictaturen en de reguliere (massa-) media

Twitter weert waarheid: Paul Craig Roberts in de ban, Roberts >> de grote criticus van de illegale oorlogen die de VS voert

Russiagate sprookje ondermijnt VS democratie en de midterm verkiezingen

Bolsonaro, de fascistische nieuwe president van Brazilië, werd volgens Avaaz en fake news brengers als de NYT gekozen door manipulatie via WhatsApp

Facebooks zuivering van de alternatieve (nieuws) media staat nog in de kinderschoenen

Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘ (Russiagate, de enorme leugen op basis waaraan we de huidige censuurgolf te danken hebben……)

The US military’s vision for state censorship

Israël en VS werken samen in tegenwerken van critici op beleid t.a.v. Palestijnen

Facebook censureert de waarheid over Columbus en de verovering van de Amerika’s…….

Facebook censuur gestuurd door het westers militair-industrieel complex en de NAVO in het bijzonder……….

Why the Coordinated Alternative Media Purge Should Terrify Everyone‘ (Tyler Durden op Zero Hedge)

First They Came for Alex Jones — We Told You We Were Next — We Were‘ (Matt Agorist op The Free Thought Project)

CNN, de grote brenger van ‘fake news!!!’

Facebook en Twitter verwijderen nu volledige accounts………

Facebook (en Twitter) onderdrukt meningsvorming door het verwijderen van (echt) onafhankelijke media

Wie het nieuws controleert, controleert de wereld……

Facebook en Twitter verwijderen de eerlijke journalistiek en oprechte opinie >> censuur…..

Facebook verlaat ‘tranding news’ voor ‘brekend nieuws’ van 80 reguliere mediaorganen, ofwel nog meer ‘fake news…..’

Facebook komt met nieuwsshows van betrouwbare media als CNN en Fox News…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Censuur op het internet met vliegende start in de VS, ‘het land van het vrije woord….’

Facebook en NAVO werken samen in censuur op niet welgevallig nieuws……

Facebook helpt Saoedi-Arabië: doodstraf door onthoofding van vrouw die het waagde kritiek te uiten…..

Aanval op alternatieve media ‘succesvol’: meer en meer sites worden van het net geweerd………

ThinkProgress eiste censuur van Facebook en werd inderdaad gecensureerd…. ha! ha! ha! ha!

VS staatscensuur op Facebook (ook in de EU)

Facebook stelt perstituee van New York Times aan als censuur-agent…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Het echte Facebook schandaal: manipulatie van de gebruikers en gratis diensten voor eertijds presidentskandidaat Obama…….

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook doneerde aan de politici die hem in de VS aan de tand voelden >> in het EU parlement maakte hij gebruik van megalomane EU politici…..

Facebook wil samen met door Saoedi-Arabië gesubsidieerde denktank censureren…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Media Too Busy Defending John McCain to Report the News That Actually Affects You‘ Onder andere aandacht voor PRISM.

Westerse massa misleiding in aanloop naar WOIII……

VS gebruikt sociale media om ‘fake comment’ te verspreiden en de bevolking te hersenspoelen met leugens, ofwel ‘fake news….’

Eis een nee tegen censuur op het internet!‘ 

Facebook e.a. hebben lak aan AVG (GDPR), misbruik persoonsgegevens gaat gewoon door…….

Jeremy Corbyn wordt gedemoniseerd als antisemiet…….

VS gebruikt sociale media om ‘fake comment’ te verspreiden en de bevolking te hersenspoelen met leugens, ofwel ‘fake news….’

Facebook: verrijking van oliemaatschappijen en andere grote bedrijven, plus wereldwijde corruptie…….

Rusland krijgt alweer de schuld van hacken, nu van oplichters Symantec en Facebook……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Facebook Purges Independent Media for “Political Disinformation”

Facebook Blocks Links to Free Speech Competitor ‘Minds’

Westerse media vallen critici van de White Helmets aan

Rick Sterling schreef een artikel op ‘Oriental Review‘ over de aanvallen van de reguliere (massa-) media op critici van de White Helmets, kritiek die de wel nadenkende alternatieve media ook in Nederland voor de kiezen kreeg…..

Sterling wijst op een artikel van Janine di Giovani op de NY Reviews of Books getiteld: ‘Why Assad and Russia Target the White Helmets’. Het artikel is een voorbeeld van hoe de westerse media propaganda maken voor de White Helmets en degenen aanvallen die de o.a. door die media geplugde mythe van de White Helmets bekritiseren………

Zo heeft di Giovanni een grote bek over de echte oorlogscorrespondent Vanessa Beeley, één van de weinigen die wel regelmatig in het strijdgebied van Syrië te vinden was en die uitentreuren heeft geschreven over wat er werkelijk gebeurde in Syrië en zich niet verliet op de rapporten van het Syrische Observatorium voor Mensenrechten (SOHR), geleid door een gewezen misdadiger die zijn terechte straf ontliep door te vluchten en te stellen dat hij een politieke vluchteling was. De informatie van het SOHR kwam en komt voor het overgrote deel van de ‘gematigde rebellen’, die o.a. door Nederland werden gesteund…..

‘Gematigde rebellen’ ofwel moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen, die bovendien met medeweten van de westerse landen in het bezit zijn van de gifgassen die door hen werden gebruikt om vervolgens de schuld in de schoenen van het reguliere Syrische leger werden geschoven……

Je snapt werkelijk niet waar di Giovanni het gore lef vandaan haalt om een uitstekend journalist als Beeley aan te vallen…… (hoewel, dat is onzin, immers di Giovanni huilt gewoon mee in het koor van de ‘massamedia-terreurwolven…’)

Een andere uitstekende journalist moet het ook al ontgelden bij di Giovanni, t.w.: Eva Bartlett, die zelf jaren in het Midden-Oosten heeft gewoond en goed is ingevoerd over de situatie in o.a. Syrië (en niet op grond van leugens die terreurgroepen verspreiden)…..

Niet één keer gaat di Giovanni in op artikelen die deze twee journalisten schreven, nee zonder enige steekhoudende kritiek op geschreven artikelen, stelt di Giovanni domweg dat de 2 desinformatie verspreiden, waar ze Beeley zelfs durft af te schilderen als ‘hogepriesters van Syrische propaganda’, ofwel di Giovani draait de zaak volkomen om, immer zij maakt met dergelijke uitlatingen propaganda voor terreurgroepen, die voor het overgrote deel bestaan uit ‘mannen’ die niet eens Syriërs zijn……

Lees het uitstekende artikel van Sterling en geeft het door!

CHAOSISTANHYBRID WARSINFORMATION WARFAREISRAELMIDDLE EASTPHENOMENON 
OF TERRORISMSYRIAUNITED KINGDOMUNITED STATES 

Western
Media Attacks Critics of the White Helmets

Written
by 
Rick
STERLING
 on 24/10/2018

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor Western Media Attacks Critics of the White Helmets

The
October 16 issue of NY Review of Books has an article by Janine di
Giovanni titled 
Why
Assad and Russia Target the White Helmets”
.
The article exemplifies how western media promotes the White Helmets
uncritically and attacks those who challenge the myth.

Crude
& Disingenuous Attack

Giovanni’s
article attacks several journalists by name. She singles out Vanessa
Beeley and echoes the Guardian’s characterization of Beeley as the
“high priestess of Syria propaganda”. She does this without
challenging a single article or claim by the journalist. She might
have acknowledged that Vanessa Beeley has some familiarity with the
Middle East; she is the daughter of one of the foremost British
Arabists and diplomats including British Ambassador to Egypt.
Giovanni might have explored Beeley’s 
research in
Syria that revealed the White Helmets founder (British military
contractor James Le Mesurier) assigned the name Syria Civil Defence
despite the fact there is a real Syrian organization by that name
that has existed since the 1950’s. For the past several years,
Beeley has done many on-the-ground reports and investigations in
Syria. None of these are challenged by Giovanni. Just days ago Beeley
published a 
report on
her visit to the White Helmets headquarters in Deraa.

white-helmet-infographic-2


Giovanni
similarly dismisses another alternative journalist, Eva Bartlett.
Again, Giovanni ignores the fact that Bartlett has substantial Middle
East experience including having lived in Gaza for years. Instead of
objectively evaluating the journalistic work of these independent
journalists, Giovanni smears their work as “disinformation”.
Presumably that is because their work is published at alternative
sites such as 21st Century Wire and Russian media such as RT and
Sputnik. Beeley and Bartlett surely would have been happy to have
their reports published at the New York Review of Books, Newsweek or
other mainstream outlets. But it’s evident that such reporting is
not welcome there. Even Seymour Hersh had to go abroad to have his
investigations on Syria published.

The
New McCarthyism

Max
Blumenthal is another journalist singled out by Giovanni. Blumenthal
is the author of three books, including a NY Times bestseller and the
highly acclaimed “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel”.
Giovanni describes his transition from “anti-Assad” to
“pro-Assad” and suggests his change of perspective was due to
Russian influence. She says, “Blumenthal went to Moscow on a junket
to celebrate RT’s tenth anniversary. We don’t know what happened
during that visit, but afterwards, Blumenthal’s views completely
flipped.” Instead of examining the facts presented by Blumenthal in
articles such as 
Inside
the Shadowy PR Firm that’s Lobyying for Regime Change in Syria”
,
Giovanni engages in fact-free McCarthyism. Blumenthal explained the
transition in his thinking in a public interview. He also described
the 
threats he
experienced when he started to criticize the White Helmets and their
public relations firm, but this is ignored by Giovanni.

Contrary
to Giovanni’s assumptions, some western journalists and activists
were exposing the White Helmets long before the story was publicized
on Russian media. In spring 2015 the basic facts about the White
Helmets including their origins, funding and role in the information
war on Syria were exposed in my article 
Seven
Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators”
.
The article showed how the White Helmets were a key component in a
campaign pushing for a “No Fly Zone” in Syria. It confirmed that
the White Helmets is a political lobby force.

In
spring 2016, Vanessa Beeley launched a petition 
Do
NOT give the Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets”
.
That petition garnered more support than a contrary petition urging
the Nobel Prize committee to give the award to the White Helmets.
Perhaps because of that, the petition was abruptly removed without
explanation from the Change.org website. It was only at this time,
with publicity around the heavily promoted nomination of the White
Helmets for a Nobel Peace Prize that RT and other Russian media
started to publicize and expose the White Helmets. That is one and a
half years after they were first exposed in western alternative
media.

White
Helmets and Chemical Weapons Accusations
 

Giovanni
ignores the investigations and conclusions of some of the most
esteemed American journalists regarding the White Helmets and
chemical weapons incidents in Syria.

The
late Robert Parry published many articles exposing the White Helmets,
for example 
The
White Helmets Controversy
 and Syria
War Propaganda at the Oscars
.
Parry wrote and published numerous investigations of the August 2013
chemical weapons attack and concluded the attacks were carried out by
an opposition faction with the goal of pressuring the US to intervene
militarily. Parry also challenged western conclusions regarding
incidents such as April 4, 2017 at Khan Shaykhun. Giovanni
breathlessly opens her article with this story while
Parry 
revealed the
impossibility of it being as described.

Buried
deep inside a new U.N. report is evidence that could exonerate the
Syrian government in the April 4 sarin atrocity and make President
Trump look like an Al-Qaeda dupe.”

Legendary
American journalist, Seymour Hersh, researched and refuted the
assumptions of Giovanni and the media establishment regarding the
August 2013 chemical weapons attacks near Damascus. Hersh’s
investigation, titled 
The
Red Line and Rat Line
,
provided evidence the atrocity was carried out by an armed opposition
group with active support from Turkey. A Turkish member of parliament
provided 
additional
evidence
.
The fact that Hersh had to go across the Atlantic to have his
investigation published suggests American not Russian disinformation
and censorship.

In
addition to ignoring the findings of widely esteemed journalists with
proven track records, Giovanni plays loose with the truth. In her
article she implies that a UN investigation blamed the Syrian
government for the August 2013 attack. On the contrary, the head of
the UN investigation team, Ake Sellstrom, 
said they
did not determine who was responsible. 
“We
do not have the evidence to say who did what ….The conflict in
Syria is surrounded by a lot of rumors and a lot of propaganda,
particularly when comes to the sensitive issue of chemical weapons.”

First
Responders or Western Funded Propagandists?

Giovanni
says, “But the White Helmets’ financial backing is not the real
reason why the pro-Assad camp is so bent on defaming them. Since
2015, the year the Russians began fighting in Syria, the White
Helmets have been filming attacks on opposition-held areas with GoPro
cameras affixed to their helmets.”

In
reality, the ‘White Helmets” have a sophisticated media
production and distribution operation. They have much more than GoPro
cameras. In many of their movie segments one can see numerous people
with video and still cameras. Sometimes the same incident will be
shown with one segment with an Al-Qaeda logo blending into the same
scene with a White Helmets logo.


US cut funding of WH


Giovanni
claims “The Assad regime and the Russians are trying to neutralize
the White Helmets because they   are potential witnesses to
war crimes.” However the claims of White Helmet “witnesses”
have little credibility. The White Helmet “volunteers” are paid
three times as much as Syrian soldiers. They are trained, supplied
and promoted by the same western states which have sought to regime
change in Syria since 2011. An example of misleading and false claims
by a White Helmets leader is exposed in Gareth Porter’s
investigation titled “
How
a Syrian White Helmets Leader Played Western Media”
 .
His conclusion could be directed to Giovanni and the NYReview of
Books:


The
uncritical reliance on claims by the White Helmets without any effort
to investigate their credibility is yet another telling example of
journalistic malpractice by media outlets with a long record of
skewing coverage of conflicts toward an interventionist narrative.”

When
the militants (mostly Nusra / Al-Qaeda) were expelled from East
Aleppo, civilians reported that the White Helmets were mostly
concerned with saving their own and performing publicity stunts. For
example the photo of the little boy in east Aleppo looking dazed and
confused in the back of a brand new White Helmet ambulance was
essentially a White Helmet media stunt eagerly promoted in the West.
It was later revealed the boy was not injured, he was grabbed without
his parent’s consent. Eva Bartlett interviewed and photographed the
father and family for her story 
Mintpress
Meets the Father of Iconic Aleppo Boy and says Media Lied About his
Son”
.

A
Brilliant Marketing Success

The
media and political impact of the White Helmets shows what money and
marketing can do. An organization that was founded by a military
contractor with funding from a western governments was awarded the
Rights Livelihood Award. The organization was seriously considered to
received the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize just three years after its
formation.

The
Netflix infomercial “The White Helmets” is an example of the
propaganda. The scripted propaganda piece, where the producers did
not set foot in Syria, won the Oscar award for best short
documentary. It’s clear that lots of money and professional
marketing can fool a lot of people. At $30 million per year, the
White Helmets budget for one year is more than a decade of funding
for the real Syrian Civil Defence which covers all of Syria not just
pockets controlled by armed insurgents.

Unsurprisingly,
it has been announced that White Helmets will receive the 2019 “Elie
Wiesel” award from the heavily politicized and pro-Israel Holocaust
Memorial Museum in Washington. This, plus the recent 
rescue” of
White Helmets by the Israeli government, is more proof of the true
colors of the White Helmets. Vanessa Beeley’s recent interview with
a White Helmet leader in Deraa revealed that ISIS and Nusra
terrorists were part of the group “rescued” through Israel.

The
Collapsing White Helmets Fraud

Giovanni
is outraged that some journalists have successfully challenged and
put a big dent in the White Helmets  aura. She complains, “The
damage the bloggers do is immense.”

Giovanni
and western propagandists are upset because the myth is deflating.
Increasing numbers of people – from a famous rock musician to a
former UK Ambassador – see and acknowledge the reality.

As
described in Blumenthal’s article, 
How
the White Helmets Tried to Recruit Roger Waters with Saudi Money”
,
rock legend Roger Waters says, 
“If
we were to listen to the propaganda of the White
Helmets and others, we would encourage our governments to start
dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake
of monumental proportions…”

Peter
Ford, the former UK Ambassador to Syria, 
sums
it up
 like
this: 
“The
White Helmets are jihadi auxiliaries… They are not, as claimed by
themselves and by their supporters… simple rescuers. They are not
volunteers. They are paid professionals of disinformation.”

Giovanni
claims her article is a “forensic take down of the Russian
disinformation campaign to distort the truth in Syria.” In reality,
Giovanni’s article is an example of western disinformation using
subjective attacks on critics and evidence-free assertions aligned
with the regime change goals of the West.

Reposts
are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Zie ook:

White Helmets: naast gebruik van terreur ook schuldig aan orgaanhandel, vernietigende VN video presentatie

Syria: The White Helmets Are Terrorist Auxiliaries

White Helmets is een terreurorganisatie, zie de bewijzen op Facebook: foto’s van de W.H. leden

White Helmets terreurgroep wordt vandaag met open armen ontvangen in Tweede Kamer…..

Nederland financiert terrorisme in Syrië……..

EXPOSED: Syria’s White Helmets are Al Qaeda’s ‘Civil Defence’

WHO ARE THE ‘WHITE HELMETS?’ DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN SYRIA?

 ‘SYRIA: The White Helmet Propaganda Heist – Vanessa Beeley Speaks to Rhymes Media Group

EXPOSED: The White Helmets – Al Qaeda with US funding

Westerse media vallen critici van de White Helmets aan

Gifgasaanval Idlib: de komende ‘kindslachtoffers’ worden getraind door terreurgroep White Helmets………

Voorbeeld BBC en AD propaganda inzake Idlib (Syrië)

Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) laat weten hoe White Helmets vips rekruteren met Saoedisch geld….

Gifgasaanval vooropgezet spel om VS actie te rechtvaardigen, waarbij GB de spelers opdracht gaf dit toneelspel snel uit te voeren…….. ‘False flag gelukt’: Syrië gebombardeerd zonder enig bewijs voor schuld…..

Van Helvert (CDA Tweede Kamer): wil dat er een tribunaal komt voor Syriëgangers, terwijl hij de terroristen in Ghouta wil beschermen…….

White Helmets nogmaals ontmaskert als terreurorganisatie: de oprichter is een Britse ex-huurling…….

White Helmets oorlogsporno geweerd van Oscarceremonie

White Helmets >> terreurorganisatie, opgezet door Brits ex-officier en o.a. betaald door Nederland………..

Voor meer berichten over/met de White Helmets, Vanessa Beeley of Eva Bartlett, klik op het betreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.

VS ziet nu zelfs een gefantaseerde ‘gifgasaanval van Assad’ in de toekomst, nadat het zelf witte fosfor inzette tegen de bevolking van Mosul en Raqqa……

Met de dag wordt het gekker, de berichten uit de VS en dan m.n. die uit Washington. Zo meldden Radio1 en BNR vanmorgen, dat de VS heeft gezien, dat Syrië bezig is met de voorbereiding van een gifgasaanval, te vergelijken met die op Khan Sheikhoun in april dit jaar……..

Die aanval met gifgas is niet door Syrië gedaan, dat is intussen overduidelijk, toevallig bracht Anti-Media daar gisteren weer een artikel over, een artikel dat u verderop terugvindt en dat uit en te na wijst op de belachelijkheid van de VS aanname dat Syrië dit zou hebben gedaan, er bestaat zelfs grote twijfel of er wel een gifgasaanval plaatsvond (zie het artikel….)…..

Wel is intussen duidelijk dat de VS (deels toegegeven door de VS) witte fosfor heeft gebruikt bij bombardementen van dichtbevolkt stedelijk gebied namelijk in Mosul en Raqqa, respectievelijk in Irak en Syrië…… Ongelofelijk trouwens, dat de reguliere ‘onafhankelijke’ mediaorganen hier amper of geen aandacht aan hebben besteed, terwijl ze op de kop stonden door de zogenaamde Syrische gifgasaanval op Khan Sheikhoun…..

De laatste leugen van de VS, dat Syrië bezig is een gifgasaanval voor te bereiden, is een teken dat de VS weer bezig is een enorme oorlogsmisdaad te begaan, tegen het reguliere Syrische leger en daarmee zal testen of Rusland nu wel in zal grijpen (iets dat de VS op de plek van Rusland al lang had gedaan…..)….

Hoe is het mogelijk dat het westen de VS laat begaan, zeker in de EU zou men keihard aan de VS bel moeten trekken, immers wij zijn het eerste doel van Rusland, als er een kernoorlog uitbreekt tussen de VS en Rusland. Logisch daar wij zo ongelofelijk dom zijn, dat we de VS hebben toegestaan hier kernraketten/bommen op te slaan en zelfs lanceerinstallaties hebben laten inrichten………. Uiteraard is de houding van de reguliere westerse (massa-) media helemaal een onbegrijpelijke, het lijkt godverdomme wel of men daar blij zal zijn, als er morgen een kernoorlog uitbreekt…….

Seymour
Hersh: US Lied About Syrian Chemical Attack Then Bombed Them Anyway

June
26, 2017 at 11:12 am

Written
by 
Darius
Shahtahmasebi

(ANTIMEDIA) — Never
one to accept the U.S. government’s
 official
explanation of events
 without
question, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has
investigated Donald Trump’s decision to strike the al-Shayat
Airbase in Syria in April of this year, which the president launched
amid widespread allegations that the Syrian government committed a
chemical weapons attack.

In
a report
 entitled “Trump’s
Red Line,” published Sunday in the daily German newspaper 
Die
Welt
,
Hersh asserts that President Donald Trump ignored important
intelligence reports when he made the decision to attack Syria after
pictures emerged of dying children in the war-torn country.

For
those of us without goldfish memories, Hersh’s recent investigation
is reminiscent of his previous examination of the alleged chemical
weapons attacks in 2013, detailed in an article entitled “Whose
Sarin?” That article was
 published in
the 
London
Review of Books
.

The
official White House explanation for the events in April of this year
was that Donald Trump was
 moved
by the suffering 
of
“beautiful” Syrian babies – the same Syrian babies he doesn’t
want to set foot in the United States – and decided to punish the
Syrian government for the attack two days after it allegedly
occurred. This punishment came in the form of an airstrike despite
the lack of a thorough investigation regarding what took place that
fateful day in April and who was ultimately culpable (though the
Trump administration 
insisted they
were certain that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was to blame).

In
that context, it should come as no surprise that Trump acted rashly
without consideration of the facts on the ground. However, what is
most disturbing about Hersh’s account is the fact that, according
to his source, Trump was well aware that the U.S. had no solid
intelligence linking the Syrian government to a chemical weapons
attack — and that’s because, according to Hersh’s article, it’s
doubtful a chemical weapons attack occurred at all.

Hersh
reports:

The
available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a
jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb
equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had
been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied
military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S.,
allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.”

None
of this makes any sense,”
 one
officer reportedly told colleagues upon learning of the decision to
bomb Syria, according to Hersh. “We
KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious.
Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it
didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.”

According
to Hersh, Trump “could not be swayed” by 48 hours worth of
intense briefings and decision-making following the initial reports
of the alleged chemical weapons attack. Hersh, who reportedly
reviewed transcripts of real-time communications, explains that there
is a “total disconnect” between the president and his military
advisers and intelligence officials.

As
is the case with Syrian military operations, Russia gave the U.S.
details of the carefully planned attack on a meeting in Khan
Sheikhoun, according to Hersh’s  admittedly anonymous sources.
The Russians had employed a drone to the area days before the attack
to develop the intelligence necessary to coordinate it.

According
to Hersh’s sources, the United States and its Russian counterpart
routinely share information regarding planned attacks in order to
avoid collisions. However, they also permit “coordination,”  a
practice that involves giving the other side a “hot tip about a
command and control facility,” which then helps the other side
carry out their attack.

Therefore,
there was no surprise chemical weapons attack, as the Trump
administration alleged. In fact, Russia had actually warned its
American counterpart on the off-chance that there were any CIA assets
on the ground who should have been forewarned of an impending attack.

They
[the Russians] were playing the game right,”
 a
senior adviser told Hersh.

Hersh
continues:

Russian
and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely
with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned
strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value
target. ‘It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the
ordinary – scrub the sked,’ the senior adviser told me. ‘Every
operations officer in the region’ – in the Army, Marine Corps,
Air Force, CIA and NSA – ‘had to know there was something going
on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was
a rarity. They’re skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share
them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best
pilot to the mission, with the best wingman.’ The advance
intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given
the highest possible score inside the American community.

Hersh
confirms Russia’s
 account of
the incident, in which Russian authorities alleged that the Syrian
Air Force bombed a “terrorist warehouse,” and that secondary
bombings dispersed dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere.
Strangely, if Hersh’s reporting is accurate, it is not clear why
Russia didn’t give the detailed account at the time — and why the
Russians didn’t emphasize that they had shared information with the
U.S. military well in advance of the attack, as this would have cast
further doubt on the official U.S. narrative. In that context, Russia
could have provided proof of any prior communications that took place
within the so-called deconfliction channel. It also doesn’t explain
why Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, appeared to endorse 
two
competing theories
 behind
the events at Khan Sheikhoun.

However,
Hersh continues:

A
team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan
Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that ‘eight
patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle
spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with
exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar
compounds.’ MSF also visited other hospitals that had received
victims and found that patients there ‘smelled of bleach,
suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine.’ In other words,
evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible
for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the
Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped
a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger
secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent
with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and
the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause
neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

Hersh
is not the first high-profile investigator to cast major doubts on
the Trump administration’s official narrative regarding the events
at Khan Sheikhoun. MIT professor emeritus Theodore Postol, who
previously worked as a 
former
scientific advisor
 to
the U.S. military’s Chief of Naval Operations, poked major holes in
the claims that the Syrian government had launched a chemical weapons
attack at Khan Sheikhoun, noting the “politicization” of
intelligence findings (you can access all of his reports
 here).

Postol
argued that there was no possible way U.S. government officials could
have been sure Assad was behind the attack before they launched their
strike, even though they claimed to be certain. Postol took the
conversation even further, asserting that the available evidence
pointed to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground,
not from an aircraft. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter
 had
similar concerns
 regarding
the White House’s conclusions, as did former U.K. ambassador to
Syria
 Peter
Ford
.
The mainstream media paid almost zero attention to these reports, a
slight that exposes the media’s complicity in allowing these acts
of war to go ahead unquestioned.

According
to Hersh’s source, within hours of viewing the footage of the
‘attack’ and its aftermath, Trump ordered his national defense
apparatus to plan for retaliation against the Syrian government.
Hersh explains that despite the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence
Agency) having no evidence that Syria even had sarin, let alone that
they used it on the battlefield, Trump was not easily persuaded once
he had made up his mind.

Everyone
close to him knows his proclivity for 
acting
precipitously when he does not know the facts,” 
the
adviser told Hersh. “He doesn’t read
anything and has no real historical knowledge.
 He
wants verbal briefings and photographs. He’s a risk-taker. He can
accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he
will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there
will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses
wrong. 
He was told we did not have evidence of
Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: ‘Do it.”’
 [emphasis
added]

At
a meeting on April 6, 2017, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida,
Trump spoke with his national security officials regarding the best
way to move forward. The meeting was not to decide what to do, Hersh
explains, but how best to do it (and how to keep Trump as happy as
possible).

Trump
was given four options. The first one was dismissed at the outset
because it involved doing nothing. The second one was the one that
was decided upon: a minimal show of force (with advance warning to
Russia). The third option was the strike package that Obama was
unable to implement in 2013 in the face of
 mounting
public opposition
 and
Russia’s
 threats
of intervention
.
This plan was Hillary Clinton’s ultimate fantasy considering she
was
 encouraging it
moments before Trump’s lone strike actually took place. However,
this would have involved extensive air strikes on Assad’s airfields
and would have drawn in the Russian military to a point of no return.

The
fourth option involved the direct assassination of the Syrian
president by bombing his palaces, as well as his underground bunkers.
This was not considered, either.

As
we all witnessed in April, the second option was adopted, and the
airbase Trump struck was 
up
and running again
 in
less than 24 hours, making it a very symbolic and empty show of
force.

Hersh’s
insight into the way Trump is conducting his foreign policy does not
bode well for the future of the Syrian conflict (or anywhere else in
the world, for that matter). Trump was not interested in the
intelligence or the facts on the ground — if he had been, he would
have waited until an investigation had determined culpability before
ordering a strike.

Missing
from Hersh’s account, however, is the fact that it was newly
appointed national security advisor General H.R. McMaster who
 laid
out the military strike proposals
 to
the president at his resort on April 6. McMaster replaced former
national security advisor Michael Flynn after the latter was forced
to resign 
due
to leaks
 from
within the intelligence community. Due to Flynn’s alleged ties to
Russia, it seems unlikely he would have proposed such a strike on
Russia’s close ally to begin with.

It
is unclear whether McMaster proposed the strikes in order to appease
Trump or because McMaster ultimately wants Trump to adopt a tougher
stance against Syria and Russia; McMaster has a
 history
of pro-interventionism
 and anti-Russian
sentiment
.

Those
commentators who can review these startling revelations but still
condone Trump’s actions with a lazy ‘
Assad
is still a bad guy and must be overthrown

mindset argument are being intellectually dishonest, with themselves
and others. As 
was
the case in 2013
,
there is still 
very
little evidence
 that
Assad has 
ever
used chemical weapons — 
particularly
in the attacks that the U.S. has tried to pin on him — yet this is
the standard by which the corporate media and our respective
governments have instructed us to judge Assad. Even without this
conclusive evidence, shortly after the April events, U.S. ambassador
to the U.N. Nikki Haley 
stated Assad
will fall from power.

Hersh’s
investigation bolsters many 
claims that
the U.S. acted rashly without first conducting or ordering an
impartial inquiry regarding what happened in April of this year.
Hersh’s report also serves as a reminder to the world of
the
 warpath
we are continuing
 down,
spearheaded by an impulsive and reckless megalomaniac who has no
interest in ascertaining fact from fiction.

Remember
that Donald J. Trump has the nuclear codes; it is hard to
think of a worse candidate to be entrusted with the fate of humanity.

Creative
Commons
 / Anti-Media / Report
a typo

Amnesty claimt zonder bewijs 13.000 moorden middels massa executies in ‘gevangenis Assad………’ Deel 2

Op 13 februari jl. publiceerde ik al een bericht, over de claim van Amnesty International, dat 13.000* mensen in grote hoeveelheden tegelijk werden geëxecuteerd in de Syrische Saydhaya gevangenis. Ik nam toen een artikel over gepubliceerd op Information Clearing House (ICH), geschreven door Moon of Alabama, die uitlegde, dat de hele claim van Amnesty op drijfzand was gebaseerd**.

Vandaag nog een artikel van Moon of Alabama op ICH, over diezelfde claim van Amnesty, die dit keer door de Britse ex-ambassadeur voor Irak, Peter Ford (die de bewuste gevangenis kent), totaal in de grond wordt geboord…….

Hier het artikel, dat als interview door Sputnik werd uitgezonden. Onder het artikel vindt u het hele interview met Ford (25 minuten), let wel, het is geen video, maar een geluidsbestand (van een op de radio uitgezonden interview).

Onder het artikel kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch vertaling’:

Amnesty
Report on Syrian Prison Deaths Questioned by Ex UK Ambassador to
Syria


Amnesty
International’s latest report on mass extrajudicial killings in Syria
would not stand scrutiny, according to former British ambassador to
Syria, Peter Ford.


February
19, 2017 “
Information
Clearing House

– On February 7, the organization issued an explosive report
titled ‘Human Slaughterhouse, Mass Hangings and Extermination
at Saydhaya prison, Syria,’ alleging that the Syrian authorities
were responsible of killing 13,000 opponents of President
Bashar Assad at the Saydnaya prison on the outskirts
of Damascus.

In
an interview with Sputnik, Ford pointed out that it was
interesting how the report was coincidentally released after the
Syrian city of Aleppo was liberated by the government
forces two months ago, after successful negotiations in Astana
and as it appears that Syria is coming closer to a
political solution for the ongoing war.

“It’s
very strange after this report has been over a year
in gestation — you have to ask, why now?” He
said.

According
to the former Ambassador, there is a number of reasons why
the report puts into question the credibility of the human
rights organisation. Apart from the fact that it was based
on interviews with anonymous witnesses and doesn’t provide
a hint of evidence, those nameless sources were wrong on ‘basic
information’, and that naturally puts to doubt the veracity
of other claims.

The
retired British diplomat had visited Saydnaya numerous times as he
served in Damascus from 2003 to 2006. According
to Ford, the prison was too small to contain ten to twenty
thousand prisoners at one time, contrary to what Amnesty
said in the report.

“Ten
to twenty thousand is a fair-sized town.” He said in an
interview. “The building which I saw at Saydnaya could not
possibly accommodate more than ten percent of those
numbers.”

The
human rights group also quoted its sources as saying that
Saydnaya became the main political prison in 2011, which was
just as false.

Click
for
 SpanishGermanDutchDanishFrench,
translation- Note- 
Translation
may take a moment to load.

* Zo gedegen, dat Amnesty sprak over 5.000 tot 13.000 doden, me dunkt nogal een verschil, ‘maar goed….’



** Zie: ‘Amnesty claimt zonder bewijs 13.000 moorden middels massa executies in ‘gevangenis Assad………‘ (In de kop stond een fout: gevangenissen i.p.v. gevangenis)

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.