Censorship, fake news, perception management

Questions, Comments, Concerns etc about The Bell
User avatar
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Cootiestan

Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management

Post by blindpig » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:50 pm

The New York Times attacks Russia to prevent the end of the war in Afghanistan
Mission Truth

Jul 1 · 4 min red

Donald Trump and Afganistán. Photo: Reuters

On June 27, The New York Times (NYT) published an article claiming that Russia offered rewards to supporters of the Taliban group in Afghanistan for every attack on the US occupation forces, and that as a result of it Several US military personnel had been killed.
According to the newspaper, the information reached President Donald Trump in March from the hands of the American intelligence agencies, and even the White House was considering options for an official response to the alleged actions of the Kremlin.
The article shows no evidence or reliable sources to prove its claim. On the contrary, to support the "finding" that anonymous representatives of the intelligence of the United States would have leaked, they only rely on quotes from anonymous sources. It is nothing more than a propaganda operation to prevent the US from leaving Afghanistan and ending the war.
Apparently, intelligence agencies discovered Russia's "pact" with the Taliban on the basis of interrogations of captured witnesses. In the text, the NYT does not elaborate on how the alleged conspiracy was funded.
The NYT's unverified story was replicated by the Wall Street Journal , the Washington Post , CNN , among other establishment media. The focus has been on whether Trump knew about Russia's alleged payments to the Taliban to "kill US troops," and why the White House had not resolved any more sanctions on Moscow to punish him.
It is a recurring practice. At other times , the western media apparatus has validated and promoted false stories with the aim of promoting the agendas of their owners in different geographical points, encouraging wars, coups, and regime changes.
In this case, the story is part of the anti-Russian hysteria that the Liberal Democrats, and some Republicans, have unleashed, among other things, to hit harder the chances of reelection of the White House chief and his plan to remove troops from Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and candidate Joe Biden attacked Trump for not being belligerent enough. Biden, for example, claimed that "he did not sanction or impose any type of consequences on Russia for this atrocious violation of international law."
Responses to the report
In a statement, the Taliban questioned the NYT publication, arguing that inaccurate information has been distributed to create inconvenience to the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
"This crude machinery illustrates the low level of brainpower of American intelligence propagandists, who instead of inventing something more plausible have to do this nonsense," said the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Photo: AFP

The Trump administration denied that the president or vice president was aware of the intelligence agency report, denouncing the core rationale for the NYT "report."
The Pentagon itself said that it had "no supporting fact to recognize as reliable the recent allegations contained in public sources." This was stated by the official spokesperson for the institution, Jonathan Hoffman.
It is not Russia that funds terrorist groups
More than just sabotaging Trump's candidacy, the agreed campaign between international media focuses on foreign policy, seeking to dynamite any dialogue that makes it lose dominance of strategic territories to the US, and instead, strengthen countries of the emerging bloc .
The US military and intelligence agencies are in the process of highly volatile talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan, mediated by the Russians, after more than 18 years of armed conflict generated by Washington in the Middle East.
At the end of February, a peace agreement was signed in Doha (Qatar), attended by the US special representative for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, the deputy leader of the "Taliban" movement, Abdul Ghani Baradar, the secretary of the State Department, Mike Pompeo, and Russia's diplomatic envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov. Under the agreement, the United States must reduce its military troops in the country within 14 months.

After several rounds of negotiations, the US and the Taliban negotiating group reached an agreement in Doha. Photo: AFP

It is also not surprising that the NYT's anti-Russian propaganda comes to the fore when the Russian and United States delegations are re-establishing contact to extend the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START III) , currently the only nuclear weapons treaty held by both. military powers, which expires on February 5, 2021.
The uproar with Russia gives to extend the glance until Syria, terrain in which the United States has failed miserably.
Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a highly influential think tank in the US, shows it in a tweet where he places the link to the NYT article: “A proportionate response (from Washington) would increase the costs for Russia of its military presence in Ukraine and Syria and, using sanctions and cybernetics, challenge Putin at home. ”
The move that leads the Democratic wing of the US political forces, in addition to being woven with mediocre fundamentals, can be reversed and hit the already discredited image of the United States as a whole.
If you dig deeper into the story, instead of tales of Russian conspiracies with terrorists, the deals between the US security forces and the Taliban, the supply of weapons to that organization and other forms of financing may come to light .
Democrats don't seem to notice that detail.

https://medium.com/@misionverdad2012/el ... 65465f9f76

Google Translator

Again the agendas of the imperial bureaucracy and Democratic partisan politics coincide. This scenario as weak as the last, but Trump is weaker too. It is beyond comprehension that anyone can attach even a smidgeon of 'progressive'to this party which fights harder for eternal war than it ever fought for peace.
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Cootiestan

Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management

Post by blindpig » Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:55 pm

Scott Ritter


“The Russians were suddenly imbued with near super-human capability, up to and including the ability to steal an American presidential election.”

By 2016, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Nicholson, wanted to see Russians undermining U.S. policy objectives in Afghanistan. The poisonous culture that existed inside CENTCOM’s intelligence enterprise was only too happy to comply.

The corruption of intelligence at “ground zero” ended up corrupting the entire U.S. intelligence community, especially when there was a systemic desire to transfer blame for the failure of U.S. policy in Afghanistan anywhere other than where it belonged—squarely on the shoulders of U.S. policy makers and the military that did their bidding.

And there was a beefed-up Russia/Eurasia intelligence apparatus looking for opportunities to foist blame on Russia. Blaming Russia for U.S. policy failure in Afghanistan became the law of the land.

The consequences of this political and cognitive bias is subtle, but apparent to those who know what to look for, and are willing to take the time to look.

Following the leak to The New York Times about the Russian “bounty” intelligence, members of Congress demanded answers about the White House’s claim that the information published by the Times (and mimicked by other mainstream media outlets) was “unverified.”

Rep. Jim Banks, who sits on the Armed Services Committee as one of eight Republican lawmakers briefed by the White House on the substance of the intelligence regarding the alleged Russian “bounties”, tweeted shortly after the meeting ended that, “Having served in Afghanistan during the time the alleged bounties were placed, no one is angrier about this than me.”

Bank’s biography notes that, “In 2014 and 2015, he took a leave of absence from the Indiana State Senate to deploy to Afghanistan during Operations Enduring Freedom and Freedom’s Sentinel.”

Banks’ timeline mirrors that offered by a former senior Taliban leader, Mullah Manan Niazi, who told U.S. reporters who interviewed him after the Russian “bounty” story broke that “the Taliban have been paid by Russian intelligence for attacks on U.S. forces—and on ISIS forces—in Afghanistan from 2014 up to the present.”

Niazi has emerged a key figure behind the crafting of the “bounty” narrative, and yet his voice is absent from The New York Times reporting, for good reason—Niazi is a shady character whose acknowledged ties to both the Afghan Intelligence Service (NDS) and the CIA undermine his credibility as a viable source of information.

Officials, speaking anonymously to the media, have stated that “the bounty hunting story was ‘well-known’ among the intelligence community in Afghanistan, including the CIA’s chief of station and other top officials there, like the military commandos hunting the Taliban. The information was distributed in intelligence reports and highlighted in some of them.”

If this is true, and some of this information found its way into the intelligence report referred to by Rep. Banks, then the U.S. intelligence community has been selling the notion of a Russian bounty on U.S. troops since at least 2015—coincidentally, the same time Russia started siding with the Taliban against IS-K.

Seen in this light, claims that Bolton briefed President Trump on the “bounty” story in March of 2019—nearly a full year before the PDB on it was delivered to the White House—don’t seem too far-fetched, except for one small detail: what was the basis of Bolton’s briefing? What intelligence product had been generated at that time which rose to a level sufficient enough to warrant being briefed to the president of the United States by his national security advisor?

The answer is, of course—none. There was nothing; if there was, we would be reading about it with enough corroboration to warrant a White House denial. All we have is a story, a rumor, speculation, a “legend” promoted by CIA-funded Taliban turncoats that had seeped itself into the folklore of Afghanistan enough to be assimilated by other Afghans who, once detained and interrogated by the NDS and CIA, repeated the “legend” with sufficient ardor to be included, without question, in the intelligence collection report that actually did make into a PDB—on Feb. 27, 2020.

“Blaming Russia for U.S. policy failure in Afghanistan became the law of the land.”

There is another aspect of this narrative that fails completely, namely the basic comprehension of what exactly constitutes a “bounty.”

“Afghan officials said prizes of as much as $100,000 per killed soldier were offered for American and coalition targets,” the Times reported. And yet, when Rukmini Callimachi, a member of the reporting team breaking the story, appeared on MSNBC to elaborate further, she noted that “the funds were being sent from Russia regardless of whether the Taliban followed through with killing soldiers or not. There was no report back to the GRU about casualties. The money continued to flow.”

There is just one problem—that’s not how bounties work. Bounties are the quintessential quid pro quo arrangement—a reward for a service tendered. Do the job, collect the reward. Fail to deliver—there is no reward. The idea that the Russian GRU set up a cash pipeline to the Taliban that was not, in fact, contingent on the killing of U.S. and coalition troops, is the antithesis of a bounty system. It sounds more like financial aid, which it was—and is. Any assessment that lacked this observation is simply a product of bad intelligence.

The Timing

U.S. 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit after seizing a Taliban forward-operating base Nov. 25, 2001, shortly after U.S. invasion. (Sergeant Joseph R. Chenelly, U.S. Marine Corps)
Whoever leaked the Russian “bounty” story to The New York Times knew that, over time, the basics of the story would not be able to stand up under close scrutiny—there were simply too many holes in the underlying logic, and once the totality of the intelligence leaked out (which, by Friday seemed to be the case), the White House would take control of the narrative.

The timing of the leak hints at its true objective. The main thrust of the story was that the president had been briefed on a threat to U.S. forces in the form of a Russian “bounty,” payable to the Taliban, and yet opted to do nothing. On its own, this story would eventually die out of its own volition.

On June 18, the U.S. fulfilled its obligation under the peace agreement to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 by July 2020. By June 26, the Trump administration was close to finalizing a decision to withdraw more than 4,000 troops from Afghanistan by the fall, a move which would reduce the number of troops from 8,600 to 4,500 and thus pave the way for the complete withdrawal from U.S. forces from Afghanistan by mid-2021.

Both of these measures were unpopular with a military establishment that had been deluding itself for two decades that it could prevail in the Afghan conflict. Moreover, once the troop level had drop to 4,500, there was no turning back—the total withdrawal of all forces was inevitable, because at that level the U.S. would be unable to defend itself, let alone conduct any sort of meaningful combat operations in support of the Afghan government.

It was at this time that the leaker chose to release his or her information to The New York Times, perfectly timed to create a political furor intended not only to embarrass the president, but more critically, to mobilize Congressional pushback against the Afghan withdrawal.

A meeting of the House Armed Services Committee in March. (U.S. Air Force/Wayne Clark)

On Thursday, the House Armed Services Committee voted on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Trump administration to issue several certifications before U.S. forces could be further reduced in Afghanistan, including an assessment of whether any “state actors have provided any incentives to the Taliban, their affiliates, or other foreign terrorist organizations for attacks against United States, coalition, or Afghan security forces or civilians in Afghanistan in the last two years, including the details of any attacks believed to have been connected with such incentives”—a direct reference to the Russian “bounty” leak.

The amendment passed 45-11.

This, more than anything else, seems to have been the objective of the leak. The irony of Congress passing legislation designed to prolong the American war in Afghanistan in the name of protecting American troops deployed to Afghanistan should be apparent to all.

https://orinocotribune.com/bountygate-s ... ghanistan/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Cootiestan

Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management

Post by blindpig » Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:15 pm

The never-ending, lucrative search for a Cuban Euromaidan
This July 1, popular streets corners in Havana and provincial capitals, were to have been the scene of protests against police violence, orchestrated by paid counterrevolutionaries, who once again received no response whatsoever from the Cuban people

Author: Iroel Sánchez | internet@granma.cu

july 6, 2020 12:07:54

This is a demonstration. This is a strong police presence. Photo: Composition by Javier Gómez

This is not a déjà vu, it is the obstinate search for a Cuban Maidán, which never tires of failure.

On December 30, 2014, the international corporate media came to cover what would be an "open microphone" allowing the censored Cuban people to express in the Plaza de la Revolución all that, according to the conveners, they had not been able to say aloud in more than 50 years. The call - disguised as an artistic performance - was launched from Miami, that paradise of freedom of expression, where raising a dissident voice when it comes to Cuba can mean, at best, unemployment, while finding ways to communicate from outside the dominant ruling class is practically impossible. The objective was obvious: to create an incident that would derail the process of normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba, announced just two weeks before.

Cuban authorities prevented the arrival to the Plaza of a small group, who, financed from abroad, intended to turn the political and administrative center of the Cuban capital into a tropical Maidán, while the fact that the island’s population, allegedly eager to finally express themselves freely, did not flock massively to the Plaza was explained by the media as a consequence of "fear of repression" and the limited access to the Internet in Cuba at that time, although over previous days cell phone users on the island were bombarded with text messages from the U.S. announcing the event.

Almost six years later, the alliance between the ultra-right wing in Miami and the Trump administration has clouded memories hope for normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. The economic blockade Washington imposes on the island has reached new heights and the same forces dream that the effects of a blockade intensified with more than 80 anti-Cuban actions by the current administration, combined with the harsh economic blow dealt by the COVID-19 pandemic, will facilitate what they could not achieve in December 2014. As the blockade’s tightening screws have almost lost their thread, new economic sanctions must be justified by “the regime’s repression" and pressure exerted to weaken Cuba’s relations with Europe and other Western nations.

For the haters, anything goes. Those who attempt to equate a regrettable but exceptional incident in Cuba with systemic and daily violence in the United States have no scruples. Perhaps they believe that a non-conformist and critical people like Cuba’s, with an acute political culture, will allow ourselves to be swayed by a crude manipulation financed from the North.

This July 1, the popular corner of 23rd and L in the Havana neighborhood of Vedado, and other busy sites in the national and provincial capitals, were to have been the scene of a protest against police violence in Cuba, called by the same individuals who failed on December 30, 2014. The "regime's troops" were already advancing on the capital to repress the protests, as evidenced by a photo published on one of the “free” press sites. But oh, the license plates on jeeps driven by the repressive forces appearing in the post - with their tops down and no weapons or facemasks in sight - expired years ago, while the background was that of Santiago de Cuba, not Havana, and the buildings visible in the image no longer even exist. The troops, yes, were moving, but only in a time machine and on the Internet highway.

“Once again, more of the same, linking anyone protesting in Cuba with the U. S. government," someone might say. But check the Twitter accounts of the embassy’s chargé d'affaires in Havana, the OAS Secretary General, Cuban-American Congressmen pushing for new sanctions against Cuba, or the website of the government's Radio-Television Martí and the "independent" media, financed by the sponsor of “colorful” revolutions and financier of the Ukrainian Maidan, George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy -which even The New York Times recognizes as a screen for the CIA - to see who is behind this call, amplified by media such as the BBC, which in spite of being a British public press outlet ignored Cuba’s humanitarian rescue of hundreds of citizens of that country onboard a cruise ship, in danger of becoming a floating morgue. This is the same source that contributed months ago to the history of yellow journalism by telling the world that an armored car security guard was a regular police officer controlling lines on the island with a high caliber rifle.

In Cuba, without a doubt, channels of communication need to be expanded, representative bodies and spaces for political participation to be perfected, and mechanisms of transparency, accountability and popular control to be improved. I am not saying anything new; the Cuban government has recognized this and this reality is reflected in the spirit of the new Constitution, which was overwhelmingly approved by popular referendum. But this path is heading in the opposite direction, away from the power of money in politics and the acceptance of U.S. interference, which are common currency in capitalist democracies. There is consensus among Cubans that those who serve a foreign agenda of regime change, and are paid to do so, lack legitimacy.

There is no historical basis to say that Cubans are afraid to overthrow their government , when you are talking about a people who, at the end of the 19th century, raised machetes against modern rifles to win independence, and in the 20th century, overthrew two dictators supported by Washington, and went to Africa to defeat apartheid South Africa, which was armed with nuclear weapons. At a time when the United States said there was a democratic government in Cuba, those opposed it defied the police, who tortured and murdered citizens, and dared to struggle in the streets despite gunshots, beatings and water cannons. Thousands of deaths attest to this fact.

Now that the United States claims that there is a dictatorship here, those who, with the support of our northern neighbor, claim to oppose such tyranny, insist that the police do not allow demonstrations, but not a single one of them is willing to do what those who, without asking permission, confronted the “democracy” that tortured and killed thousands, supported by the country that claims to defend freedom of expression and information in Cuba, but viciously persecutes those who exercise it, if it cannot silence them. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden can testify to this.

Despite the fact that there are more than seven million Cubans connected to the Internet, bombarded everyday with propaganda manufactured in fourth-generation psychological warfare laboratories - on the U. S. government payroll - this call for protest went nowhere. On July 1, in the rain, the island’s streets were filled to receive members of the Henry Reeve Contingent returning home after battling COVID-19 and saving lives in the Principality of Andorra.

http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2020-07-06/the ... euromaidan
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Cootiestan

Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management

Post by blindpig » Sat Jul 25, 2020 11:08 am

U.S. - China Spat Over Quarantine And Consulates Continues

The U.S. closed down the Chinese consulate in Houston in revenge for Chinese demands that diplomats coming from abroad to China undergo Covid-19 testing and quarantine. No U.S. media I have read has yet confirmed that fact which Moon of Alabama was first to report:

The unmentioned reason for the State Department's move is a squabble over virus testing and quarantining of U.S. diplomats who are supposed to return to China.
The squabble continues. The U.S. diplomats have not returned and the consulate in Wuhan has still not reopened. The U.S. order to close the Chinese consulate in Houston is obviously an attempt to press China into lifting its testing and quarantine demands for U.S. diplomats.
The Global Times, China's flagship English language media, has asked two experts. Both confirmed our reporting:

Wu Xinbo, dean of the Institute of International Studies, Fudan University:
According to my understanding, it is a move to pressure Beijing to get more US diplomats back to their posts in China. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19, the US had hurriedly evacuated quite a number of American diplomats and citizens from China. Now Washington believes it is time for them to continue their China mission. Yet negotiations on their return did not go quite smoothly. ...

Wei Zongyou, a professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University

It has been quite some time that China and the US have remained locked in negotiations over conditions for the return to China of US diplomats and their family members. The harsh requirement for the closing of the Chinese Consulate General in Houston can be regarded as the US retaliation over this dispute. ...

The U.S. media still behave as if they have not noticed the unreasonable demand of Cootiestan's State Department. China would risk another Covid-19 outbreak if it were to exempt newly arriving diplomats from testing and quarantine.

China responded to the U.S. order to close its consulate in Houston with a mirror order to shut down the U.S. consulate in Chengdu. But notice how different the purposes of those outlets gets described:

As the United States lashed out against the “new tyranny” of China, Beijing on Friday ordered the closure of the American consulate in Chengdu, a retaliatory move that threatens to drive the two powers into an even deeper divide.
Beijing blamed the Trump administration for the deterioration in relations, calling its own action justified after Washington told China this week to shutter its consulate in Houston and accused its diplomats of acting illegally.
[T]he Trump administration has said the closure of the Houston consulate was necessary because it had become a hub of illegal spying and influence operations, allegations that Chinese officials have denied.
[T]he closure of the consulate in Chengdu, in Sichuan Province, the westernmost of the five American consulates in mainland China, deprives the United States in a city that is a hub for China’s commercial expansion across Central Asia. Chengdu is also its most valuable diplomatic outpost for gathering information on Xinjiang and Tibet, the two sometimes-restive regions in China’s far west.

Both regions have been the locations for wide-ranging security crackdowns that have drawn international criticism as abuses of human rights.

The Chinese consulate in Houston is accused, without any evidence, of being a "hub of illegal spying and influence operations". The U.S. consulate in Chengdu is, according to the New York Times, involved in "gathering information on Xinjiang and Tibet" and also used for the fake "human rights" campaigns against China - i.e. CIA information operations. Why is the chosen depiction so different?

As U.S. has many more diplomats in China than China has in the U.S. We can therefore be sure that the U.S. has more agents doing their nefarious stuff in China than Chinese agents are doing in Washington, Houston and elsewhere.

Some U.S. diplomats who had evacuated in January and February are now returning to China:

Washington and Beijing have been negotiating for weeks over the terms of how to send U.S. diplomats back amid disagreement over COVID-19 testing and quarantine procedures, as well as frequency of flights and how many each can carry.
There is no word yet how the testing and quarantining of these diplomats will be handled. I find it likely that China has stuck to its demands and that the U.S. conceded on the issue. That would of course be another issue the media would not want you to know.

Posted by b on July 24, 2020 at 18:17 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/07/u ... l#comments

bolding added
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

User avatar
Posts: 4343
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:44 pm
Location: Cootiestan

Re: Censorship, fake news, perception management

Post by blindpig » Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:59 pm



by John Helmer, Moscow

Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government’s allegation that Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention.

Investigations in Vienna by four Austrian government ministries, the BVT intelligence agency, and by Austrian prosecutors have revealed that secret OPCW reports on the blood testing of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, copies of which were transferred to the Austrian government, did not reveal a Russian-made nerve agent.

Two reports, published in Vienna this week by the OE media group and reporter Isabelle Daniel, reveal that the Financial Times publication of the cover-page of one of the OPCW reports exposed a barcode identifying the source of the leaked documents was the Austrian government. The Austrian Foreign Ministry and the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (BVT), the domestic intelligence agency equivalent to MI5 or FBI, have corroborated the authenticity of the documents.

The Austrian disclosures also reveal that in London the Financial Times editor, Roula Khalaf, four of the newspaper’s reporters, and the management of the Japanese-owned company have fabricated a false and misleading version of the OPCW evidence and have covered up British government lying on the Skripal blood testing and the Novichok evidence.

On Wednesday afternoon this week, OE24, a news portal of the OE media group in Vienna, broke the first story (lead image, right) that the barcode found on the OPCW document photograph published in London had been traced to several Austrian state ministries. The next day, OE political editor Isabelle Daniel reported the Austrian Foreign, Defence and Economics Ministries had received copies of the barcoded OPCW dossier, and that the Justice Ministry and prosecutors were investigating “potential moles”.

Daniel also quoted a Foreign Ministry source as saying its copy of the documents had been securely stored in its disarmament department safe, and that there were “no tips” the leak had come from there. Daniel also quoted a BVT spokesman as confirming the authenticity of the OPCW file had been verified. “We have checked it recently. Officially it has not come to us.”

Left: Isabelle Daniel of OE, Vienna. Right, Roula Khalaf Razzouk, editor of the Financial Times since her recent appointment by the Nikkei group, the newspaper’s owner. Her full name and concealment of her Lebanese political and business interests can be followed here. The names of the four Financial Times reporters who have participated in the misrepresentation and cover-up are Paul Murphy, investigations editor; Dan McCrum, a reporter; Helen Warrell, NATO correspondent; and Max Seddon of the Moscow bureau.

The leak had been an “explosive secret betrayal” and a criminal investigation was under way, OE24 reported. OE is a privately owned Austrian media group, based in Vienna. It publishes a newspaper, the news portal OE.at, radio and television.

The Financial Times report first exposing the OPCW documents appeared on July 9. Details of how the newspaper fabricated the interpretation the OPCW had corroborated Russian involvement in the Novichok attack can be read here. For the full Skripal story, read the book.

At an OPCW Executive Council meeting on April 14, 2018, five weeks after the Skripal attack, the British Government confirmed that a few days earlier “all States parties” had received copies of the OPCW dossier. This included Austria, as the Viennese sources now acknowledge.

Source: https://www.opcw.org/

“The OPCW responded promptly to our request to send their experts to the United Kingdom,” declared Peter Wilson, the British representative to the OPCW on April 14, 2018. “They conducted a highly professional mission. The OPCW’s designated laboratories have also responded professionally and promptly. What the Director-General said was really important on this, and the Technical Secretariat’s presentation shows how professional that work was. The report the Technical Secretariat presented to us on 11 April was thorough and methodical. The Technical Secretariat responded quickly to our request to share that report with all States Parties. All have had the chance to see the quality of that work.”

Wilson went on to say: “As you know, on 4 March Yulia and Sergei Skripal were poisoned in Salisbury, the United Kingdom, with a chemical weapon, which United Kingdom experts established to be a Novichok. OPCW has now clearly verified those findings.”

The Austrian copy of the OPCW file now confirms this was a misrepresentation of the chemical formula and other evidence the OPCW had gathered.

Wilson went on to conclude: “the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of technical evidence in our investigation, neither DSTL’s [Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down] analysis, nor the OPCW’s report, identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent used in this attack. So let me also set out the wider picture, which leads the United Kingdom to assess that there is no plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury than Russian State responsibility. We believe that only the Russian Federation had the technical means, operational experience, and the motive to target the Skripals.”

The first qualifying sentence was the British truth; the conclusion was the British lie. The Austrian evidence now verifies there was no evidence of a Russian source in the blood and other test samples; no evidence of Novichok; and no evidence to corroborate the British allegations of a Russian chemical warfare attack.

In its report, the Financial Times displayed a partial photograph of the cover-page of one of the OPCW documents in its possession (lead image, left). A classification stamp appears to be showing through the title page, but no barcode is visible. The London newspaper appears to have cropped the published picture so as to hide the barcode. That concealment — proof of the Austrian source – allowed the newspaper reporters to claim the source of the document was unknown, probably Russian, as the headline implied: “Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek touted Russian nerve gas documents.”

A British military source was reported as claiming “the documents were ‘unlikely’ to have come from OPCW member states in western Europe or the US.” Khalaf and her reporters added: “The OPCW, which is based in The Hague, said this week that it was investigating the matter, but declined further comment. The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.” With the barcode in their possession but hidden, they knew they were publishing a combination of disinformation and lies.

The disclosure of the barcode to the Austrians appears to have followed after they had requested it from Khalaf. She checked with her superiors in the newspaper management before handing it over. They believed they were doing so in secret.

It is not known if Motohiro Matsumoto (right), the Nikkei executive responsible for the London publishing company, was alerted and gave his authorization; he refuses to answer questions. Matsumoto, one of the five directors of Financial Times Ltd., is the general manager of Nikkei’s global business division. He takes
his running orders from Nikkei’s chairman and a long-time media executive, Tsuneo Kita. Matsumoto replaced Hirotomo Nomura at the head of the Financial Times on March 25, 2020. When Nikkei bought the newspaper from Pearson Plc in 2015, Nikkei became its sole proprietor.

The Austrian press has yet to report how the barcode was obtained from the newspaper. Because the BVT and state prosecutors in Vienna are involved in their search for the “moles”, it is likely they contacted their counterparts at MI5 and the Home Office, and that the newspaper agreed to hand over its copy of the OPCW file to the latter. The collaboration of the journalists with the secret services to falsify evidence against Moscow in the Novichok story remains a sensitive secret.

Source: https://m.oe24.at/

Khalaf has refused repeated requests for comment. Max Seddon, the newspaper’s Moscow reporter, was also asked for additional information about the photograph of the cover-page. He will not answer.

http://johnhelmer.net/austria-confirms- ... -cover-up/
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."

Post Reply