Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Kremlin Comments on Latest Footage Concerning Salisbury Poisoning

Sputnik – 23.11.2018

Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has commented on the latest footage released by London Metropolitan Police on the Salisbury and Amesbury incidents, saying that while the use of the nerve agent in Europe was cause for concern, British investigators have yet to share any information with the Russian side.

“From the very beginning, Russia offered to cooperate with the British side to clarify the circumstances of this incident, but we were rejected. We were not met with reciprocity, and we do not have any information about what happened in Salisbury. We do not have information about what kind of agent was used, how much of it there was, what its volume was; we do not have information about who was poisoned, what happened to them, where they disappeared to, etc.,” Peskov said, speaking to reporters on Friday.

Despite this lack of information or cooperation, the spokesman said it was very concerning to see the use of such agents in Europe. “The use of such strong chemical warfare agents in Europe is a very dangerous fact, and is a matter of great concern,” he noted.

Earlier Friday, the London Metropolitian Police released fresh CCTV footage showing the two Russian nationals it suspects of involvement in the poisoning of Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, showing them walking around the southern English town of Salisbury on March 4. The footage does not show the men at Skripal’s home, however, where police allege they sprayed a military-grade poison on the door handle.

Police also released images of what they said was a “specially made model of the counterfeit perfume bottle” in which they believe the toxic substance used to poison the Skripals was kept. Police said they are now investigating how the bottle got from Salisbury, where it was allegedly used to poison the Skripals, to Amesbury, when it was found by Charlie Rowley, one of the victims of the Amesbury poisoning incident which occurred in late June.

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were found unconscious on a bench at a Salisbury shopping center on March 4. London quickly concluded that they were poisoned by a Russian military-grade nerve agent, and accused Moscow of staging the attack, leading to a diplomatic row between the two countries which culminated in sanctions and the expulsions of dozens of diplomats. In September, UK investigators identified two Russian nationals named Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, saying the names were possible aliases. Investigators accused the pair of working for Russian military intelligence and carrying out the poisoning attack. The men came forward for an interview with RT’s Margarita Simonyan on September 13, telling her that they were sport nutritionists who traveled to Salisbury as tourists, and that they had no ties to Russian military intelligence.

Russia has sent several dozen diplomatic notes to the UK calling for cooperation in the investigation of the case. London left these proposals unanswered, and accused the Russian side of refusing to cooperate.

November 23, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

JFK 55 years on: Casting Light on 9/11 & Other 21st Century Crimes

By Graeme MacQueen | OffGuardian | November 22, 2018

Fifty-five years ago, on November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Although there has been a great deal written about this event over the years, I want to draw attention to one exceptionally important article, originally delivered as a talk on November 20, 1998. Vincent Salandria gave this talk in Dallas at the invitation of the Coalition on Political Assassinations. (See Sources.)

Salandria had been a high school teacher at the time of the assassination (he later became a lawyer) and was one of the first people in the US to write essays expressing dissent from the government narrative of lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, maverick leftist.

In his 1998 talk Salandria went through over a dozen of the famous obstacles to the government story—the grassy knoll witnesses, the “magic bullet,” the testimony of the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and so on—but he did not let himself get sidetracked into detailed debates on any of these. By 1998 he had already seen, and participated in, 35 years of such debates. He had long ago concluded that, “the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba.”

In 1998 he felt it was time to warn researchers about the danger of wasting time in “false debates,” where the essential facts had clearly been established and the wrangling served only the purposes of the assassins. Rather than repeat the debates, Salandria decided in 1998 to outline his basic approach. I will call this the Salandria Approach. I draw attention to it because I believe it helps us find our feet when we tackle not only the JFK killing but many of the killings in the 21st century’s War on Terror.

Here are Salandria’s words:

I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the US media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian-controlled US government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty US national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian US governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination.”

He adds that,

only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions.”

Let us take two cases from Salandria’s list of over one dozen in order to see what he was getting at.

The Grassy Knoll

Dozens of witnesses thought there were shots from an extended grassy rise, containing several structures, situated west of the famous Texas School Book Depository Building. Salandria, refusing to get drawn into the familiar debate, says:

Let us assume arguendo [for the sake of argument] that all of the eyewitnesses who had concluded that shots were fired from the grassy knoll were dead wrong. But an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched single assassin theory as fact.”

Note that Salandria’s emphasis is not on the details of the grassy knoll discussion but on the method the government followed in its investigation. And he is right, both about the immediate claim that Oswald acted alone— presented, as he explains, by a government representative on November 22 itself—and about the identical statement presented later by the Warren Commission.

In both cases the claim flew in the face of the eyewitness evidence. For example, despite the fact that there are references to dozens of witnesses to shots from the grassy knoll in the 26 volumes of evidence appended to the Warren Report, the Commission itself displayed little interest in them. And when the Commission dismissed every single one of the grassy knoll witnesses to protect its lone gunman theory it did so without bothering to make a sustained argument.

It chose instead to play a credibility game. It pronounced:

No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building” Warren Report, p. 61

In other words, the Commission decided to gather together into one great agglomeration the credibility of its seven well dressed and high-ranking white men associated with government and use this to crush the credibility of the “good citizens” who were present in the Plaza and witnessed, with their senses, the unfolding of events.

It was a breathtaking move. But in what way could it be said to characterize an innocent government? How could any serious investigator pretend to solve an evidential problem by playing a credibility game? Standard practice in a homicide investigation would be to find all witnesses, to interview them, and to record their statements impartially, making sure to ask each one of them where they thought the shots came from and why they reached their conclusion. How would the opinions of congressmen, spies and the like possibly be relevant to the case when these gentlemen declined to offer adequate counter-evidence or to give a serious argument to support their peculiar conclusion?

Readers who have never had the opportunity to see and hear for themselves the good citizens in question may benefit from Mark Lane’s documentary:

Well, where, in such a case, does the Salandria Approach lead us? We have no choice but to conclude that the Warren Commission’s investigation was not what we would expect from “an innocent civilian-controlled US government.”

It was more characteristic of “a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins.” There was a predetermined perpetrator and an insistence on the guilt of this perpetrator, while evidence suggestive of a conspiracy was systematically ignored, distorted or suppressed.

Suppose we were to apply the Salandria Approach to events of the 21st century–to the eyewitnesses at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, for example? We have over 150 witnesses who reported that they saw, heard or felt explosions at the time of the beginning of destruction of the Twin Towers. (See Sources for assertions in this and the following paragraph.)

Their testimony constitutes very significant support for the theory that the Trade Center was blown up and did not undergo collapse from structural failure caused by airplane collision. We are not simply talking about loud sounds here. We are talking about sounds that experienced firefighters suspected were caused by bombs. We are talking about patterns of explosions seen pulverizing the buildings. We are talking, in some cases, about witnesses who say these explosions threw them through the air. Now, avoiding the debates about the details of this testimony, let us follow Salandria and ask: What did the government’s 9/11 Commission do with these eyewitness accounts, all of which were in its possession?

The answer is that it called for no comprehensive search for eyewitnesses (neither did the FBI, as far as I can discover), nor did it have such witnesses asked the appropriate questions. It devoted to these witnesses a single line in the roughly 585 pages of its Report. And that single line is both dismissive and extremely misleading.

What about the National Institute of Standards and Technology, assigned by government the task of looking in detail at the destruction of the Trade Center and sorting out the reasons for its destruction? In the thousands of pages of its reports on the Twin Towers we find not a single mention of the explosion witnesses. Despite NIST’s pride in its interviewing techniques, and despite its access to all the relevant information, it somehow missed over 150 witnesses. It made no attempt to find them, to sort out their testimony, or to discover how their words might illumine the mystery of the so-called “collapses.”

We should recall that the efforts of the 9/11 Commission and NIST were mere follow-through. A strenuous attempt to promote the structural failure hypothesis was begun on the very day of September 11, 2001, in the absence of serious evidence in its favour and in bold contradiction to what large numbers of witnesses were saying. (Sources)

When we adopt the Salandria Approach we must, to paraphrase Salandria, conclude that, “an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched [structural failure] theory as fact.”

The Magic Bullet

In his essay Salandria explains the absurdity of the single bullet (“magic bullet”) theory, according to which one bullet passed entirely through the president’s body and then caused all of Governor Connally’s wounds, emerging after its adventure in near-pristine condition. This bullet evidently had no difficulty changing direction in mid-air, nor did it balk at losing mass in Connally’s body and then regaining this mass at the end of its journey. Salandria concludes:

“our Cold War government in the context of the assassination had declared a moratorium on the science of physics.”

Remember: the issue before us is not merely he single bullet theory itself but the behavior of government representatives in investigating this hypothesis. So it is in those moments when we read the Warren Commission transcripts and watch counsel Arlen Specter leading and pressuring witnesses into accepting the single bullet theory that we realize we are seeing the handiwork of a guilty state.

Now, what might we find if we were to apply the Salandria Approach to the destruction of the World Trade Center? To restrict ourselves, for the sake of this discussion, to World Trade 7, what would the approach of an innocent government to this building destruction look like? Would we not expect a thorough search for eyewitnesses?

Would not all of the recoverable steel be preserved carefully and made accessible to civilian experts? Would there not be a serious attempt to explain evidence of corrosion and vaporization of the steel? Would there not be the most rigorous examination of the Trade Center dust, searching for evidence that would allow ascertainment of temperatures reached during the building’s destruction and searching as well for residue of explosives and incendiaries?

Would there not be frank astonishment at the fact that the descent of this 47-storey building, not hit by a plane, began rapidly, symmetrically, and at free fall acceleration? Would not physicists openly debate this astounding event, troubled by the fact that the vertical columns of this well constructed steel-framed high-rise offered no resistance whatsoever when, for mysterious reasons, the collapse began?

Surely an innocent government sincerely probing for the truth would not choose, instead of taking the path outlined above, to construct a computer simulation that, even with manipulation, could not replicate the historical event clearly preserved on video? Surely investigators would not bring the simulation to an abrupt end before it was able to represent total collapse, and surely they would not refuse to release the complete data set used in their simulation, claiming it might compromise national security? (Sources)

When we ask these questions and contemplate the answers we see at once what game NIST has been playing in its account of World Trade 7. In the 21st century there is, perhaps, no more obvious demonstration that the US government, for the sake of its War on Terror, has “declared a moratorium on the science of physics.”

There is an entire organization, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has taken as its task for over a decade the pointing out of such violations of the laws of physics in the US government’s account of the September 11, 2001 crime. The organization is to be praised for its creativity and persistence. Yet the false debate continues, and the intelligentsia continues to insist that the Emperor is well dressed, thank you very much.

Political Implications of Grassy Knolls and Magic Bullets

There is something I have always found arresting about the grassy knoll, and my concerns extend to the suppressed witnesses of September 11. In both cases we have ordinary folks—people like ourselves—who are, supposedly, citizens of a democracy. They are also, as far as we can tell, of sound mind and body, able to perceive with their senses and assess with their minds. Yet, all of a sudden, when their bodies and minds tell them something that conflicts with a government dictum, they are considered by government of no more political competence than cattle. I find it hard to think of a greater insult to these “good citizens” and to the notion of democracy, and I find it hard to think of a more brash assertion of the principle of authority.

This is why witnesses from the grassy knoll and the World Trade Center should be at the centre of the current debate about state deception and its relation to democracy.

As for magic bullets in Dealey Plaza and the mysterious collapse of World Trade 7, they are, I suggest, of comparable political importance to the abused witnesses. We face a collection of gentlemen in suits and ties (seven gentlemen in the Warren Commission and ten in the 9/11 Commission) telling us that their stories are more potent than the laws of the universe. How poor must be our self-confidence that we can put up with this guff? How defective must be our educational systems if they produce citizens who accept this?

Here we are, then, at the 55th anniversary of the murder of a president who was moving away from Cold War thinking and entering a different path. As we reflect on the direction in which his assassins have steered the United States of America, to the detriment of all of us, US citizens and otherwise, let us reflect on Salandria’s words:

By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only.”

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

  1. The Salandria essay that is the basis of my article, “The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes,” can be found here.
  2. Both the Warren Report and the 26 volumes of evidence can be found at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.
  3. 3. The list of 156 eyewitnesses to explosions in the Twin Towers can be found here. A discussion of the method used to arrive at the list as well as the treatment of these witnesses by the 9/11 Commission and NIST can be found in my article, “Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers” in The 9/11 Toronto Report, ed. James Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, 2012.
  4. For a discussion of the destruction of World Trade 7 see the website of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth & especially Ted Walter’s publication, Beyond Misinformation.
  5. For the dismissal of evidence of controlled demolition from the earliest moment see Ted Walter’s recent article, “Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani: The First Government Officials to Dismiss the Idea of Controlled Demolition on 9/11.”
  6. For a discussion of Kennedy’s turn away from the Cold War see James Douglass’s brilliant JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2008).

November 22, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

OPCW Votes Against Russian Proposal to Limit Power of Chemical Weapons Watchdog

Sputnik – 20.11.2018

Russia’s envoy to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Alexander Shulgin stated earlier in October that the organisation was doomed unless it reconsidered a decision that allowed it to attribute responsibility for chemical attacks.

The motion, proposed by Russia and China was voted down by the OPCW members, with 30 countries voting for and 82 — against it. Moscow and Beijing proposed establishing a special group that should broaden the scope of OPCW mandate.

“Thirty delegations voted for the Russian-Chinese draft decision, 82 against, 31 more abstained, and 10 left the site of the vote. Thus, 71 delegations did not support the western camp. This means that the split in the OPCW is only deepening,” Russian Deputy Trade Minister Georgy Kalamanov noted.

He also stated that Russia was unlikely to join the new attribution mechanism of the organisation.

“The amount by which the planned budget of the OPCW is to be increased was to be spent on attribution, the creation of the mechanism and recruitment of new employees for solving tasks that are not typical of the organization,” Kalamanov said.

Commenting on the issue, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticised the attempts to give the organisation the power to place blame.

“Opportunistic attempts to vest the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW… with the functions of a prosecutor are a gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, decisions of the UN Security Council and contrary to the position of the majority of states parties to the convention,” he said at a meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Previously, following the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, London demanded to establish an investigative commission eligible to assign blame for chemical weapons use. On June 27, the mandate of the OPCW was expanded in line with the UK motion, however, Moscow said it would not recognise it as legitimate since only the UN Security Council is eligible to make such judgments.

November 20, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

EU Mulls Iran Sanctions in Light of Alleged Plots in France, Denmark – Reports

Sputnik – 20.11.2018

Until now the EU has been unwilling to join the US sanctions on Iran preferring to maintain close trade ties with the Islamic Republic.

In a most recent policy U-turn, European Union foreign ministers hinted on Monday that their countries could be prepared to impose new economic sanctions on Iran, Reuters reported.

The sudden shift of policy came after France and Denmark accused Tehran of being allegedly behind a series of plots to carry out attacks on their soil. During a meeting in Brussels French and Danish foreign ministers filled in their fellow EU counterparts on the details of the alleged Iranian plots, although no details or names were discussed, Reuters quoted diplomats as saying on Tuesday.

France has imposed sanctions on two Iranians and Iran’s intelligence service over what it says was a botched attempt to stage a bomb attack at a rally near Paris organised by an exiled Iranian opposition group.

In October, France said it was certain about the Iranian intelligence ministry’s role in the June plot to attack a demonstration by Iranian exiles near Paris.

Also in October, Denmark said it suspected an Iranian government intelligence service of plotting an assassination on its territory and is also ready to join possible EU-wide sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Iran has denied any involvement in either alleged plot and warned that it could pull out of the nuclear deal if EU powers do not stand up for its trade and financial benefits.

The readiness to punish Tehran would be the first such move in years by the EU, which has been trying keep in place the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran. Brussels has been unwilling to consider sanctions, instead seeking talks with Tehran.

In March, a joint proposal by Britain, France and Germany to sanction Iran over its development of ballistic missiles and its role in the Syrian war failed to gather sufficient support across the EU, including from Italy which wants to maintain business ties with Iran.

During the meeting on Monday, the EU foreign ministers tried to balance the EU’s policy towards Iran by speeding up the creation of a special mechanism to trade with Tehran that could be under EU, not national, law.

Dubbed the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), this mechanism could be used to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods as part of a barter arrangement, thus circumventing US sanctions, which are based on global use of the dollar for oil sales.

Despite technical difficulties and delays, the EU hopes this arrangement could protect individual member states from being hit by the sanctions Washington has threatened to use against countries that continue doing business with Iran.

November 20, 2018 Posted by | Economics, False Flag Terrorism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Where was Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey Poisoned?

By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | November 12, 2018

I wrote back here that the Achilles Heel of the door handle theory is Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey. When his name was first mentioned publicly, on 8th March, it was widely reported that he had been one of the first responders at the bench in The Maltings. However, this was thrown into confusion the following day by none other than Lord Ian Blair, former Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, who stated the following on Radio 4’s Today Programme:

“There are some indications that the police officer who was injured had been to the house, whereas there was a doctor who looked after the patients in the open, who hasn’t been affected at all. So there maybe some clues floating around in here.’”

As I pointed out in that piece, the phrase “some indications” was somewhat disingenuous, as The Metropolitan Police would have known by that time exactly where Mr Bailey had been. And in any case, there was no particular reason for Lord Blair to reveal this information.

The point I went on to make is that if it was known that he had been poisoned, which it was; if it was known that he’d been to the house, which it was; and if it was known that the poisoning didn’t happen at The Maltings, which it was (at least according to investigators who ruled it out with surprising swiftness), then it MUST have been known that he was poisoned AT THE HOUSE. But if this was the case, why exactly was the house not locked down, with forensic scientists all over the house taking swabs? Why did it take nearly two weeks for that to happen?

As far as I can see, there are only two explanations for this. The first is sheer incompetence. That’s possible, I suppose. I mean we are talking about an organisation which somehow managed to put out a formal statement setting out the case against two suspects, which contained the wrong street name, no real details of the suspects’ movements in Salisbury, and the somewhat impossible feat of the men being at Gatwick Airport whilst the plane they were on was still in the air. There is that. But even this seems to be stretching it. As I say, it was known that Mr Bailey was poisoned, it was known that he was in two locations that the Skripals were also in, and one of these had apparently been ruled out. Which means it MUST have been …? Not hard, is it? And yet the house wasn’t swabbed until 22nd March.

The second possibility is that he wasn’t poisoned at the house at all, but it took two weeks when the house wasn’t being swabbed, when the door handle manual hadn’t been discovered, and when the police were still searching for poison in places where Mr Bailey never went, to concoct a narrative that would place the location of his poisoning away from The Maltings.

But I don’t think that Mr Bailey’s role as Achilles Heel stops at the door handle. I think he is, in many ways, the Achilles Heel of everything in this case. Was he really at The Maltings? I’m not sure. Did he really go to the house? Again, I’m really not sure. When did he fall ill and go to hospital? Again, it’s all a bit hazy. And by the way this has nothing to do with me refusing to accept official explanations; on the contrary, it is because every attempt by the authorities to explain Mr Bailey’s role and how he got poisoned have been shrouded in riddles, mysteries and enigmas.

Just in case readers jump to the wrong conclusions, for the record I am quite certain that Mr Bailey had nothing to do with the poisoning itself. I say this on the basis that he is said to have driven himself to Salisbury District Hospital after feeling ill — hardly the actions of a man who was involved in the poisoning itself (had he been involved, he would surely have been taken to a secret decontamination location, not allowed to drive himself to an NHS hospital). But his role, the time and place of his poisoning, and his subsequent disappearance since the incident all stick out like a sore thumb.

One thing that is particularly interesting is the time of Mr Bailey’s admission to Salisbury District Hospital. There are some doubts as to when this was, but since my aim in these pieces is to hold the official narrative up to scrutiny, I will go by the official statement released by The Metropolitan Police on 5th June:

“Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, a Wiltshire police officer who was amongst the first to respond to the incident, also fell seriously ill after being exposed to the nerve agent and was admitted to hospital on 6 March. Since being discharged from hospital on 22 March, Nick has continued to make good progress but remains off work.”

So according to The Met, it wasn’t until well over 30 hours, and possibly as much as 48 hours after the incident on 4th March, that Mr Bailey was admitted to hospital.

I have to say that the idea of the world’s deadliest nerve agent taking 4 hours to take effect, before acting simultaneously on a 33-year-old woman and a 66-year-old-man, with a drive, a duck-feed, a risotto lunch and white wine in between, is almost more nonsense than I can reasonably cope with. But the idea that the exact same substance contaminated Mr Bailey at approximately 5pm on the same day, but took more than a day-and-a-half to take effect on him, has a strong tendency to make my eye start twitching, and my mouth start jabbering in much the same nervous and maniacal way that Herbert Lom perfected as Commissioner Charles Dreyfus in the Pink Panther films.

Seriously, how likely is it, do you suppose, that Mr Bailey got contaminated by the world’s deadliest nerve agent on a Sunday evening, but was only hospitalised on the Tuesday? It is self-evident nonsense, is it not, but it does of course beg the question as to where he was poisoned then.

Not for the first time, I am indebted to Liane for digging out a piece of information that I had not previously come across. Here’s a report from The Mail on 17th April:

“A multimillion pound operation, involving around 190 specialist military personnel, is expected to start in the coming days, with the process lasting months. The evidence room and a police officer’s locker inside Bourne Hill police station will be among the first areas to be cleaned, along with two ambulance stations and The Maltings area – where the Skripals were found [my emphasis].”

And here’s a report from Spire FM on 28th June:

“Decontamination work at Salisbury’s police station and council offices, carried out after the spy poisoning, has now been completed. After extensive testing and cleaning by specialist teams Defra have handed Bourne Hill back to the Salisbury recovery group stressing it is safe to return to public use. The deep clean focused on two areas of the building, the evidence store used by Wiltshire Police and two lockers [my emphasis].”

I think we can assume that the decontamination of Bourne Hill was as a result of Mr Bailey coming back to the station, having — according to the official story — been contaminated with “Novichok” between 5pm and 6pm on 4th March at the door handle of 47 Christie Miller Road. However, not for the first time in this saga, it’s interesting what was not contaminated. There is no mention of the door at Bourne Hill Police Station being contaminated, or of anyone becoming contaminated after touching it, and yet surely Mr Bailey must have come through the door.

But it might be an automatic door, you say. Yes, it might, but the thing is the station wasn’t open. It was a Sunday, and thanks to the Municipal Department for Spending Taxpayers’ Money on the Wrong Things, it wasn’t open. And so if Mr Bailey went to Bourne Hill that night, he would have had to manually open the door. Yet just as we are asked to believe that the Skripals somehow managed to enter Zizzis and The Mill without contaminating the door handles with their contaminated hands, so we are asked to believe that Mr Bailey somehow managed to open the locked police station door without contaminating it with his contaminated hands.

But notice where the focus of decontamination was. The evidence store and two lockers. That’s very interesting, not least of which because this was not — at that time — a criminal investigation. And so how and why would the evidence store have been contaminated?

There is an obvious explanation, and it is not that Mr Bailey touched it with hands that had been contaminated at Christie Miller Road. As I say, had that been the case, he couldn’t have entered the station without contaminating the door, and perhaps other inner doors as well. No, the obvious explanation is that an item which was contaminated was placed in the evidence store. And given that the official narrative only has Mr Bailey being hospitalised on 6th March, which is the more rational explanation:

  • That he had been poisoned a day-and-a-half before, at the door handle of 47 Christie Miller Road, with a substance that allegedly took 4 hours to work on the Skripals?
  • Or that he (or a colleague) took something away from The Maltings, placed it in the evidence store at Bourne Hill, and then became contaminated when examining it on the morning of 6th March?

Yes, yes. I’m well aware that they don’t do rational in this case. But just in case you wondered, the answer is the second of those explanations is the more rational one. I’m not saying it is the explanation; just that it’s more rational than their explanation. But of course it can’t be that, can it, because then it would imply that not just Mr Bailey, but the Skripals too were not poisoned at the door handle, but perhaps by an item passed to them in The Mill or The Maltings.

Let me end with a final observation. Liane (again) recently drew attention to something very peculiar in the statement given by the OPCW Director-General, Ahmet Üzümcü, on 4th April. This was about a fortnight after a delegation from the organisation visited Salisbury to take biomedical and environmental samples. Here is what he said:

“The OPCW experts visited the locations where two of the victims were reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical and collected several environmental samples. The team also took biomedical samples from these two victims, as well as from a third individual, a police officer reportedly exposed to a toxic chemical [my emphasis].”

Did you get that? Since they only visited the locations where two of the three victims were reportedly exposed to a nerve agent, and since Mr Bailey is not included in these three, it is implicitly stated that Mr Bailey was not poisoned at the same place as the Skripals. And since it is alleged that the Skripals were poisoned at the door handle, then Mr Bailey can’t have been poisoned there, can he?

Could it have been the evidence store or the lockers? Given that these were said to be the focus of decontamination efforts at Bourne Hill, and given that the doors he entered were apparently not contaminated, I’d say it’s a fair chance that this may have been where and how he got poisoned.

November 13, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , | Leave a comment

The Poison Paradox – Who Knew?

By David Macilwain | OffGuardian | November 12, 2018

NOVICHOK! It just won’t go away – even though it was never there! The Sun reports that twenty vehicles that “came into contact with the killer substance” have now been dismantled and buried in a toxic waste site. Suspend not disbelief yet – at the thought of scrappies in Hazmat suits cutting up police cars. Such Alice in Wonderland deception was nicely detailed by Rob Slane in his latest dissection of the Skripal hoax, pointing specifically at the crucial flaws in the “door-handle theory”.

Slane systematically destroys the UK government’s assertion that the Skripals’ door-handle was the “source of the poisoning”, but without quite following through with the argument – that there was no such poisoning with Novichok at all, – as has been well established from other details of the event.

In fact, as the UK government rests its whole case for Novichok poisoning on that door-handle, and rests its whole case against Russia on her supposed responsibility for smearing the nerve agent on it, the cutting of this Achilles Heel could bring down the whole rotten edifice, just as it felled the great hero of the Trojan War; concentrating our “cyber-warfare” on this weakest point must be our priority.

As I’ve written before about the Skripal poisoning, once it is accepted that it really was a hoax – a cleverly constructed piece of political theatre contrived by the UK government to further its strategic objectives against Russia – some other questions immediately present themselves. It is not simply a case of Russia not being responsible; without Russia there is no Novichok and no case.

Chief of these questions is who knew that this was an “operation”- or conspiracy? Straight away we are confronted with a paradox, as thousands of people directly or indirectly involved in the months-long Salisbury drama must be divided into two groups – those who deceived and those who were deceived.

It’s probably safe to say that those at either extreme of this division may be assumed to belong to these two groups – which may be called the “Porton Down” group and the “Salisbury Citizens” group, belonging to the deceivers and the deceived respectively.

(It is fundamental of course to accept that the story of Novichok was not true – that Novichok was not present in the Salisbury environment nor responsible for the condition of any of its supposed five victims. While this truth may not yet be acceptable to the UK public or media, and may in fact never be acceptable to them, it has been established beyond a shadow of doubt to be the case, and could be easily proven in a fair court. Some “new” confirming evidence has also come to light which I will detail shortly.)

Taking it that Porton Down was the centre of operations for “Operation Nina” as I have called it, we must first dismiss any suggestion that this was a “rogue operation”, pursued by some faction of the intelligence services without the knowledge of others or of Government leaders. The readiness – or rather unseemly haste – with which Theresa May took up the false case against Russia despite its extraordinarily provocative and dangerous consequences denies her any alibi or claim of innocence. Besides, it dovetailed too nicely with her own agenda and that of the UK state to have been a rogue operation.

But it must follow that other leading officials and agents of the state were also fully cognisant of the Operation. Had they not been then serious problems of credibility would have immediately stood in the way, as experienced and knowledgeable staff from Porton Down could not have been taken in by the conflicting and incredible nonsense foisted on to the general public. That some may have been reluctantly complicit and remain in fear of David Kelly’s fate does however seem likely.

In questioning whether this knowledge that the Operation was “theatre” extended to all those unidentified operators in Hazmat and Green-bottle suits, the situation becomes more complicated. These men were obliged to go through some particularly stupid and difficult operations dressed in their colourful encumbrances – motivated by the belief that they were really dealing with a mortal hazard and playing their part in “protecting National Security”. Would they not though have asked the questions that we asked, and particularly “why did the Skripals not die if this stuff is so toxic?”

Or did they know they were just performing for the cameras – so to speak – but then also know that they were collectively involved in a massive and criminal deception, not just of the general public but of other civil servants and members of the various services? At what point for such personnel would moral integrity prevail over duty to “Queen and Country”, if at all?

There are only those two alternatives.

Yet more difficult is the same question applied to the police and emergency services and hospital staff, because the consequences of either option are severe. It is simply impossible to believe that so many ordinary and honest government employees could have all been complicit in this deception, and kept it secret. But the alternative is that they were all deceived by their own government, or by those within their ranks who were “in the room”.

It should be remembered in this discussion that at no point has the UK government given the slightest indication of going soft on its Novichok campaign – quite the opposite. Apparently to gain maximum advantage from the dirty operation, they have drip fed new misinformation to the press over six months, reviving and restating the first lies while creating new ones, and then finally “exposing” the “GRU” culprits and their magic poison perfume bottle.

The more potential whistle-blowers and dissenters there were in the ranks, the harder it would be to keep the lid on their lies.

As I mentioned earlier, some new information has come to light which provides more evidence on the nature of the poison applied to the Skripals, as well as giving us very useful extra insight into the experience of the staff at Salisbury District Hospital who came into contact with them – literally.

This information is from the horse’s mouth, in a BBC Newsnight report by Mark Urban of May 30th.

Urban went to Salisbury District Hospital around this time, and apparently – though we never see him nor hear his questions – interviewed staff and executives about their treatment of the Skripals and the incident.

There is nothing to suggest that any of these staff disbelieve the “official” story, and the testimony of doctors and nurses is particularly credible I think. While the information they provide about the Skripals’ “surprisingly fast” recovery is significant, the most interesting details concern the first two days following their admission on Sunday afternoon, March 4th.

The Sister in charge of Radnor ward Intensive Care Unit, Sarah Clark describes the situation:

… at that point – the evening – we were led to believe that they had taken an overdose – obviously there was no indication of nerve agent poisoning. They were needing support with their breathing, and support with their cardio-vascular system.”

While Sister Clark likely means that no-one had indicated nerve agent poisoning was a possibility, it is quite clear that there was no sign of any specific symptoms of such a toxin in the two unidentified victims either.

These symptoms are described in the interview with Intensive Care Consultant Dr Stephen Jukes – but he appears to be talking about the typical symptoms that the Skripals would have been expected to show rather than those he had actually observed.

Talk of symptoms is anyway fairly academic for such a toxic substance as A 234 Novichok or VX, as paralysis and death will occur within ten minutes of exposure to a – minuscule – lethal dose. Except in the case of minor accidental contamination, the chief diagnostic symptom of nerve agent exposure is death.

These initial observations obviously cast serious doubt on the subsequent assertions that the Skripals and Detective Inspector Bailey – admitted to hospital on Tuesday 6th March – were suffering the effects of a nerve agent. Had the staff known more, or been told more by the “international experts” who were called in to supervise the Skripals’ treatment, they would surely have also doubted the “nerve agent” theory that conflicted so drastically with their own observations and experience, described by Sister Sarah Clark:

I did have concerns, because obviously when they first came in there was no indication that it was a nerve agent, and therefore we take our normal protection when any patient comes in but would not at that point have taken any extra precautions in terms of protecting ourselves.”

But what she reveals here is crucial to the case – the various staff involved in the admission, triage and treatment of the incapacitated Skripals took only “normal protection” measures, yet reported no side effects from secondary exposure to the toxin. She “had concerns” over this inadvertent exposure, so would have been over-cautious had any staff reported symptoms.

In addition, the record from these first 48 hours indicates that no appropriate treatment was given for nerve agent poisoning; the chance of a real victim of such a toxin surviving even a sub-lethal dose without any antidote is ZERO.

So what of the “surprisingly rapid” recovery, that happened apparently as a result of the use of “untested drugs” prescribed by Porton Down experts? Newsnight again:

Dr Murray: You don’t know the way the agent might act – how long to reach its peak, how long it will last, and the longer term effects of these things, people would have no experience of.

Mark Urban: It’s clear that from the outset, experts from nearby Porton Down played a central role in advising the team. After a couple of weeks there were gradual but distinct signs of progress.

The exact timing of that, and details of drugs given, remain matters of medical confidentiality.

Dr Jukes: We were all exceptionally surprised, pleasantly surprised to see how quickly the recovery happened, at such a pace, and something we can’t easily explain.

It would be “exceptionally surprising” if the Skripal’s rapid recovery following the Porton Down boffins’ special treatment was the only thing Salisbury Hospital Staff found difficult to explain. That the Skripals didn’t die and then recovered from the Novichok attack is something they would surely have found impossible to explain – unless someone was to tell them the truth.

But then they might look for an explanation for something far more incomprehensible – how they, and millions of ordinary honest and well-intentioned people could be so completely and criminally deceived by their own elected government?

November 12, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Trudeau’s Warm Welcome To The “White Helmets” Is Highly Hypocritical

By Andrew KORYBKO – Oriental Review – 07/11/2018

Canada has accepted over 100 so-called “White Helmets” from Syria.

Popularly described as “neutral civilian volunteers” and “humanitarian rescuers”, this organization was proven by investigative journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett to be linked to terrorist groups, which makes Canada’s rolling out of the red carpet for them especially controversial considering its recent tiff with Saudi Arabia over the Kingdom’s alleged violation of human rights. What’s clearly happening here is that Canada evidently has a hierarchy of human rights violators, albeit one that’s only selectively enforced when it politically suits the country to do so. Prime Minister Trudeau is a Liberal-Globalist who tries to embrace this ideology’s zeitgeist at any given moment as opposed to ever taking an independent decision, so in hindsight he can be said to have acted against the Saudis because he felt like it was the “popular” thing to do while he welcomed the “White Helmets” for the very same reason.

There’s more to it though than just blatant hypocrisy if one takes the time to analyze his country’s decision. The “White Helmets” are part of a global Hybrid War network that was put to devastatingly effective use in the War on Syria before being exposed by the aforementioned independent journalists, and Canada may have been obliged by its NATO allies to do its part in supporting this group upon its recent Israeli-assisted evacuation from the Arab Republic. Canada’s very lenient immigration regime that practically amounts to a policy of “open borders” made the country an ideal destination for these terrorist-linked forces to flee to, where the government could always try to justify its decision under any future pressure on the grounds of guilting the populace into accepting what the Mainstream Media portrays as “innocent victims of the Assad regime”, even though that’s clearly not what they are.

What’s important to keep in mind is that the growing global awareness of the “White Helmets;” true activities in Syria might eventually cause some Canadians to doubt the wisdom of their Prime Minister in letting these very controversial individuals into the country. There’s already a visible trend sweeping the world of conservative movements toppling liberal governments or at the very least hamstringing them like what recently happened in Germany, so it wouldn’t be all too unexpected if this helps fuel the flames of a similar movement in Canada that could chip away at Trudeau’s support. There’s still another year to go before Canadians head to the polls to decide whether he stays on as Prime Minister or is replaced by what could be a conservative politician, so it remains to be seen whether his warm welcome to the “White Helmets” figures into that upcoming campaign or not.

November 7, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

US to impose ‘additional sanctions’ on Russia over Skripal poisoning claim

RT | November 6, 2018

Washington will move to impose additional sanctions against Russia, saying Moscow did not meet its demands by the deadline set by the US and accusing Moscow of a chemical attack against a former spy and his daughter in the UK.

“Today, the Department informed Congress we could not certify that the Russian Federation met the conditions required by the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991,” spokeswoman Heather Nauert said on Tuesday. “We intend to proceed in accordance with the terms of the CBW Act, which directs the implementation of additional sanctions.”

Those sanctions may include downgrading diplomatic relations, banning the Russian national carrier Aeroflot from flying to the US, and cutting off nearly all imports and exports, already severely curtailed under a series of sanctions since 2014.

In August, the State Department sent Moscow a note claiming that Russia had violated the CBW Act by using “Novichok” nerve agent  against Sergey Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury.

The Skripals were hospitalized in early March, and the British government accused Moscow of using the deadly toxin. The UK government has offered no evidence for its claims, but the US and a number of NATO countries took London’s word for it and expelled over 150 Russian diplomats. Russia has retaliated in kind.

Among the demands from Foggy Bottom was that Russia stop using chemical weapons and provide “reliable” assurances to the US it will not do so again, subject to verification by international inspectors. Moscow was given a three-month deadline to fulfill these conditions.

“Everyone who is at least a little bit familiar with the so-called Skripal case understands the absurdity of the statement contained in the official State Department document,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at the time. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said any further US sanctions could be considered a declaration of a trade war.

Russia says the last of its chemical weapons were destroyed in 2017, and that this was verified by international observers.

November 6, 2018 Posted by | Economics, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

Pipe Bombs: Frantic Denunciations of the False Flag Concept

By Prof. Graeme McQueen | Global Research | November 1, 2018

Onto the 24-hour reality show that is U.S. politics, 15 package bombs recently made their entrance.

The devices were sent to vocal opponents of Mr. Trump, most of them prominent members of the Democratic Party.  The incident became public on October 25, less than two weeks before the November 6 elections that mark the middle of Trump’s first term.

Now, it is an interesting question as to whether the designated perpetrator, Cesar Sayoc, is a lone wolf terrorist or a patsy acting on behalf of larger forces. I am encouraged to see researchers exploring the second possibility. But my focus in this article is different.

The suggestion that the package bomb incidents might be false flag attacks—attacks by opponents of Trump deceptively imputing the attacks to his supporters to discredit them before the elections—was rapidly put forth. Among the fastest off the mark were right-wing pundits, so it was easy enough for various “liberals” (whatever this term means today in the U.S.) to characterize the false flag suggestion as a variety of right-wing conspiracy theory, and as both intellectually ridiculous and morally disgusting. The evident aim has been to stigmatize the concept and drive it from responsible political discourse.

Among the most prominent of the denunciations appeared in CNN and The New York Times.

The article by CNN Editor-at-large Chris Cillizza’s was entitled, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs.” He quoted Rush Limbaugh’s claim that a “Democratic operative” could be responsible for the attacks in order to make it look as if “the Republicans are a bunch of insane lunatics.” Cillizza noted that although we may be tempted to dismiss such “conspiracy crap” without comment, we must not. To refuse to comment on it is “to let it fester.” We must publicly challenge it. His article, it seems, was meant to be a model of such debunking.

Screengrab from CNN

It was not a good model.

Cillizza concentrated on what he believed to be the logistical impossibilities in Limbaugh’s scenario. He named two steps in the scenario:

1. “Someone or someones who wanted to help Democrats—and the media, I guess, somehow?—would send a series of pipe bombs to prominent Democrats across the country.”

2. “Then Democrats or the media or, again, someone, would have to have coordinated with the state and local police—not to mention federal authorities—so that law enforcement said that these were functional bombs (even though, again, according to this theory, they weren’t).”

He feels that simply to have named these steps is to have shown how ridiculous the hypothesis is.

Really?

There is nothing impossible about Step 1. Surely Cillizza is not saying that the faction of the U.S. intelligence community hostile to Trump—nicely represented by James Clapper and John Brennan, two recipients of the package bombs—is incapable of fashioning a few clumsy devices and sending them through the mail? The material in the 2001 anthrax envelopes was much more sophisticated and difficult to acquire than the non-functional “pipe bombs,” yet the U.S. intelligence community remains a prime suspect in these attacks.

As for the purpose in sending out such bombs, one of the first questions we ask when confronted by a violent event of this sort is, Cui bono? Who benefits? I cannot see how Trump and his supporters benefit, whereas the benefit to mainstream Democrats—of the Clinton variety, no threat to the established order—is obvious. They get to claim the status of nonviolent, sane victim.

What about Cillizza’s Step 2? I confess I am defeated by his prose. I do not know what he is trying to say. But let me speculate that he is claiming this conspiracy theory involves too many people (various levels of police, for example) and that it involves an impossibly complex deception—policing agencies portraying inoperative devices as operative.

Once again we might fruitfully examine the anthrax attacks. There was an impressive amount of coordination involved in these attacks. As far as policing was concerned, this was mainly achieved by the FBI chasing away other levels of police while keeping strict control over its own personnel when they wandered too near the truth.

But the coordination in the anthrax case went far beyond policing. Media were deeply implicated. The media faithfully set out the story they were handed by authorities: the attacks appeared to have been carried out by al-Qaeda, with a strong possibility of Iraqi involvement.  This story was successfully propagated, for example, through a wide variety of newspapers, from The New York Times and Washington Post to the Guardian. By the end of 2001—less than four months after the attacks began—Homeland Security, the FBI and the White House had been forced to admit that neither al-Qaeda, nor Iraq, nor domestic Muslims, appeared to have had anything to do with these attacks. Instead, they came from the heart of the US Military-Industrial-Intelligence community. As to who, precisely, in this community carried out the attacks, there remains disagreement; but even a sketchy familiarity with the anthrax attacks knocks out Cillizza’s Step 2 objections.

A useful rule of thumb is that if a thing has happened it is possible. We know a violent, coordinated and complex false flag attack is possible in the U.S. because it happened.

But if this was the best CNN could do, what about The New York Times? Kevin Roose produced a piece somewhat longer, although not much more thoughtful, than the CNN editor’s.

Screengrab from The New York Times

Roose let us have it with the old chestnut, “conspiratorial thinking has always been with us”, and then proceeded to dance lightly from the grassy knoll to the moon landing to 9/11 without troubling us with sources, evidence or other bothersome material.

If you are like me you will find yourself, in an increasingly bad mood, asking: has this young fellow carefully researched all of these incidents? Has he, in fact, carefully researched a single one of them?

Like the CNN editor, Roose spends his time countering claims that the package bombs sent to prominent enemies of Mr. Trump might have been sent by people wanting to discredit Trump and his allies. He places these “conspiracy theorists” on the political right and associates them with Trump’s presidency. More than this, he uses, and explains, the term “false flag” and tries hard to discredit it. “False flag philosophy—the idea that powerful groups stage threats and tragic events to advance their agendas—is now a bizarrely common element of national news stories.”

This statement is a sign of progress in the opening of the American mind. We should celebrate the good news that the concept of false flag is common in political discourse, common enough that The New York Times feels a need to discredit it. This achievement came through much labour by many people over many years.

That Roose finds the concept “bizarre” is, of course, to be regretted, but this merely testifies to his naivety and his poor knowledge of false flag attacks, of which there have been plenty in human history (see Sources).

As a matter of fact, the particular type of false flag attack being discussed in the present case, where Group A attacks itself and blames Group B, is centuries old. In China it used to be called the Stratagem of Wounded Flesh (see Sources).

The notion that the false flag concept and the conspiracy concept are the exclusive property of the political right is absurd. They are ideas available to, and used by, all those who genuinely care about what is going on around them and wish to have an adequate intellectual toolbox. I am not on the political right and I am not a supporter of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the like, but I do not for that reason choose to shut down my brain.

Although we may not want to admit it, repetition is half the battle in public fights and debates. Let us use the term “false flag” repeatedly and ensure that it remains where it apparently is at the moment: in the center of U.S. political discourse.

***

Graeme MacQueen is the former director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University. He is a member of the 9/11 Consensus Panel, former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and an organizer of the 2011 Toronto Hearings, the results of which have been published in book form as The 9/11 Toronto Report. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Sources

1. The CNN article is as follows:

Chris Cillizza, “Debunking the despicable ‘false flag’ theory on the mail bombs”, CNN, Octo. 25, 2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/politics/false-flag-theory-mail-bombs-cnn-democrats/index.html

2. The NYT article is:

Kevin Roose, “‘False Flag’ Theory on Pipe Bombs Zooms From Right-Wing Fringe to Mainstream,” The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2018.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/business/false-flag-theory-bombs-conservative-media.html?link_id=2&can_id=279a5d1be99466f29caeefa017e74f2e&source=email-disinformation-and-anthrax-mailings-interviews-available&email_referrer=email_443498&email_subject=disinformation-and-anthrax-mailings-interviews-available

3. Most comments on the anthrax attacks in this essay are based on my book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy. Clarity Press, 2014.

https://www.claritypress.com/MacQueen.html

But see also FBI whistleblower Richard Lambert’s lawsuit, paragraphs 50 ff.:

https://archive.org/stream/RichardLambertLawsuit2015/FBI%20Agent%20Richard%20Lambert%20Lawsuit%20%282015%29%20concerning%20Anthrax%20investigations%20of%202001_djvu.txt

4. For examples of false flags, see the collection by Washington’s blog:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931

5. The Wounded Flesh Stratagem can be found at least as early as the 14th century CE in the novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms (San Guo Yan Yi). It can also be found as one among many stratagems in the later compilation, Thirty-six Stratagems. The Wikipedia article on the latter text offers an interpretative translation of ku rou ji: “inflict injury on oneself to win the enemy’s trust”. If the pipe bomb case is an instance of ku rou ji, the enemy of the perpetrators would be the U.S. population itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems

Copyright © Prof. Graeme McQueen, Global Research, 2018

Read more: The 9/11 Anniversary: Conspiracy Theory or Critical Thinking?

November 6, 2018 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Mossad false flags only encourage Iran to boost ties with world: Zarif

Press TV – November 1, 2018

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the Israeli spy agency’s “false flags” will fail to hurt Tehran’s ties with the world, apparently referring to Mossad’s role in a diplomatic row between Iran and Denmark.

In a tweet from Pakistan on Wednesday, Zarif said, “Mossad’s perverse & stubborn planting of false flags (more on this later) only strengthens our resolve to engage constructively with the world.”

The top Iranian diplomat — who was in Islamabad following his trilateral talks in Istanbul with his Azeri and Turkish opposite numbers — further praised Iran’s “solid relations” with its neighbors.

“Solid relations w/neighbors our priority,” Zarif said in the tweet, which also carried photos of his meetings in Turkey and Pakistan.

The tweet comes amid a diplomatic standoff between Tehran and Copenhagen over the latter’s claims that Iran had tried to carry out an assassination plot on Danish soil, an allegation Tehran has sharply rejected.

Swedish security police also said a Norwegian citizen of Iranian descent had been arrested on October 21 in connection with the alleged plot and extradited to Denmark.

Denmark recalled its ambassador from Tehran and said that it was consulting with other European countries about how to respond. Tehran also summoned the Danish ambassador to Tehran to voice its protest.

Israeli media later revealed that Mossad had provided Denmark with “intelligence” concerning the alleged plot by Tehran.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also quick to “congratulate” the Danish government on the arrest.

Tehran has dismissed Denmark’s claims as “rash, politicized,” with Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi saying Wednesday that “invisible hands” were at work to damage Iran’s ties with Europe at the time when the two sides are closely cooperating to save the 2015 multilateral nuclear deal following the US’s pullout.

Qassemi also said such reports are the continuation of conspiracies hatched by known enemies who are against growing Iran-Europe relations at the current sensitive juncture.

In a similar claim back in June, the Israeli spy agency said it had helped “foil” an alleged Iranian bomb attack on a meeting of the terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in Paris. An Iranian diplomat, based in Austria, was arrested in Germany on the false charges of being linked to the suspected attack.

Zarif’s talks in Pakistan

In Islamabad, Zarif sat down with new Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa.

He held talks with Pakistani officials about the fate of the Iranian forces who were abducted by Pakistan-based terrorists near the two countries’ joint border earlier in October.

Terrorists with the so-called Jaish ul-Adl terrorist group abducted 12 Iranian forces in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan, and spirited them away into neighboring Pakistan.

At his meeting with Imran Khan, the two officials discussed ways to deepen ties between the two neighboring nations, especially in the field of energy and regional issues.

November 1, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | Leave a comment

The Achilles Heel of the Door Handle Theory

By Rob Slane | The Blog Mire | October 29, 2018

There are few certainties in the Salisbury case, but one thing I am quite confident of is that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not poisoned with a nerve agent of “high purity” on the door handle of 47 Christie Miller Road. I am also quite confident that Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey was not poisoned in this way either, and furthermore that his actions, and the subsequent actions of investigators, are the Achilles Heel of the whole explanation. I shall come onto that in due course, but first the Skripals.

There are simply too many things which, when added together, make the door handle explanation at the very least incredibly implausible, if not downright impossible:

Firstly, they did not die immediately, or thereabouts, which is what you would expect to have happened had they been contaminated by coming into contact with what was said to be a nerve agent of “high purity”.

Secondly, they were fine for hours afterwards, so much so that they were able to drive to town, feed ducks, go for a meal, and then have a drink.

Thirdly, eye witness accounts of the couple on the bench suggest that they became seriously ill pretty much simultaneously. Certainly, there were no reports of one of the pair calling for help, or contacting the emergency services, which is what you would expect to have happened in the event of one becoming ill before the other.

Fourthly, during the duck feed, which took place just after the Skripals parked their car in Sainsbury’s car park, and prior to their visit to Zizzis, Mr Skripal handed bread to some local boys, one of whom apparently ate a piece. I cannot think of a plausible explanation why this boy did not become ill if, as claimed, Mr Skripal’s hands were contaminated at that time with a “military grade nerve agent”.

Fifthly, either Mr Skripal or his daughter must have touched the parking machine at Sainsbury’s car park, which was then touched by literally hundreds of people over the following days. Yet not one of these people were contaminated.

Sixthly, neither the door handle at Zizzis nor the door handle at The Mill were contaminated, despite the fact that either Mr Skripal or Yulia, or perhaps both, would have handled them when going into those venues.

In other words, in order to accept the door handle explanation, you need to ignore every one of these extremely improbable things. If it were someone on a website suggesting it, rather than The Metropolitan Police, you all know what they would be called and what they would be assumed to be wearing on their heads, don’t you?

Suppose you’d never heard about the case of the Skripals before, and someone told you that it involved two people collapsing simultaneously on a bench after being poisoned by some sort of highly toxic substance. Where would you assume the poisoning had taken place? Given the rapid onset of symptoms, and the fact that both fell ill at the same time, most rational people would assume that it was at the bench, or in the near vicinity shortly before. Not many, if any, would plump for a door handle four hours before, with the feeding of waterfowl and partaking of comestibles and beverages in between.

Yet the curious thing is that the near vicinity explanation — by far the most obvious and reasonable — hardly seems to have got a look in. The theories of the place of poisoning very quickly moved from the poisoning of food in Zizzis or spiking of drinks in The Mill to a timeline of perhaps hours before the collapse, including flowers, buckwheat, the car door handle, and luggage, before finally resting on the door handle of the house. But nothing much about the bench or The Maltings.

Nor were there any concerted appeals for more people to come forward with information about the Skripals’ movements after, say, 15:30. There were appeals regarding their movements between 9:00 and 13:00. There were appeals regarding their movements in the early afternoon from 13:00 to 13:45. But nothing much around the actual time and the actual place that logic and reason would suggest the attack took place.

This is all very odd, to say the least.

But there is something much odder than this, and it is something which — I believe — shows beyond all reasonable doubt that the door handle explanation is false. I refer to the movements of Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey, and the response of investigators following his actions.

There is some confusion as to when Mr Bailey was first admitted to Salisbury District Hospital. Some reports seem to suggest that he first went there on Sunday 4th March, and some suggest that it may have been 5th or even 6th March. Still other reports suggest that he may have gone there on the evening of 4th March, been given the all clear, but then driven himself back there on 6th March after feeling unwell. Certainly, the first mention of his hospitalisation in public was made by the then Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley on 6th March, who stated the following:

“Sadly, in addition, a police officer who was one of the first to attend the scene and respond to the incident is now also in a serious condition in hospital.”

For the purposes of what I want to show, it is enough to say that by 6th March, not only had Mr Bailey been admitted to hospital, but it was also known that he had somehow been poisoned.

As you can see from Mark Rowley’s comment, Mr Bailey was said to have been one of the first responders at the bench, and so it was initially assumed that he must have been contaminated there, perhaps by coming into contact with one of the Skripals. One of the glaring problems with this explanation, however, was that not one other responder at the bench was similarly contaminated. For example, one witness, Jamie Paine, described how Mr Skripal was frothing at the mouth, and that he got a little bit of this on his skin and jacket. Yet he was not contaminated.

Then on 9th March, the solution was forthcoming. Lord Ian Blair, former Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, stated in a radio interview that Mr Bailey actually went to Mr Skripal’s house. Here is how The Telegraph reported this:

“Asked if there were any leads in the case, Lord Blair told the Today Programme on Radio 4: ‘There are some indications that the police officer who was injured had been to the house, whereas there was a doctor who looked after the patients in the open, who hasn’t been affected at all. So there maybe some clues floating around in here.’”

The phrase “some indications” is what is known as a weasel phrase. By that time Wiltshire Police and The Metropolitan Police must have known full well that Mr Bailey had been at the house, and there would have been no “some indications” about it.

Let us pause to consider what this means.

According to the narrative presented by The Metropolitan Police, by 9th March at the latest, three things were known for certain:

1. Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey had been hospitalised after becoming contaminated with a toxic substance.

2. He had been at the Maltings, close to the bench where it was reported that the Skripals had collapsed.

3. He had also been to Mr Skripal’s house at 47 Christie Miller Road.

This would have led to a logical deduction that the source of Mr Bailey’s poisoning must have been at one of two locations:

1. At the bench in the Maltings (or close proximity)

2. At Mr Skripal’s house.

(Note that I have said “the source of Mr Bailey’s poisoning”. It is possible that he was contaminated away from these locations, by an object he picked up. However, the source of his poisoning would still have to have been at one of these two places).

But as mentioned above, The Met seemed to rule out or ignore the bench and The Maltings as the place of poisoning from quite early on. And so according to their own account, Mr Bailey must have been poisoned at the Skripal house, or by something he took away from there. Indeed, this is what was stated in The Telegraph article in which Lord Blair’s comment appeared:

“The disclosure that Det Sgt Bailey was poisoned at the Skripal family home — rather than at the scene where the pair collapsed — strongly indicates that the nerve agent was administered there.”

So what would you have expected to happen next?

Here’s what I would have expected: 47 Christie Miller Road to be placed on full lockdown, with forensic specialists from Porton Down brought in to examine the house inside out, taking swabs in order to locate the source of poisoning. And so if the door handle was the location of the poisoning, it is not unreasonable to have expected it to be identified as such within 24-48 hours of knowing that Mr Bailey had been there. So by 11th March at the absolute latest.

But this is not at all what happened. What actually happened was as follows:

Firstly, we continued to get a number of speculative theories about the source of the poisoning, from Whitehall and intelligence sources. For example, the theory that the poison was placed in the flowers laid by Mr Skripal at his wife’s grave was mentioned on 10th March and continued to be seen as a possibility for a good while afterwards.

The car door handle was mooted as a possibility on 13th March:

“Whitehall sources last night said Mr Skripal was poisoned when he touched the door handle of his car, which had been smeared with a deadly nerve agent.”

And on 18th March, intelligence sources were saying that the poisoning may have taken place through the air ventilation system in the car.

But hang on a minute. These theories might have made some sense if it was just the Skripals that had been poisoned. But it wasn’t. By 9th March it was known that Mr Bailey had been contaminated too, and his movements were also known. And since there was no suggestion that he ever went to the cemetery, or that he ever went to Mr Skripal’s car, how could these places possibly have been the source of the poisoning? Of course they couldn’t, and given that investigators had apparently ruled out the bench or the near vicinity as the place of his poisoning, Mr Skripal’s house and his house alone by that time should have been the entire focus of the search for the location of the poisoning. And yet it wasn’t.

Secondly, the scene at the house itself continued after 9th March as it had done before that time. It continued to be guarded by unprotected, uniformed officers, just as it had been before Lord Blair’s remark. Why was this, if it had already been established that this was the place where Mr Bailey had been poisoned?

But thirdly, and most crucially, the door handle theory only appeared in public on 24th March, when it was revealed that forensics teams had taken swabs from the front door on 22nd March (the forensics team doing this was the OPCW, and it was the first time that the door handle had been a focus). In other words, it took almost a fortnight after Lord Blair’s revelation of Mr Bailey going to 47 Christie Miller Road for investigators to swab the door and the handle. That is simply incredible.

Interestingly, the article that first mentioned the door as “ground zero” in the investigation stated the following as the reason for this:

“Whitehall staff have seen evidence which shows Russians have researched administering poisons via door handles.”

What we can say, therefore, is as follows: By 9th March at the latest (but probably several days before), it was known that Mr Bailey, who was by then hospitalised after becoming contaminated, had entered 47 Christie Miller Road on 4th March. This means that – again according to The Met – the house must have been ground zero, because it was the only place, other than the bench, where all three people could have come into contact with the source of the poison. However, it wasn’t until 22nd March that the forensics teams came to check the door, and the reason they did so was apparently not because it was obvious that the house needed checking, but because allegedly an FSB manual had been found mentioning door handles.

So why did it take two weeks or more for investigators to swab the door and identify the alleged location of the poisoning, when according to their own narrative, Mr Bailey’s movements clearly pointed to the house as the location? Why was it that throughout that time other locations for the poisoning were put forward, even though Mr Bailey had not been in those places? And why did it take the alleged discovery of a manual, rather than Mr Bailey’s known visit to the house, before anyone got the idea to swab the door and the door handle?

I think there is only one plausible explanation, and it is this: Mr Bailey wasn’t actually poisoned at the door handle of Mr Skripal’s house at all. Had he really been poisoned there, immediately after it came to light that he had gone to 47 Christie Miller Road on 4th March, the house would have been swabbed from top to bottom and the door handle as location of the poisoning would have been identified by 11th March at the latest. Instead, there was a gap of two weeks or more before swabs were taken. Why? Because for some reason, which hasn’t yet been explained, and perhaps never will be, both Mr Bailey’s and the Skripals’ contamination needed to be explained away from The Maltings. And although his going to the house meant that this was a possibility, it took two full weeks, plus the invention of the door handle manual, to settle on a particular location. In other words, someone tried to straighten out what was undoubtedly a very crooked story. But far from straightening it, they only succeeded in bending it even more, out of all recognition.

October 29, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Canada Accepts Dozens of White Helmets Evacuated from Syria – Reports

Sputnik – 29.10.2018

Canada has accepted 117 White helmets along with their family members, evacuated earlier in July from war-torn Syria with the help of Israel, CBC News reported Sunday.

In late July, over 400 White Helmets’ activists and their families were evacuated from Syria at the request of Canada, European countries, and the United States amid a full-scale offensive by Syrian government troops against militants and terrorists in country’s southwestern regions.

According to CBC News, the now-former White Helmets will be settled in four provinces, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The international community reportedly expected to remove up to 1,200 evacuees, including first responders and their families. In the end, only 422 Syrian White Helmets and their families managed to get out last July.

CBC News said, citing evacuees, that hundreds of White Helmets remain in Syria.

Canada’s Foreign Ministry said earlier that Ottawa was in the process of resettling a group of White Helmets members who had to leave Syria, stressing that security screening was completed before members of the Syrian civil defense group can fly to Canada as refugees.

According to Syrian President Bashar Assad, the group is affiliated with al-Qaeda terrorist organization. The Russian permanent mission to the European Union said earlier that the evacuation of the White Helmets from Syria proves that the states organizing the operation were seeking to cover up the provocative actions of the self-proclaimed humanitarian group.

Damascus and Moscow have accused the White Helmets of helping to stage a chemical attack in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta town in April. That attack prompted the United States, the United Kingdom and France to launch more than 100 missiles on multiple targets in Syria one week later.

In late September, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin said that militants as well as White Helmets continued their preparations for plotting chemical attacks to discredit the Syrian government’s troops.

Lebanon’s Al-Mayadeen television said Thursday that Militants and the White Helmets group have transported unidentified poisonous materials from the city of Jisr al-Shughur to the settlement of Khirbat al Amud, both located in the rebel-held province of Idlib.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem called Saturday the White Helmets the main tool for staging chemical attacks, adding that this was a terrorist organization created with the financial aid of the UK intelligence.

Muallem reiterated that Syria had destroyed all its chemical weapons arsenals and had not used them.

October 28, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »