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.

zondag 18 maart 2018

Novitsjok (Novichok) een Russisch chemische wapen >> één grote leugen, zoals de massavernietigingswapen van Saddam Hoessein

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.


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.


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.
  • See Also -

The jingoistic fear of Russia is out of controlThe Salisbury poisoning has exposed the hysteria of Britain’s rulers.

Zie ook: 'Novitsjok Skripal sprookje? Lees dit bericht!'

        en: 'Skripal vergiftiging roept steeds meer vraagtekens op.....'

        en: 'Rusland schuldig verklaard voor aanslag op Skripal, echter onafhankelijke controle van 'het bewijsmateriaal' wordt geweigerd......'

        en: 'Rusland verlangt terecht een excuus van de Britse regering voor valse beschuldiging 'aanslag' op Skripal.....'

        en: 'Novitsjok (novichok) uitgelegd door wetenschappers, Groot-Brittannië zit 'goed fout....''

       en: 'Skripal: geen (onomstotelijk) bewijs voor Russische schuld en toch stuurt Rutte 2 Russische diplomaten het land uit........'

       en: 'Stef Blok (VVD minister BuZa): de Russische schuld voor de aanslag op Skripal is 'plausibel...' ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!'

       en: 'Rusland mag niet deelnemen aan onderzoek naar 'aanslag met novitsjok' op Skripal'

Dat was het voor deze dag mensen, morgen meer berichten; maak er als het even mogelijk is, een mooie dag van.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten