Page 182 of 184 FirstFirst ... 82132172180181182183184 LastLast
Results 1,811 to 1,820 of 1836

Thread: PC Watch: Free Speech Is Dying We Must Be Vigilant And Fight Against PC Tyranny

  1. #1811  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Another good article about it


    The curious case of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury continues to puzzle. So let's get the key, undisputed facts down and approach it logically, without fear or favor, and see what conclusions we come to...


    Here are fifteen facts in relation to the Salisbury poisonings case:


    1. We haven't seen any photographs or heard anything from Sergei Skripal since 4th March.


    The last confirmed images we have of Skripal is CCTV footage of him in a shop in Salisbury at 12.47pm on 27th February.


    We haven't seen Yulia Skripal, Sergei's daughter since a short video statement featuring her was released on 23rd May.


    2. Investigative website Bellingcat contends that the two suspects identified by the police, and traveling under the names Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, are in fact Anatoliy Chepiga, a highly decorated colonel from Russian military intelligence, and Alexander Mishkin, a doctor working for Russian military intelligence.


    3. We haven't seen any CCTV footage of the Skripal's house on 4th March, or of the Skripals on the bench where they were found at around 4.15pm.


    READ MORE: Bellingcat Claims Second Skripal Poisoning Suspect Identified


    4. We have seen CCTV footage, timed at 11.58am, of the two suspects walking along Wilton Road in an opposite direction to Salisbury Cathedral (which they claim to have come to Salisbury to visit), and in the direction of the Skripals house.


    5. The football World Cup was held in Russia this summer for the first time. There was an anti-Russian neocon campaign in the west to undermine the event, calling for boycotts and fans not to travel there.


    6. On Tuesday 6th March, two days after the Skripals were taken ill, arch-Putin critics Bill Browder and Ed Lucas were due to address British Parliamentarians on 'fake news'.




    They were expected to make the case for tougher measures to be taken against Russia and Russian media.


    7. Anatoliy Chepiga has not, as yet, come forward to identify himself as being a different person from Ruslan Boshirov.


    8. Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was one of the first on the scene at the bench and who subsequently became ill, has not been interviewed by any news media, since being released from the hospital on 22nd March.


    In this Feb. 27, 2018 grab taken from CCTV video provided by ITN on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 , former spy Sergei Skripal shops at a store in Salisbury, England
    AP PHOTO / ITN
    Ex-MI5 Officer Sheds Light on 'Narrative' Behind Book on Skripal
    9. The weather in and around Salisbury on the weekend of 2-4th March was inclement. It included heavy snow, strong winds, and freezing rain. There were significant transport disruptions in southern England.
    10. The UK authorities believe that nerve agent novichok was sprayed by the two suspects on the Skripals front door knob at around noon on 4th March.


    11. The two suspects were captured on CCTV exiting Salisbury railway station at 11.48am and then entering the station at 1.50pm, just over two hours later.


    12. We have seen no evidence that the Skripals returned home having been seen on CCTV at around 9.15am out in their car in Salisbury.


    13. The suspects have not been charged in connection with the death of Dawn Sturgess, who were are, told died from novichok poisoning having used perfume from a bottle discarded by the two men in a skip and given to her by her partner.


    14. In a letter to The Times on 14th March, Dr. Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust wrote: 'May I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning?No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved'.




    15. Eyewitness Freya Church, who saw the Skripals in on the bench, told the BBC: 'He was doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky?.They looked like they had been taking something quite strong'.


    Have a think about those fifteen pieces of factual information for a moment. What conclusions do you draw from them?


    Well, here's mine.


    1. Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov were in Salisbury for a reason which they did not want to disclose in their television interview on RT. It is looking increasingly likely that both men were Russian intelligence officers. Fact 7, suggests that Boshirov is Chepiga. If not, why hasn't Chepiga come forward?


    2. The absence of any interviews with, or statements from, Sergei Skripal indicates that he does not believe the UK government narrative that the Russian state was behind his poisoning. Last week, it was revealed that Skripal was indeed reluctant to believe that Russia was responsible.


    But surely Skripal would have a good idea of who did the act? If 'Chepiga' and 'Mishkin' had done the poisoning, and Skripal and his daughter had met them that fateful Sunday, why isn't he saying so, in a video address?


    A police officer near the Mill pub in Salisbury, where the traces of the nerve agent used to poison former Main Intelligence Directorate colonel Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found
    SPUTNIK / ALEX MCNAUGHTON
    'Dr. Novichok': Two More Suspects Wanted in Skripal Case ? Reports
    3. The fact that the World Cup was due to be held in Russia and that Browder and Lucas were to address Parliament that very week (and this was publicized in advance on social media), makes it most unlikely that the Russian state would authorize the assassination of Sergei Skripal on the weekend of 2-4th March 2018 UNLESS Skripal was about to do something very soon to endanger Russian security. But what could that be, considering he hadn't been in Russia for many years and was not privy to any new secrets?
    If 'revenge' against a former spy who had betrayed his country had been the motive, then the operation would surely have been done before or at least postponed until after the World Cup. In fact, from a Kremlin perspective, there could not have been a worse weekend to carry out the operation, especially if we take into account the wintry weather which would make getting to Salisbury problematic- and smearing a doorknob with novichok as an assassination technique unlikely to be fully effective because of the precipitation.


    4. The absence of CCTV footage of the suspects approaching the Skripals' house or doing anything suspicious in Salisbury (apart from walking in the wrong direction from the cathedral), suggests that such footage does not exist. If it does, why hasn't it been shown?


    5. The lack of evidence to show that the Skripals returned home after leaving their house before 9.15 am suggests that novichok was not placed on the front door knob and that they were poisoned elsewhere. If the Skripals had returned home, then poisoning their doorknob in broad daylight would have been extraordinarily risky- but if they didn't go back, how were they affected by a sprayed doorknob?


    Aug. 9, 2006 file picture Sergei Skripal speaks to his lawyer from behind bars seen on a screen of a monitor outside a courtroom in Moscow


    Skripal Refused to Move to US Under New Identity, New Book Claims
    Novichok is supposed to be fast acting and lethal, so the likeliest places they were poisoned were either in the pub, the restaurant (with someone possibly dropping poison into their food or drink, as security expert Will Geddes suggested in this report, or on the bench itself. The restaurant seems more likely as an eyewitness told the BBC that Sergei Skripal had been behaving strangely there.
    'He started screaming. He just didn't look right'. Some have said this is because he may have spotted Borishov and Petrov through a window. But how could he, if the pair had already entered Salisbury station to make their journey back to London at 1.50pm? The Skripals entered the restaurant after 2.20pm.


    So where do these conclusions lead us, in regards to solving the mystery?


    READ MORE: UK Police: It Will Cost Over $13Mln to Probe Alleged Cases of Novichok Use


    The 'official' explanation of the UK government is that the two suspects were Russian hitmen who came to Salisbury to assassinate Skripal but who botched their assignment because for some reason they didn't use a strong enough dose/and/or the excellence/quickness of the emergency services and Salisbury hospital.


    But if men were the poisoners, why the lack of CCTV footage of them approaching the Skripals house- and why did they carry out their operation on the weekend of 2nd-4th March? If Russian culpability was so obvious, why have the UK authorities sought to censor, via two DSMA notices, MSM reporting of the case?


    The timing suggests that if the men were indeed Russian agents, their mission did not have high-level Kremlin approval, as claimed.


    Could they then have been part of a group within Russian intelligence who were fed up with western 'bear-baiting', and who actually wanted relations between Russia and the west to deteriorate further in order to bring matters to a head?


    Or might they even be double agents, actually working for the west? If they were an assassination squad out to smear a doorknob with novichok, then why did they come to Salisbury twice in broad daylight and not at night?


    READ MORE: Salisbury Church to Hold 'From Russia With Love' Concert ? Reports
    Last edited by Serge; 10-09-2018 at 10:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #1812  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Why did they come together, and arrive in Salisbury so openly, on public transport? Two possible inferences are (a) the men were bungling Mr. Bean-style incompetents- which doesn't tally with Chepiga being a highly decorated colonel in military intelligence, or (b) they didn't mind being found out, and actually wanted to be. If that sounds plausible, here's another explanation which ticks all the boxes.


    The two suspects were indeed Russian military intelligence operatives. Bellingcat, for all the concerns we have about founder Elliot Higgins' links to The Atlantic Council, are actually right about this.


    But the two men didn't travel to Salisbury to kill Skripal but to meet with him, negotiate with him, or conduct some kind of business with him. The Skripals weren't poisoned via their front doorknob, but in the pub or restaurant or on the bench itself- at a time when the two suspects had already left Salisbury.


    The reason we haven't seen the CCTV footage is that it does not incriminate 'Boshirov' and 'Petrov'. Novichok didn't kill the Skripals because novichok wasn't used. The aim was to simulate a novichok attack, as a provocation to blame Russia by a geopolitical adversary, but not to kill the Skripals. Those behind the provocation knew that two Russian agents were in town that weekend to do business with Skripal so it was perfect timing. The Skripals were poisoned with the synthetic drug fentanyl (or fentanyl mixed with small traces of novichok).


    Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova during a briefing in Moscow
    SPUTNIK / EUGENE ODINOKOV


    Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Says New Claims About Boshirov Aim to Distract Public From Events in Salisbury


    Remember, fentanyl poisoning is what the hospital originally treated them for, before the government's own laboratory at nearby Porton Down said it was novichok on 7th March. Read again the words of Dr. Stephen Davies- and also bear in mind what eyewitness Freya Church said: 'They looked like they had been taking something quite strong'.
    As for small traces of novichok being found in the suspects' hotel room on 4th May, this could indeed have been left by them, but it also could quite easily have been planted later on by an intelligence operative of a power hostile to Russia, staying in the room as a 'guest', before the police went there.


    Of course, this is only a theory, and it could be wrong, but it is one that is consistent with the facts as we currently know them. It would explain why we haven't heard from Sergei Skripal. It would explain the DSMA Notices and the fact that Dt Sgt Nick Bailey- who surely has a lot to tell about what happened on 4th March, has not been interviewed. It would explain the fact that we haven't seen more CCTV footage.


    READ MORE: UK Envoy Claims Russia Tried to Compromise Foreign Office After Salisbury Attack


    It would also explain why Russia has had to deny the two named suspects were agents because if they admitted they were agents and in Salisbury on the day of the poisoning, but had nothing to do with it, no one would believe them.


    Lovers of detective fiction- and indeed those who follow real-life crime stories will know that there have been lots of examples of 'suspicious' characters who happened to be near a crime scene and were there for a reason which they did not want to reveal ?but who did not actually carry out the crime.


    Seven months on, it still remains up to those accusing the Kremlin to prove their case.







    https://sputniknews.com/columnists/2...ssia-uk-facts/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #1813  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    lol

    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #1814  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    The Framing of Russia
    David Macilwain








    On the first of May, the UK?s National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill told MPs that the agencies he oversaw ? MI6, MI5 and GCHQ ? had no information on who was responsible for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter two months earlier.


    Three days later police searched the room in the City Stay Hotel used by ?suspects? Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, and took swabs which were ?found to contain Novichok? by Porton Down. The police did not make this information public until September 6th, when they chose to break the story of the now notorious ?Russian assassins?.


    As I have speculated before, and as is now becoming increasingly clear, the ?suspects? put in the frame by the UK government were evidently known to its intelligence agencies long before Mark Sedwill?s denial, and in fact before they even reached London, on their way, we are told ad nauseum, to hit the Skripals with toxic perfume.


    Obviously that story is not true, but it now appears that the mission assigned to the unwitting Russian couple was much more than simply to be caught on CCTV in the vicinity of the elusive Skripals, and that they were a pivotal part of ?Operation Nina? ? both in the planning stages and in the extended ?action phase?, currently playing out in the media and institutions of the Western world.


    The researches of Elena Evdokimova, explained in systematic detail on her twitter account, allow us to turn what was previously just informed speculation into solid assertions which now look ?highly likely? to be true, and which then become a basis for further well-informed speculation. I use the term ?highly likely? with reservation, having previously argued that it lies a long way from certainty. In this context however, it?s only fair to adopt Mark Sedwill?s own interpretation of the phrase as meaning ?100% certain?, bizarre as that is.


    This adjustment to the standard of proof by the UK?s intelligence agencies was contained in an intelligence briefing to NATO?s chief Jen Stoltenberg, made public on Friday April 13th ? the day before the combined US/UK/French missile attack on Damascus. Without labouring the point, it?s worth quoting from Sedwill?s letter to NATO.


    Sedwill wrote:


    I would like to share with you and allies further information regarding our assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian state was responsible for the Salisbury attack. Only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and the motive. The term ?highly likely? is one commonly used by the intelligence agencies when they believe something is 100% certain ? since they are unwilling to express that opinion without a caveat in case of error.?


    Sedwill wisely left himself a caveat however, concluding that: ?there is no plausible alternative explanation.?


    So how might we classify ?implausible? on the scale of probability? Implausible certainly doesn?t mean impossible, nor perhaps even ?highly unlikely?. But to say something is ?not plausible? is to make a judgement that reflects one?s point of view, or in this case the UK?s strategic attitude. The ?explanation? for the attack on Sergei Skripal being offered by the UK government and its top advisors is clearly not plausible in Russia?s eyes, nor in those of most independent observers and commentators.


    In fact the UK?s story ? its cover story for ?Operation Nina? is virtually impossible, besides being highly improbable and completely inexplicable in its finer details; those have been sufficiently explored not to need repeating, nor do they merit any further attention. It?s already evident that no amount of scientific analysis and careful reasoning can counter this intricately constructed spy story or its stranglehold on Western mainstream media and the public mind.


    Ironically it is now the one area of weakness in Russia?s defence against these delinquent charges that offers the greatest opportunity, centring around the question of what exactly Petrov and Boshirov were doing in Salisbury. This has been a weakness that the UK and its minions have exploited to the full, and that also challenges those of us trying to defend the Russians? innocence.


    What has been revealed by Elena Evdokimova and her sources however, appears to show that UK agencies were selecting and cultivating suitable Russians to use as patsies in psy-ops against Russia, with Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov picked out for ?Operation Nina?.


    The whole story of her research and discoveries is told on Elena?s twitter thread, and should be read in detail, but in essence it goes like this: (it focuses on Ruslan Boshirov ? who Eliot Higgins/Bellingcat claim to be Anatoly Chepiga and a GRU agent.)

    https://twitter.com/elenaevdokimov7/...18522610016256


    Ruslan Boshirov applied for a replacement 5 year foreign passport in 2016 through a private agency, submitting copies of his previous passport from 2011 and his Russian ID from 1999. As Elena says:


    #Skripal None of the photos Bellingcat produced were the photos of Chepiga. All 3 ? are the photocopies from the documents that were needed to apply for a 5 year foreign passport and they were all photos of Boshirov. But the plot is much more sophisticated than we imagined.
    Not long after Boshirov submitted his application to this private firm:


    30-40 sets copies of people?s documents (those who applied for a foreign passport through that firm) were stolen by a criminal in 2016. That?s why the passports Bellingcat is forging have the same series and consecutive numbers ? they were stolen at the same time & place.

    The criminal sold those documents to a foreign entity.

    These documents also included details of the individual?s work history and military service.


    They also had the photocopies of people?s new foreign passports they stole, including Boshirov?s passport. One photocopy was already used to fake the ?Shirokov?s? passport (see Montenegro?s 2016 coup False Flag).


    So those to whom that criminal sold the photocopies knew where to contact people whose documents they stolen. They had their places of employment.


    That?s what they done- they offered Boshirov & Petrov (a gay couple who seem to be involved in something a bit shady- steroids?human growth hormones?) to deliver something to somebody Salisbury, somewhere near the #Skripal?s house or, maybe, maybe even to Skripal himself(?)
    Boshirov and Petrov were handsomely paid and did not even think twice ? who does not want to have a paid holiday just to deliver/pick up a small thing, maybe documents, prescription drugs, steroids or whatever.


    But whatever they picked up/delivered was not quite legal, so both did not want to mention it. As Putin said- not much of a criminal they were. That?s how they were in Salisbury at the right place at the right time. And suspiciously spent only 3-4 hours there each day.


    While being in Salisbury they were also sightseeing, looked at famous cathedral, which is actually amazing. When they came home- people who used them stopped sending them overseas. There was no reason to- the patsies done what they were planned to be used for.


    Meanwhile, Boshirov and Petrov discovered in horror that they were used, accused in poisoning #Skripals and, being not the brightest people ? they decided not to tell about their shady delivery, especially on TV. So they looked even more suspicious.


    Which all sounds rather plausible. In the plausibility stakes in fact, this whole story ? which as Elena observes is only hypothetical ? rates at least as ?highly likely?, if not quite ?beyond reasonable doubt, and is a substantial base on which to mount further speculation and prediction on the conspirators? next moves.


    That the UK government, its agencies and assistants are the conspirators, with everything that this implies, can however no longer be in doubt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #1815  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Operation Nina ? A Conspirator?s View
    There?s never a shortage of commentators reporting on how Russia planned the attack on the Skripals, or how Syria planned its chemical weapons massacres. So let?s just turn the tables on these prejudiced and blinkered proponents of the Western narrative?


    The current impasse between the UK and Russia, initiated by the Skripal poisoning on March 4th and crystallized by the identification of two Russian ?suspects? this week, calls for new thinking. Despite what appears to most Russians as the complete exposure of the UK?s dirty game, where its ?smoking gun? evidence has been trashed by the appearance of the two ?guns? on Russian TV, the UK?s leaders and their dutiful media remain unrepentant.


    Worse than that, the ?spycatchers? are re-invigorated with passionate Russophobia, full of indignation over the ?brazen appearance? of their assassins on the BBC?s nemesis, RT. After they spent so many months combing through 11,000 hours of CCTV footage to put together a picture of the men, whose recorded movements almost coincided with the location and movements of the Skripals, it would be vexing to see that work squandered in less than a week.


    Or so it might seem.


    But before we feel too sorry for those unnamed individuals who finally found the proverbial needles in the haystack of Russians visiting Salisbury, albeit, at rather a quiet time, we might consider this inconvenient detail: ?Novichok? was found on swabs taken at the City Stay Hotel on MAY 4th.


    This, of course, was only two months after the attack on the Skripals, when the nerve agent might have been considered ?fresh? and possibly dangerous; more recent re-testing found no trace of Novichok, though it was suggested this was because all of the substance had been removed on the swabs in May. Yes.




    Given that no-one at the hotel reported being affected by Novichok, one must conclude that police had already identified Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov by the end of April, as Russians who had flown into London on that snowy weekend in March, and who had visited Salisbury while staying at City Stay Hotel.


    But before we waste time speculating how and why it took them another four months to release the mug-shots of the suspected ?GRU agents?, we should consider how much earlier the two Russians may have been under suspicion as the possible culprits and purveyors of the Nina Ricci perfume ?Nouveau Truc?.


    If authorities assumed the assassins had come from Russia, with the extensive monitoring and searching capabilities now available to them, might Petrov and Boshirov (their real names) not have been identified within days?


    But now here?s the rub.


    Accepting that the ?Novichok? poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal did NOT take place, neither as claimed by the UK from contact with a Novichok-smeared doorknob, nor in fact from any contact at all, we should now logically consider if these two Russian guys were identified before they came to London.


    This is not some ?conspiracy theory? ? because it?s clear that there was a conspiracy. And with every new piece of ?evidence?, and every repetition of the original false and fabricated claims against Russia this conspiracy becomes deeper and more malignant.


    It is often useful when accusations are made against countries of ? for instance ? military expansionism, to reverse the protagonists; would the US be happy to see Chinese warships ?maintaining freedom of navigation? between Cuba and Florida? While building military bases in neighboring countries and installing anti-missile defense systems in them?


    So in considering the attack on the Skripals, and the apparent connection with false-flag chemical weapons attacks in Syria, it is useful to take what we may call a ?conspirator?s eye view?.


    Despite the credulity of Western media and its audience in the fabricated stories of chemical weapons use both in Syria and in Salisbury, there is now no alternative but to count these Western populations amongst the victims of a massive conspiracy by the UK and its allies; one that threatens to even exceed the criminality and deception involved in that ?Mother of all Conspiracies? that launched the Imperial Wars of Terror seventeen years ago.


    Considering this conspiracy, or operation - as it may appear to those who planned and executed the whole deception ? from their perspective, opens up a whole new line of inquiry, and interest in past events that may have otherwise been overlooked. It may also take us into a realm of human psychology that is highly discomfiting, and for which it may be better to pretend that this is simply an academic inquiry.


    A ?what if the Skripal poisoning was staged by GCHQ to frame the Russians and provide a pretext for sanctions, because of their support for the Syrian government?? inquiry. But just remember this is a pretense.


    First, we must assume that this operation was well-planned, and at least some months in advance. While considerations of the coming Russian Presidential election and the World Cup Football may have figured, along with Russia?s resistance in Ukraine and on its borders, the key driver behind ?Operation Nina? (as we may choose to call it after the UK?s choice of ?perfume?) must surely have been the situation in Syria.


    This became quite clear when Theresa May delivered the ?first use of a chemical weapon in Europe since WW2? accusation against Russia, timed as it was so cleverly only weeks before the staging of the Douma gas attack. Rather than simple guilt by association ? supporting the ?murderous Assad regime? ? Russia could now be framed as a collaborator and user of chemical weapons.


    One need only look at the rise in toxic Russophobia, and support for extreme measures against Russia which are entirely unjustifiable, to realize just who benefits from this framing of the West?s chief bugbear, and thus who might consider such an operation.


    Russia?s enormous commitment to restoring peace and justice in Syria for the last seven years, and dedication to diplomacy and negotiation, with military action as the last resort, has been completely obscured by the NATO campaign of disinformation and subversive action, and to an extraordinary degree.


    Clearly from the conspirators? point of view, ?Operation Nina? and the concomitant ?White Helmets? and ?Doctors Under Fire? operations in Syria have been a resounding success ? even though the presumed goal of regime change still eludes them, whether in Damascus or Moscow. Certainly in terms of intent, and what the opposing parties stood to gain from assassinating Sergei Skripal there can be no argument ? Russia only stood to lose, a little or a lot, while the UK and its allies stood to prevail both militarily and politically in their own interests, however morally repugnant and legally unjustified these were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #1816  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Part 2

    So we have the motive, and know the details of the bizarre method; what of the planning?


    Is it possible that the unwitting Russian ?agents?, whose visit to Salisbury has now become the clincher of the UK?s Novichok case, were actually lured to the vicinity of Sergei Skripal?s home, with the conveniently placed chemical weapons labs at nearby Porton Down? Without doubting the innocence of Petrov and Boshirov over any involvement in the BZ attack on the Skripals, might we consider if they were on a different mission, and victims of a ?honey trap? not involving women?


    This possibility ? including their comment that ?a friend suggested we visit Salisbury? could explain their slightly evasive and unconvincing answers on why they returned to the city for a second time. While we know that they weren?t caught on CCTV walking along Wilton Road ?near the Skripal house? because that was their destination, it?s fair to ask why they chose to walk that way rather than the road north to Old Sarum, which they professed a desire to see.


    Old Sarum is about two miles from the city center, so Petrov and Boshirov could have easily visited the site. But perhaps their friend had a different recommendation, and one they understandably would be reluctant to reveal ? a venue which appears to be about the same distance from the center, along Wilton Road.


    If this explanation for some anomalies in the Russians? story is true, then it has an ironic twist; at the same time as they were striding off down Wilton Road, the final moves of the conspiracy to poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter were taking place back in the city center.


    The exact circumstances and timing of the attack ? presumably on the park bench on which they were discovered incapacitated ? may only be known to those who set it up, but we may be sure nothing was left to chance. This is in contrast to the apparently haphazard behavior and conflicting reports afterward, despite some serious preparations just beforehand.


    To anyone familiar with Salisbury, its proximity to the largest Chemical and Biological Weapons research facility in Europe ranks alongside its ancient cathedral and prehistoric sites as a subject of interest, if not as a destination. For some in the past, it proved a final destination, as revealed at an inquest in 2003, fifty years after the death of a MoD guinea pig, RAF volunteer Ronald Maddison, from Sarin poisoning.


    The UK government and its agencies will, of course, assure the public that ?nowadays? Porton Down is merely involved in research into protection and defense against other states? chemical, biological and nuclear agents. It gave similar assurances to the 3000 odd volunteers in the ?50s, telling them they were helping to develop a cure for the common cold, as drops of Sarin were put on their skin.


    It seems that nothing much has changed, except that in those days ? like Soviet propaganda ? no-one really believed Whitehall?s bland reassurances or imagined that Porton Down was full of harmless boffins working for the common good.


    What has changed is that the ?elite? at the helm of today?s conspiracies has become supremely confident in its ability to deceive the public into believing whatever story best suits their special interests. As is illustrated by the whole crazy ?Novichok? story ? which has appeared as barely believable even to those who would readily blame Russia for it ? the public can now be made to believe in anything, and with conviction.


    And so it seems that as in Mossad?s motto ? ?By way of deception thou shalt wage war?; this has become the modus operandi for the UK and its allies in their war on Russia and Syria, and anyone else standing in the way of their hegemonic and demonic ambitions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #1817  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Bush & Blair?s Iraq war was key that opened door to Syria?s current hell
    John Wight


    Bush & Blair?s Iraq war was key that opened door to Syria?s current hell


    If the pain of birth is the price of life, Syria?s birth as a truly independent nation has come at the price of eight years of brutal and merciless struggle.

    As with the Vietnamese people, so with the Syrians. Their struggle against imperialism and hegemony has earned them a place at history?s table that can never be relinquished. Because, if you penetrate beyond the obfuscations peddled by Western ideologues, the conflict in Syria at its core has been anti-imperialist in character.


    The hell visited on Syrian society has been in many respects a continuation of the hell visited on Iraq in 2003, after 13 years of sanctions had already killed two million of its people, including half a million children.


    During this sanctions period, former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, in a rare moment of candor for a functionary of the empire, provided us with an invaluable insight into the pristine barbarism which lurks behind the mask of democracy and human rights that such people usually wear for the purposes of confusing the public mind as to who and what they truly are.


    The interviewer, Lesley Stahl, put it to Albright that half a million Iraqi children had died due to the sanctions, and asked if she thought the price ?is worth it.? Albright without hesitation answered Yes. ?We think the price is worth it.?




    Getting to the grips with the beast of Western hegemony obligates us to grapple with the salient truth that Albright?s grotesque and perverse worldview, providing her with the ability to insouciantly account for the murder by sanctions of half a million Iraqi children, is the same worldview which drove the US war against Vietnam, that has underpinned the six decades of economic warfare against the Cuban people, the covert military interventions in South and Central America in the 1980s, support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan over the same period, and the ongoing effort to effect regime change in Venezuela.


    It is also, be in no doubt, the thinking that informed the West?s approach to Libya in 2011 when the country?s difficulty presented itself as their opportunity.


    In other words, it is the worldview of those so sick with the ideology of hegemony there is no monstrous act, no crime or slaughter that cannot be undertaken in its cause, necessitating the abstraction of millions of lives as mere flotsam and jetsam in order to justify their suffering as a ?price worth paying.?


    Rt war, wherein ISIS (Islamic State) began life as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) under one Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. According to Stanford University, an institution not hitherto known to be a hotbed of pro-Assad sentiment, this particular history unfolded thus:


    ?The Islamic State (IS), also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) is a Salafi-jihadist militant organization in Syria and Iraq whose goal is the establishment and expansion of a caliphate. The group has its origins in the early 2000s, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi began training extremist militants. The group was a major participant in the Iraqi insurgency during the American occupation, first under the name Jama?at al-Tawhid wa?al-Jihad and then, after swearing fealty to Al-Qaeda, as Al-Qaeda in Iraq.?


    This reason why this trajectory is so important to reaffirm, and why it must detain us, is to emphasize that the roots of what later befell Syria were planted in Iraq by the US-led war unleashed there in 2003. Bush and Blair?s war was the key that unlocked the gates of hell out of which this medieval barbarism sprung to devastating effect. Those who believe otherwise, such as former US ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, would do well to ponder that without Iraq being pushed into the abyss of societal collapse, carnage and resulting sectarian bloodletting, the Salafi-jihadism of al-Zarqawi et al would have been denied the conditions required to feed its growth and spread.


    Washington not Damascus or Moscow created and incubated the Frankenstein?s Monster of ISIS, in the same laboratory of US imperialism in which the Khmer Rouge was created in the 1970s and Al-Qaeda in the 1980s.


    What Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, Afghanistan in the 1980s, and Syria today have in common, of course, is Moscow?s stance. It is a matter of historical record that without Soviet (Russian) aid to the Vietnamese in the 1960s and 70s, they would not have prevailed, and it is likewise a matter of record that the grim fate to befall Afghanistan in the 1990s was predicated on the forced withdrawal of Soviet forces as the country began to flounder under the weight of the internal contradictions that were to lead to its demise.


    Though the cost to the world of the end of the Soviet Union will never be compensated ? measured not only in the medieval abyss into which Afghanistan was plunged, but also in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the aforementioned decimation of Iraq ? without Moscow?s recovery to the point of being able to intervene militarily in Syria in 2015, Damascus today would be occupying a place in the same graveyard.


    Iran and Hezbollah have also played an indispensable role in the struggle for Syria?s survival, expending blood and treasure in the event, while the Syrian Arab Army?s sacrifice has been immeasurable.


    The glorification of war and conflict, especially among those living safely many miles away from its horrors and brutality, conceals and sanitizes its bitter truths. Those who do glorify it, who view it in the manner of a parlor game, should take a moment to study and imbibe the words of Jeannette Rankin, who said: ?You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.?


    The war in Syria confirms the abiding truth of those words when we take into account the mammoth destruction it has wrought, the tragic human cost, and how it has shaken Syrian society to the very limits of endurance. It means that while the country?s survival as an independent non-sectarian state may by now be certain, its ability to fully recover from the earthquake Rankin describes is something only time will tell.


    But the fact that the country has managed to achieve its survival and, with it, the opportunity to recover, is predominately the achievement of the Syrian Arab Army, whose complexion is a microcosm of the very society and people it has defended ? Sunnis, Shia, Druze, Christians, Alawites, etc.


    Robert Fisk, whose reports from Syria since the conflict began have been indispensable in helping us navigate its trajectory, informs us that something of the order of 70-80,000 Syrian soldiers have perished. This constitutes a staggering toll in a country whose army stood at 220,000 at the start of the conflict. More crucially, it is a toll that could not possibly have been borne without the solid support of the Syrian people for the army and its government, led by President Bashar Assad, over these past eight years.




    Idlib is now the last bastion of militant-held territory in the country and, though of course folly to count chickens, by all accounts events on the ground point inexorably to the complete liberation of the country sooner rather than later. Yet isn?t it an interesting study in the space that exists between the ideology and reality of Western hegemony and unipolarity that not one mainstream journalist has joined the obvious dots between ascribing rebel status to the assorted Salafi-jihadist groups whose conception of a society is a living hell, and the government and armed forces fighting to prevent it from coming into being.


    This is never better illustrated than the fact that not one Western journalist denouncing the Syrian government and its motives during the war would have dared to set foot within so much as an inch of militant-held territory, knowing that if they did they would be peremptorily abducted, tortured and slaughtered.


    In which direction Syria heads after the fighting ends is without reservation a matter for its people. It is hard to believe that it could hope to return to the status quo that existed before, though, not after the elemental suffering and sacrifice that has been endured and made by so many.


    One thing that is quite certain: the nation and society that began life as a colonial construct has, over the course of the conflict, rallied at a seminal point in its history to assert the right never to be colonized by anyone again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #1818  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Internet Censorship Just Took An Unprecedented Leap Forward, And Hardly Anyone Noticed


    While most indie media was focused on debating the way people talk about Kanye West and the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an unprecedented escalation in internet censorship took place which threatens everything we all care about. It received frighteningly little attention.


    After a massive purge of hundreds of politically oriented pages and personal accounts for ?inauthentic behavior?, Facebook rightly received a fair amount of criticism for the nebulous and hotly disputed basis for that action. What received relatively little attention was the far more ominous step which was taken next: within hours of being purged from Facebook, multiple anti-establishment alternative media sites had their accounts completely removed from Twitter as well.


    As of this writing I am aware of three large alternative media outlets which were expelled from both platforms at almost the same time: Anti-Media, the Free Thought Project, and Police the Police, all of whom had millions of followers on Facebook. Both the Editor-in-Chief of Anti-Media and its Chief Creative Officer were also banned by Twitter, and are being kept from having any new accounts on that site as well.


    ?I unfortunately always felt the day would come when alternative media would be scrubbed from major social media sites,? Anti-Media?s Chief Creative Officer S.M. Gibson said in a statement to me. ?Because of that I prepared by having backup accounts years ago. The fact that those accounts, as well as 3 accounts from individuals associated with Anti-Media were banned without warning and without any reason offered by either platform makes me believe this purge was certainly orchestrated by someone. Who that is I have no idea, but this attack on information was much more concise and methodical in silencing truth than most realize or is being reported.?




    It is now clear that there is either (A) some degree of communication/coordination between Twitter and Facebook about their respective censorship practices, or (B) information being given to both Twitter and Facebook by another party regarding targets for censorship. Either way, it means that there is now some some mechanism in place linking the censorship of dissident voices across multiple platforms. We are beginning to see smaller anti-establishment alternative media outlets cut off from their audiences by the same sort of coordinated cross-platform silencing we first witnessed with Alex Jones in August.


    This is about as acute a threat to our ability to network and share information with each other as anything you could possibly imagine. If new media outlets are beginning to silence dissident voices together in unison, that means we can see entire alternative media outlets not just partially silenced but thoroughly silenced, their ability to grow their audiences and get information out to heavily populated parts of the internet completely crippled.


    This is huge, this is dangerous, and this is being under-reported. When I was removed from Twitter in August for ?abusing? John McCain, there was a large and outraged uproar on Twitter, and my account was quickly restored with an apology. And I?m really grateful for that, but the phenomenon of multiple high-profile alternative media outlets suddenly being silenced in unison by the two biggest social media platforms should be generating more outrage than some ornery Australian blogger losing her Twitter account, not less. This should be the top story in alternative media, because it affects us all.




    Any time you try to talk about how internet censorship threatens our ability to get the jackboot of oligarchy off our necks you?ll always get some guy in your face who?s read one Ayn Rand book and thinks he knows everything, saying things like ?Facebook is a private company! It can do whatever it wants!? Is it now? Has not Facebook been inviting US government-funded groups to help regulate its operations, vowing on the Senate floor to do more to facilitate the interests of the US government, deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments, and handing the guidance of its censorship behavior over to the Atlantic Council, which receives funding from the US government, the EU, NATO and Gulf states? How ?private? is that? Facebook is a deeply government-entrenched corporation, and Facebook censorship is just what government censorship looks like in a corporatist system of government.


    Speaking of the Atlantic Council, it recently published a very interesting 21-page document about a US military conference detailing, in present tense, how Silicon Valley tech giants are being used to nullify the threat that the new media landscape poses to the US power establishment.


    Of this document, World Socialist Website writes the following:


    Enter the social media companies. The best mechanism for suppressing oppositional viewpoints and promoting pro-government narratives is the private sector, in particular ?technology giants, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter,? which can ?determine what people see and do not see.?
    Watts adds, ?Fortunately, shifts in the policies of social media platforms such as Facebook have had significant impact on the type and quality of the content that is broadcast.?
    The private sector, therefore, must do the dirty work of the government, because government propaganda is viewed with suspicion by the population. ?Business and the private sector may not naturally understand the role they play in combating disinformation, but theirs is one of the most important?. In the West at least, they have been thrust into a central role due to the general public?s increased trust in them as institutions.?




    The best way to deal with a manipulative sociopath is to point and make a lot of noise every time they do something weird and creepy. The more you let them abuse you in private, the more they can rope you in and get you playing along with their sick agendas. If you notice them doing something weird, the best way to nullify all the tools in their wicked little toolbox is to point and yell ?Hey! What are you doing?? Why are you doing that? That?s weird!? Get people looking, because such beasts can?t advance their manipulations with a lot of critical eyes on them.


    Propaganda and censorship operates very much the same way. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of the Streisand effect, I encourage you to begin to acquaint yourself with it. Named for an incident in which Barbra Streisand attempted to suppress online photographs of her Malibu residence and thereby inadvertently drew far more attention to them, the Streisand effect describes the way attempts to hide and censor information can be used to draw more attention to it if the coverup attracts the interest of the public eye. Every censor needs to prevent this from happening in order to do their job effectively; if it looks like removing something from public view would draw more attention to it, then they cannot practice censorship in that case.


    So let?s Streisand this thing up, hey? Let?s make a big angry noise about this new cross-platform escalation in internet censorship, and let?s make a big angry noise any time anyone makes a move to silence dissident political speech in the new media environment. Manipulators can only function in darkness, so let?s never give them any. Anything they try, we need to make a ton of noise about it. That by itself would be throwing an enormous stumbling block in their path while we find new ways to clear a path for more and more networking and information sharing. These bastards have controlled the narrative for too long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #1819  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #1820  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •