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
(ZHE) One
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.
By Tyler
Durden /
Republished with permission / Zero
Hedge / Report
a typo
===============================
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
Pilger, Jonathan
Cook, Peter
Hitchens, Gareth
Porter, Philip
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”
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 meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
