Geen evolutie en ecolutie zonder revolutie!

Albert Einstein:

Twee dingen zijn oneindig: het universum en de menselijke domheid. Maar van het universum ben ik niet zeker.

vrijdag 5 mei 2017

Al Jazeera filmde een onderdeel van de 'gifgasshow' in Khan Sheikhoun...........

Anti-Media bracht gisteren het bericht, dat Al Jazeera een onderdeel van de mediashow rond Khan Sheikhoun heeft gefilmd..... Het zou gaan om filmbeelden die na de aanval werden gemaakt, dit om de democratisch gekozen regering Assad in een slecht daglicht te plaatsen..... Er zou zelfs opdracht tot het maken van 'Assad beschadigende' videobeelden zijn gegeven vanuit een Europees land..... Kortom Khan Sheikhoun was en is een 'false flag' operatie.........

Hier het artikel van Anti-Media, daaronder vindt u deel van een bericht dat Stan van Houcke op zijn blog plaatste, waarin dieper op deze 'false flag' operatie wordt ingegaan, dit n.a.v. een column van George Monbiot (The Guardian).

Al-Jazeera Said To Film False Flag Chemical Attack Against Syrian Civilians

Al-Jazeera Said To Film False Flag Chemical Attack Against Syrian Civilians

May 4, 2017 at 11:28 am

(ZHEOne month after Trump flip-flopped on his Syrian position, launching cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airfield as “after dinner entertainment” during Trump’s meeting with the Chinese president, just days after declaring he would allow the Syrian people to decide the fate of Assad when another “chemical attack” video emerged at the end of March, a false flag chemical attack against civilians in Syria was reportedly filmed recently by al-Jazeera stringers in Syria.
Around 30 fire engines and ambulances, as well as 70 local residents with children transported from a refugee camp were used in the filming of the Al Jazeera clip across three locations in Idlib province, including Jisr Shughur.

The “effectiveness” of the White Helmets’ TV-spectacle of accusing Syrian authorities of attacking civilians in Khan Shaykhun with sarin inspired terrorists to continue filming the fake ‘series’. According to info confirmed via several channels, al-Jazeera television channel stringers have recently filmed a staged, fake scene of an alleged chemical attack against civilians by the Syrian Army,” the source told Sputnik.

A multiple simultaneous uploading of filmed fake footage with ‘screaming’ social media comments was due to take place in the next few days (by Sunday) at the separate command of a mastermind and sponsor of the film in one of the European countries.”

This filming was said to have been ordered from a European country.
It wouldn’t be the first time – in December 2016, Egyptian police arrested 5 men for making staged “wounded children” photos, which they planned to use to misrepresent on social media as photos of destruction and injured people in Syria’s Aleppo.

As a reminder, on April 4, the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces claimed that 80 people were killed and 200 injured in a suspected chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, blaming the Syrian government. Damascus vehemently rejected the accusations and said militants and their allies were responsible. That video served as a the basis for Trump to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian military airfiled in Ash Shairat. Trump said the attack was a response to the alleged chemical weapon use in Syria’s Idlib, which Washington has blamed on the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, Russia described the attack as an aggression against a sovereign state, while the Russian Foreign Ministry reminded the Trump administration that all chemical weapons had been taken out of Syria in mid-2014 as John Kerry infamously declared in 2014. Discussing the attack, Syrian President Assad said in an interview with Sputnik that Western states were blocking attempts to investigate the Idlib chemical incident because in the event of a probe it will be established that the “attack” was a false flag and lie.

In January 2016, the OPCW announced that Syria’s weapons arsenal had been destroyed in accordance with an agreement reached after the 2013 Ghouta attack.

By Tyler Durden / Republished with permission / Zero Hedge / Report a typo

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

A Response To George Monbiot's 'Disavowal'




IN ALERTS 2017  POST 04 MAY 2017  LAST UPDATED ON 04 MAY 2017 BY EDITOR

Guardian columnist George Monbiot has responded to our recent media alert on the alleged gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib, Syria, on April 4:

Here's a response to the latest attempt by @medialens to dismiss the mounting evidence on the authorship of the #KhanSheikhoun attack”

This is a very serious misrepresentation of what we have argued in two media alerts. We made our position crystal-clear in the latest alert:

We have no idea who was responsible for the mass killings in Idlib on April 4; we are not weapons experts. But it seems obvious to us that arguments and evidence offered by credible sources like Postol should at least be aired by the mass media”

To interpret this as an attempt to 'dismiss the mounting evidence on the authorship of the #KhanSheikhoun attack' is to exactly reverse the truth, which is frankly outrageous from a high-profile Guardian journalist. We are precisely calling for journalists to not dismiss evidence on the authorship of the alleged attack. This is why we quoted investigative reporter Robert Parry:

The role of an honest press corps should be to apply skepticism to all official stories, not carry water for "our side" and reject anything coming from the "other side," which is what The New York Times, The Washington Post and the rest of the Western mainstream media have done, especially regarding Middle East policies and now the New Cold War with Russia”

We have most certainly not urged anyone to 'dismiss' the White House version of events. We have asked journalists to consider that version as well as evidence offered by credible critics like former UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, and by investigative journalists like Parry. We are clearly arguing in favour of inclusion of evidence, not exclusion. Monbiot has simply reversed the truth. In an expanded version of his tweeted response titled, 'Disavowal', he writes:

There's an element on the left that seems determined to produce a mirror image of the Washington Consensus. Just as the billionaire press and Western governments downplay and deny the crimes of their allies, so this element downplays and denies the crimes of the West's official enemies “

We have no interest in downplaying or denying any crimes. We hold no candle whatever for Assad or Putin, as we held no candle for Milosevic, Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. We are simply urging journalists to consider both 'Washington Consensus' arguments and serious counter-arguments offered by credible sources. Monbiot writes:

The pattern is always the same. They ignore a mountain of compelling evidence and latch onto one or a few contrarians who tell them what they want to hear (a similar pattern to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and to climate change denial). The lastest [sic] example is an "alert" published by an organisation called Media Lens, in response to a tweet of mine “

Our latest alert was not 'in response' to Monbiot's tweet; it was in response to Professor Postol's analysis challenging a White House report on the alleged attacks in Idlib. We simply used Monbiot's tweet as a typical example indicating what we described as the 'corporate media zeitgeist'.

Is it reasonable to describe Postol, one of the world's 'leading weapons experts', according to the New York Times, as a 'contrarian'? Is Hans Blix, who led the weapons inspections team in Iraq in 2002-2003, a 'contrarian'? How about former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was 100% vindicated by the failure to find WMD in Iraq? Can Noam Chomsky also be dismissed as merely a 'contrarian' following a 'pattern' which is 'always the same'? Chomsky commented recently:

Well, there are some interesting questions there -- you can understand why Assad would have been pretty crazy [to provoke a US intervention] because they're winning the war. The worst thing for him is to bring the United States in. So why would he turn to a chemical weapons attack? You can imagine that a dictator with just local interests might do it, maybe if he thought he had a green light. But why would the Russians allow it? It doesn't make any sense. And in fact, there are some questions about what happened, but there are some pretty credible people -- not conspiracy types -- people with solid intelligence credentials that say it didn't happen.

Lawrence Wilkerson said that the US intelligence picked up a plane and followed that it probably hit an Al-Qaeda warehouse which had some sort of chemical weapon stored in it and they spread. I don't know. But it certainly calls for at least an investigation. And those are not insignificant people [challenging the official narrative]”

We are saying no more or less than this – it calls for at least an investigation.

Chomsky pointed to comments made by Wilkerson, former chief of staff to General Colin Powell, in a recent interview on the Real News Network:

I personally think the provocation was a Tonkin Gulf incident..... Most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that what most likely happened ...was that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit...and this warehouse was alleged to have to [sic] ISIS supplies in it, and... some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals..... conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people”

There is also the collective judgement of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community, the Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian "chemical weapons attack." Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died.....This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened.'

Monbiot's 'one or a few contrarians' include all of the above, plus journalists John PilgerJonathan CookPeter HitchensGareth PorterPhilip Giraldi, and others. They also include Piers Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, who responded to our request for a comment:

Monbiot supports the official narrative that the Assad regime is responsible for the April 4 event when it is alleged that Assad's forces launched a chemical weapon attack on civilians. He is presenting this as factually correct even though some credible commentators have raised questions regarding these claims and whilst there remains a lack of compelling evidence. In a recent posting Monbiot quotes recent French intelligence service claims regarding Assad's guilt in this matter.

The problem here is that there are substantial grounds for remaining cautious of official claims. It is no secret that Western governments and key allies of theirs (Saudi Arabia, Qatar) have been seeking the overthrow of Assad for many years now. Indeed, the recently published Chilcot Inquiry, in section 3.1, revealed discussions between Blair and Bush which indicate that Syria was considered a potential target straight after 9/11. Given these objectives it is entirely plausible that Western intelligence services might be manipulating information so as to generate the impression that the Assad regime is responsible. Indeed, this kind of propaganda was well documented in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when weak intelligence was used by US and British politicians to justify their certainty that Iraq possessed WMD. These are all very good reasons for journalists and commentators to ask challenging questions rather than to dismiss out of hand any such attempts in the way Monbiot does” (Email to Media Lens, May 3, 2017)

Tim Hayward, Professor of Environmental Political Theory at Edinburgh University, has also responded to Monbiot's piece here:

There are serious unsettled questions about every aspect of the incident, not only the anomalies concerning time of incident, identity of victims, causes of death, role of White Helmets, and about whose interests it served, but also concerning the forensic evidence itself”

And here:

In a tweeted response, he repeated his opinion that people like me, who question it, are denying a mountain of evidence.

So to state a point that should not need stating: to question is not to deny – although nor is it to affirm. It is to seek knowledge and understanding. Being less impressed than George by the quantity of data presented as evidence, I have only ever commented on its quality”

Hayward adds that in Monbiot's latest post: 'he has entrenched more deeply his defence of the NATO narrative'.


Monbiot says 'the pattern is always the same'. In fact, there is indeed a pattern of 'mainstream' media insisting on the need for war in response to unproven claims that are often later debunked. We gave several examples in our first alert on the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Idlib. It is absurd for Monbiot to wearily dismiss our 'pattern', when our scepticism over claims made on Iraq and Libya - and numerous other issues, over many years - has so obviously been justified. Again, our problem is with the refusal of 'mainstream' media to report or discuss the opinions of credible experts challenging government claims.

Voor het hele artikel hier de link.

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

Zie ook:
'Gifgasaanval Douma in elkaar gezet door 'gematigde rebellen''

'Gifgasaanval Douma: OPCW rapport maakt korte metten met de westerse beschuldiging aan adres Syrië, waar de NOS een meer dan levensgrote bok schoot'

'VS heeft opstand en daarmee de oorlog in Syrië georganiseerd, zo toont WikiLeaks ten overvloede nog eens aan.......'

'VS heeft opstand en daarmee de oorlog in Syrië georganiseerd, zo toont WikiLeaks ten overvloede nog eens aan.......'

'Gifgasaanval Idlib: de komende 'kindslachtoffers' worden getraind door terreurgroep White Helmets.........'

'John Bolton geeft terreurgroepen in Syrië de opdracht een false flag gifgasaanval uit te voeren'

'Assad heeft geen gifgas gebruikt tegen de Syrische bevolking!'









'Van Baalen (VVD) het is moeilijk te zien wie je moet steunen: Al Qaida, Al Qaida of Al Qaida....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

'VS bereid tot militair ingrijpen tegen de regering Assad >> aanleiding: gifgas leugens van o.a. de VS zelf.......'

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


Voor wapenleveranties e.d. aan terreurgroepen in Syrie, zie de berichten onder de volgende links









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

'Tulsi Gabbard (VS congres Hawaï): Trump is de beschermende Big Brother van Al Qaida'

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

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten