Archive | February 10th, 2017

CAA is running scared that their ‘charitable’ status will be revoked


Campaign Against Anti-Semitism tries to intimidate to remove Petition criticising them





I’ve just found out that this was the original more racist infographic – now what do u think?  I think the silhouette is more racist but who cares, the CAA are racist scum regardless

The disgusting Islamaphobia of the CAA should be more than enough to debar them from human society let alone as a charity

I came home last night to an urgent email from  Readers will know that I have sponsored a petition calling on the Charity Commission to deregister the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism because it is a nakedly political Zionist group.


Naturally a Black-Jewish woman who is an anti-Zionist is just too tempting a target for the CAA’s bile

Its letter to is clearly very rushed and shows every sign of panic.  They list 6 points and fail to number the first point.  They then repeat the first point in the 6th point.  They also can’t spell ‘documented’ and their grammar is extremely poor throughout.  It would seem that panic has set in among the arrogant threesome at CAA.  It has just dawned on them that vehement and persistent attacks on what they call ‘racist Labour’, their allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic, their attacks on Jackie Walker, Shami Chakrabarti and Gerald Kaufman, have nothing whatsoever to do with charitable activities and are highly partisan.  Hence their panic attack.

Ludicrously they claim that they don’t libel opponents of Israel when that appears to be their main if not sole activity.

This was one of a number of threatening tweets sent to Becky Massey the day the CAA publicly attacked her as an anti-Semite – it doesn’t take a genius to work out what ‘an armed Jew’ means – the CAA refused as a matter of policy to condemn or even acknowledge the consequence of their McCarthyite tactics

The CAA say that their charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission which rather begs the question as to whether the Charity Commission actually know what the CAA are up to.  Either way they are going to find out!

The claim by the CAA that they are ‘scrupulously not partisan’ apart from being an example of their awkward English is laughable.  I have compiled just a few examples of their partisanship and bias.

The CAA is a vehemently anti-Muslim organisation – the above pamphlet clearly implies that Muslims support Hitler

They claim not to have elicited or provoked death threats.  There is no doubt that they have caused death threats.  Whether they have elicited them is a mute question.  Certainly they haven’t condemned them.

Jackie Walker merits 19 posts accusing her of being an anti-Semite.

Jeremy Corbyn merits no less than 73 posts!

Gerald Kaufman can only rack up 21 posts.

Steven Silverman – one of 3 CAA workers, their ‘enforcement officer’ and a loudmouthed bigot
Silverman’s words of wisdom

Silverman’s racist anti-Palestinian rhetoric
Theresa May also appears on the CAA’s site but there is a slight difference in the treatment of her and Corbyn

Theresa May also has 8 posts but unlike Corbyn they are complimentary for example CAA CONGRATULATES THERESA MAY and then they expect us to take seriously their claim that they are non-partisan.

When Netanyahu’s ex-adviser called America’s Jewish Ambassador, Daniel Shapira, a ‘Jew Boy’ – which is as anti-Semitic as it gets, I emailed the CAA asking for their reaction.  Judging by their non-response they didn’t have any!

You might say that the Tory Party today is not anti-Semitic.  But that is not true.  Eric Pickles, the Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel is a good example of an anti-Semitic Zionist.  He was Tory Party Chairman when they decided to abandon their alliance in the European Parliament with the Christian Democrats and instead form the European Conservatives & Reform group with far Right parties, at least 2 of which were anti-Semitic.  The Chairman of the ECR was Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law & Justice Party.  He was an ex-neo-Nazi who had opposed a national apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Polish Jews in the war by fellow Poles.  Another member was Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK, who spent a Sunday every March marching with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS who helped guard concentration camps.

As even David Miliband observed:  “Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans, because they were only following orders.’

You will not find even a cursory mention of this type of genuine anti-Semitism on CAA because their sole concern is anti-Zionism.

There are no less than 73 posts attacking  Corbyn as an anti-Semite

The latest ‘non-partisan’ post of the CAA PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN SPEAKER CALLS ON JEWS TO “OVERCOME” SUFFERING OF THE HOLOCAUST is an attack on Bruce Kent, the former Catholic priest who spoke at the picket of Netanyahu on Monday.  The CAA are ‘appalled’ because Bruce Kent called on Jews to “overcome” the trauma of the Holocaust. Apparently ‘it cannot be overcome’.  Instead they should continue to suffer and non-Jews should understand that ‘one of its principal lessons is that Jews absolutely must have the right to self-determination, as embodied in the state of Israel’. I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to increase anti-Semitism than the pronouncements of the CAA.  The non-political CAA assert that ‘It is prejudiced to expect Jews to renounce all connection to Israel or be judged to be in some way deficient.’  On the contrary, it is a sign that Jewish communities outside are coming of age in rejecting the poisonous doctrines of Zionism.

There is nothing on the CAA site about the BNP, the main holocaust denying organisation in the UK

Below is the complaint that the CAA have made against the petition and beneath that is my response, which is lengthy.

This is what you can do

  1. Share the petition widely and get others to sign it.  It has just over 500 signatures now.  Let’s make it at least 1,000.
  2. Write to at and say  what you think about the attempt of this McCarthyite organisation to destroy freedom of speech.
  3. Make a formal complaint to the Charity Commission that the CAA breaches the stipulation on a charity being non-political and that its targeting of individuals is reprehensible and has no connection with public benefit or charitable purposes.  This is important because we need to put pressure on the powers that be to deregister this Zionist propaganda organisation.

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism are the wild men of the Zionist Right.  They are widely disliked even amongst the more sane Zionists.  They tread on the turf of the CST, they are loud and  bombastic, they are dishonest in the surveys they run, they are overtly anti-Muslim.  There are numerous reasons to make a complaint and more to the point, this nasty little group is vulnerable because they haven’t taken any care over what they write or what they say.

Let’s sink them.

Tony Greenstein

CAA hate Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman, the Father of the House of Commons, because he supports the Palestinians.  Gerald used to be a strong Zionist but he became revolted by what he saw

Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s Bogus Complaint


We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.

  1. Our charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs.  Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.
  2. Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.
  3. Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.
  4. Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.
  5. Our charity does not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.

All of the above statements are factually inaccurate for the reasons stated.

We cannot know the true identity of the person who created the petition.

We request that these details be withheld.

Response to Complaint of the Campaign Against Antisemitism

Thursday, 09 February 2017


Thank you for sending me a copy of a Notice of Complaint from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  I reject, in its entirety, their assertion that the petition to which they object is, in any way, defamatory.  Truth is an absolute defence to a claim for defamation in the British libel courts.  I believe that the same is true for the American courts where the legal hurdles to obtaining judgment for the Claimant are even higher.

I have no objection to the Claimant having my name and email address.  I would, however, object to them having details of my address because of death threats that have already been made against their victims.  Sharing custody of a disabled boy it would jeopardise the safety of others besides myself.

The Claimant’s Notice of Complaint has clearly been drafted in a hurry because they forget to number point 1 of their NoC and then repeat the same point at number 6.  Coupled with their misspellings and poor English, this suggests that they have been seized by panic at the threat to their charitable status.

I will endeavour to explain in my response why our allegations are fully justified and part and parcel of free speech.  The CAA believes that they have license to attack people at will but they object to being the object of criticism themselves.

The purpose of the NoC is to get to take down a petition with which they politically disagree.  The truth often hurts.  There is nothing in it which is libellous and there is nothing in it which damages their reputation.  Any damage to their reputation stems solely from their own activities.

However this case will be a test of whether or not is willing to stand up for free speech against those forces which seek to destroy and undermine our basic liberties.  The petition is based solely on the activities of CAA as I will explain below.

My rebuttal of the CAA’s arguments should be read in conjunction with two blog posts which I have written concerning the activities of CAA.

The CAA state that they ‘PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM’.  I disagree.  The CAA is a deeply racist organisation.  This is another reason why they should be deregistered as a charity.

The elimination of anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism is a noble enterprise and one to be lauded.  However the making of false accusations of racism and anti-Semitism against people who are not in the least anti-Semitic or racist is despicable.  To falsely accuse someone of anti-Semitism is not only wrong in itself but it lets those who are anti-Semites off the hook.  Genuine anti-Semites can easily point at the false allegations of anti-Semitism in order to disguise their racism.  This is not simply theoretical.  When Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli jazz player who was indeed anti-Semitic, first appeared in Britain a decade ago, many people rejected the accusation that he was anti-Semitic, despite his using terms like the ‘Judaic code’ and alleging Jewish conspiracies to take over the Western world, precisely because people had become immunised by false accusations of anti-Semitism.  It was only after a long and hard campaign to convince people, in which I was heavily involved, that Atzmon was rejected by the Palestine solidarity movement and a statement was issued by Ali Abunmah and other leading Palestinians and Arabs, Granting no Quarter A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon. You can read more about what I called the ‘boy cried wolf’ syndrome in an article I wrote for the Guardian newspaper, The Seamy Side of Solidarity.

The activities of the CAA, far from combating anti-Semitism are likely to lead to an increase in this form of racism.  As the CAA said in its Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer 2015 Full Report’ it was formed to tackle anti-Semitism of ‘both a classical ethno-religious nature and also a political nature related to Israel’. I suggest that the latter is their main concern.  I do not accept that opposition to Israel’s endemic and systematic racism has anything to do with anti-Semitism.  I oppose what Israel does to the Palestinians because of my opposition, as a British Jew, to racism.  It would be utterly hypocritical to oppose anti-Semitism and then condone racism against the Palestinians.

The CAA are a Zionist organisation which sees as one of its purposes the engendering of panic in the Jewish community by talking up ‘anti-Semitism’.  That is one reason why they search for anti-Semites where none are to be found.

The CAA has, through adept PR managed to generate headlines and publicity through the skewed use of opinion polls.  In its 2015 Report it claimed, through the use of distorted statistics, that an opinion poll showed that almost half(45%) of British adults believe at least one of the antisemitic statements shown to them to be true’. It asked questions such as ‘“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.”  This is deemed anti-Semitism.  But this was a loaded question given that supporters of Israel repeatedly use the Holocaust as a shield to ward off criticism.  People see that Zionists talk about the Holocaust in a way that is seen to be politically manipulative.  Is a positive answer to this an indication of anti-Semitism? I think that is very doubtful with most people.

Apparently 1 in 5 people believed that “Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.”  Where can they have got this idea?  Possibly from Zionists?

Ha’aretz, Israel’s only liberal daily newspaper reported that on an Israeli Embassy survey Israel Asks U.S. Jews, Israelis: Where Do Your Loyalties Lie?  How many times have I been called a Jewish ‘traitor’ for not supporting Israel?    The whole basis of this accusation is that I owe a dual loyalty, indeed a higher loyalty, to Israel rather than the UK.

the Jewish Chronicle’s poll found, contrary to the CAA, that nearly 90% of British Jews had no intention of going to Israel

The CAA also conducted a thoroughly unscientific poll of British Jews in order to find ‘proof’ that most Jews were thinking about leaving Britain for Israel.  It found that:

58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.

More than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s

1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the past two years because of rising antisemitism. 

45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by Islamist extremism.

77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel.

84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products to be intimidation &

82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.

To say that these were loaded questions would be putting it mildly.  They were ideas put in the heads of people in order to gain an answer.  No attempt was made to put countervailing opinions to the audience.  For example it would have been equally possible to put a question such as ‘Is it legitimate to boycott settlement goods in order to pressurise Israel into a political settlement.’

Contrast this with a rigorously controlled, academic survey of the British Jewish community by the Department of Sociology at City University (November 2015).  This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement.  Indeed there is what it calls a ‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly qualified academically, and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue; with much lower support (i.e. strong opposition) among older respondents, non-graduates and members of Orthodox synagogues11 (11% – 18% support).  The City University survey even more surprisingly found that whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31% didn’t see themselves as Zionists.

Even the ardently pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle poured cold water on the CAA’s findings’ with its own Survation poll.  Some 88% of British Jews in this poll stated that they had no intention of emigrating.  Jewish Chronicle 14.1.15. JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not considered leaving UK 

The CAA poll was junk but it had served its purpose, which was to make Jewish people feel uneasy about their position in this country and whip up fears of anti-Semitism.  Zionist organisations see their goal as ‘helping’Jewish people to emigrate to Israel.  Using fears of anti-Semitism is one such method.

Under the title PROFILE OF BRITISH MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM (the CAA seem to love the use of capitals – which people normally take to be a form of shouting online)the CAA publish a highly racist and offensive cartoon of a typical Muslim male.  Far from introducing racial harmony, CAA seem determined to achieve the opposite.

To answer their points in the order that they made them:

  1. The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s state that ‘We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites.’

This statement can best be judged against the posting on the CAA’s site last Friday February 3rd 2017 entitledJUST ANOTHER DAY FOR RACIST LABOUR AS ANTISEMITIC TWEETS OF PARTY’S CHAIR IN HOVE, BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE REVEALED. This statement should be judged in the light of not only their first but their third point, viz. Our charity is scrupulously not partisan.’ 

This post appeared last Friday attacking Brighton Labour Party/Momentum and PSC member Becky Massey
– the ‘non partisan’ CAA routinely describes Labour as ‘racist Labour’
CAA’s attack on Israeli Marxist Professor Moshe Machover as a ‘terrorist supporter’

Not only does the above statement libel Becky Massey, who is not in any way anti-Semitic, but it also describes the Labour Party, the largest party in the UK, as ‘racist Labour’.  Another post to its side also refers to ‘racist Labour’.  If words mean anything then how can  CAA deny that they are a partisan group.  Do they call the Conservatives ‘racist’?  There is certainly much more evidence for this proposition, for example Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary’s reference to Black people’s as ‘piccaninnies’ and their ‘watermelon smiles’.

AIPAC the largest and wealthiest pro-Israel group in the USA openly calls itself the ‘Israel lobby’ yet Becky Massey’s references to the Lobby are a code for ‘Jewish Lobby’ according to the CAA

There isn’t a racist bone in Becky Massey’s body.  The idea that she believes Jews are racially inferior or that they should be subject to the same treatment in Britain as Palestinians in Israel is preposterous.  What is this allegation of anti-Semitism based on? Two tweets:

  1. That the Israel lobby manufactured the anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party.
  2. That Israel has the Tory and Labour parties under its control.

The first and most obvious point is that Becky refers to Israel, not Jews.  The only people who conflate Israel and Jews and hold the latter responsible for the former are anti-Semites!  There is a well founded belief that the Israel lobby in this country has indeed manufactured the false anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party.  That is not just my opinion.  It is for example the opinion of Professor Avi Shlaim, one of Israel’s foremost historians and Professor of International Relations at St. Anthony’s College Oxford.  In a recent interview, he stated that:

‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the Labour Party or any of the other major political parties.  There are anti-Semitic incidents, but they are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, to Israeli brutality… but I think that fundamentally that Israel, the Israeli propaganda machine and Israel’s friends in England, the Israel lobby in Britain deliberately confuse or conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately, anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.’

There could be no clearer statement than this about the false anti-Semitism narrative that the CAA has devoted so much of its time and energy to perpetuating.  In their attack on Ms  Massey, the CAA state that:

According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted by the British Government in December, prompting Labour to also claim that they adopt it, “Making…stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as…Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” is antisemitic.’

Ms Massey didn’t even mention Jews.  The CAA did!  The idea that the Israeli government somehow constitutes a ‘Jewish collective’ is in itself an anti-Semitic trope since it is based on the idea that all Jews, myself included, bear a responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government.

The ‘International Definition of Anti-Semitism’ that the CAA refer to is actually a reworking of the discredited EUMC Working Definition on Anti-Semitism which the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency discarded in 2013.  It was opposed by a large body of public opinion – including the University College (Lecturers) Union and the National Union of Students.  The CAA’s ‘international’ definition attempts to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.  See The EU has retired it’s ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism – it’s about time

In their response to Becky’s assertion that the Israel lobby had manufactured the false anti-Semitism allegations against the Labour Party, the CAA alleged that ‘Since these allegations did not come from Israel but were from British Jews, the “Israel lobby” is a misnomer: she means a ‘Jewish lobby’.  This is an outrageous assertion.

Israel lobby’ is not a euphemism for a ‘Jewish lobby.’  It is how those groups campaigning for Israel in the West describe themselves.  The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful and richest of the pro-Israel groups in the United States, says in its own press statement that ‘AMERICA’S PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY HOLDS ITS ANNUAL POLICY CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.’  Is AIPAC too anti-Semitic?  The CAA says:

That Massey she (sic) claims that Labour’s antisemitism crisis is a fabrication of the “Israel lobby” is truly ironic: for that antisemitism crisis rests squarely in the black hearts of individuals like her.’  The restrained language of the CAA when describing the ‘black heart’ of a woman they have never met and know nothing about proves that the CAA is an organisation out of control.

There is considerable evidence, e.g. in the recent Al Jazeera programmes, The Lobby, in which an undercover reporter spent six months gathering evidence from various pro-Israel groups, that the anti-Semitism controversy in the Labour Party has indeed been the subject of Israeli state interference.  Another example was a well researched article by Asa Winstanley How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis.  It showed how the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader were manufactured by the Israel lobby.

The CAA followed the allegations against Ms Massey up with more false allegation of anti-Semitism, this time against Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, an Israeli Jewish Professor of Mathematical Logic at Kings College University in London.  Another restrained headline was ‘CAA lodges complaints over professor’s support for genocidal antisemitic terrorists’.  They alleged that ‘Professor Moshe Machover, who teaches philosophy at the University of London has been exposed for supporting Hamas, ‘a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation which is proscribed under the Terrorism Act.’ The CAA also alleged falsely that Machover said that Jewish students were under the control of the Israeli embassy.’

This is a thinly veiled attempt to use anti-terrorist legislation in order to inhibit and prevent freedom of speech and debate on university campuses.  CAA is fundamentally hostile to any notion of a free and democratic civil society.  Anti-terrorist legislation is designed to prevent terrorism not free speech.  If it does that then terrorism has won.

Machover gave a nuanced answer to a question about Hamas, which was clearly too complex and nuanced for CAA’s purposes.   The CAA said that ‘Universities have an obligation under the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy to ensure that speakers do not come onto their campuses to spread messages in support terrorism or hatred. Universities are obliged to stop such speakers from speaking on their campuses, not to leave students to “judge for themselves”.’  Again this is an outrageous accusation.  Machover was responding to a question about how and why Hamas exist.  Or is it not allowed to talk about such groups?

Moshe Machover is founder of the Socialist Organisation in Israel – Matzpen.  Moshe is also a personal friend.  As a Marxist Moshe certainly does not support Hamas politically, which he and I regard as a politically conservative and backward Islamic organisation.  However we recognise it and the Palestinian peoples’ right to resist Israel’s occupation.  A right all people living under occupation have under international law.

  1. The CAA state that their ‘charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs.  Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.’ 

Yes that is the whole point of the petition!  We are calling upon the Charity Commission to conduct an investigation into the CAA and reverse their decision to recognise it as a charity in the light of their uncharitable activities.  They are a McCarthyite organisation which targets and demonises individuals that they disagree with.  I realise that the CAA would like to be granted an immunity against criticism that they don’t accord to others, but we live in a democratic society.  I expect to support our right to make that criticism.

The CAA accuse people of ‘anti-Semitism’ at the drop of a hat but they have nothing to say about the high levels of racism in Israel,.  Since CAA see opposing ‘anti-Semitism’ of a ‘political nature related to Israel’ as their goal, then they have to face certain facts about Israel.  According to the Pew Research Centre’s Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Society a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jewish citizens support the physical expulsion of Israeli Arabs.

Anyone who dares to point out the staggeringly high level of racism in Israeli society is automatically pilloried as anti-Semitic by the CAA through a tendentious analysis of their speech and the making of quite unwarranted assumptions.  Only yesterday there was a report in the Israel’s Ha’aretz An Israeli Bar Put a Palestinian Beer on Tap. Then the Depressingly Expected Happened the subtitle is ‘Angry social media backlash and calls for a boycott followed the sale of Ramallah-made brew at a pub in Haifa.’  What kind of society is it in which an Arab beer causes a Boycott?  Yet this is standard in what is termed a Jewish state.  Because I oppose a Jewish state, which means Jews have privileges over non-Jews, I too according to the CAA am an ‘anti-Semite’.  Denying the collective right of Jews to a nation state, is also anti-Semitic.  100 years ago saying that Jews form one collective was an anti-Semitic proposition!

Far from combating anti-Semitism the CAA is responsible for increasing it by encouraging people to make the association between Israel’s racism and British Jews.

When the Charity Commission agreed to register the CAA they had no idea of what they were going to do.  I and a number of other people have made formal representations to the CC that the CAA are not a bona fide charity.  It is their fear of deregistration that is responsible for this bogus and patently false complaint to

I expect to reject what used to be called a gagging writ, viz. an attempt to use the British libel laws to inhibit freedom of speech.  That great British crook, Robert Maxwell was well known for indulging in just this practice.  If bow to the CAA’s patently false complaint then they will irreparably damage their reputation in the United Kingdom.

  1. The CAA state that ‘Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented (sic!) rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.’

The misspelling, poor English and repetition of paragraphs demonstrate that this complaint is the result of panic.   They are well aware that their defaming of individuals, their partisan political attacks against public personalities and their hysterical McCarthyite language will not bear scrutiny.  Their logic chopping and attempts to confuse political concepts and social categories convince only themselves.  Their abuse of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ as a political weapon against anyone who criticises Israel is not a charitable activity.

The CAA accuse Shami Chakrabarti and Corbyn of Corruption

The statement that the CAA ‘is scrupulously not partisan’ demonstrates that at least the CAA possesses a sense of humour.  Every action of theirs is designed to be partisan.  I will give some examples, but they really are only a small selection:

  • In its attack on Rebecca Massey it states that ‘The Labour Party does not act on antisemitism. Even worse has been perpetrated by even more high-profile figures and yet has famously been dismissed after hearings in camera under the terms of the laughable Chakrabarti report.’  The Chakrabarti Report was a carefully considered report on the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.  I disagree with much of it but I do so in measured not hysterical terms.  See Chakrabarti – A Missed Opportunity to Develop an Anti-Racist Policy for Labour

Baroness Chakrabarti, who is the highly regarded former Director of Liberty (the equivalent of the US’s ACLU) produced a Report on racism and anti-Semitism which found that:

The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law.

This conclusion was highly inconvenient to the CAA which is in the business of proving that anti-Semitism is everwhere in the Labour Party.  However this isn’t the experience of Labour Party members themselves. When Owen Smith, in a debate with Jeremy Corbyn, alleged that the Labour Party ‘had a shameful anti-Semitism problem’ members of the audience heckled him.  Why because no one treats this media manufactured story seriously.

Baroness Royal sat on the Chakrabarti tribunal.  She produced a Report into allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club.  Royall found in her Report that I do not believe that that there is institutional antisemitism within OULC.’

The CAA however dismisses all such evidence as ‘laughable’ because it doesn’t fit into its preconceived narrative of widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

These are just a few samples of CAA’s naked political partisanship.  The suggestion that they are apolitical simply doesn’t stack up.

  1. The CAA states that ‘Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.’

I accept the fact that the allegations made may damage the reputation of the CAA, however it is a fact that the tweets making unabashed threats of violence against Becky Massey were a direct consequence of the false and defamatory article that CAA put up on its website.   They occurred the same day.  The CAA did not contact Ms Massey or  Professor Machover before pillorying them.  Their behaviour has been outrageous and has caused Ms Massey to fear for her physical safety since supporters of Israel are often extremely violent.

  1. Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.

The fact that there is no mention of the main fascist party in Britain, the British National Party or the English Defence League on their web site speaks volumes.  When searching for the EDL, it came up with 2 results – none of them to do with the EDL!  The above mentioned legal work is trivial.  Britain has tiny fascist organisations because organisations like the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-fascist Action made sure that their demonstrations never went unopposed.  The CAA are unknown in anti-fascist circles.

Tony Greenstein

E-mail from to Tony Greenstein concerning petition


Thank you for using We’re writing to let you know that we received a ‘Notice of Complaint’ from the Campaign Against Antisemitism requesting to remove certain statements of the petition on the grounds that this content is defamatory of the organization. We are enclosing the formal Notice of Complaint for your review. At the request of the claimant, we have removed his/her name and contact information. is an open platform and we care deeply about free speech and empowering our users to create the change they want to see. However, when you use, you agree to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and this includes agreeing not to violate third party rights such as defaming others.

This Notice of Complaint compels to act within five days of receiving it, and therefore we require a response from you as soon as possible. We want to make sure you have the facts for your own protection and to give you the opportunity to amend or remove the petition.

Please let us know by February 13, 2017 if you:
consent to the removal of the allegedly defamatory statements as identified in the Notice of Complaint; or
alternatively, if you wish to maintain the petition
consent to sending your user name and email address to the claimant; or
alternatively, if you would like to provide other contact information so that you and the claimant can correspond directly about this claim.

Please be assured that if you do not consent to sharing your contact information with the claimant, we will not share this information unless instructed by a court order. We will also notify you of such a court order to give you a chance to oppose it.

If we do not hear from you by February 13, 2017 with all of the information listed above, we will be obliged to remove the petition per the Notice of Complaint.

We are sorry that your petition resulted in legal claims and we wish there was more that we could do to support you but, as mentioned, unfortunately we are legally compelled by this Notice of Complaint.

Please do let us know if you have any questions, and thank you again for using

(From US Office/Help desk)

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on CAA is running scared that their ‘charitable’ status will be revoked

New Vaccines Still Cause Autism and the U.S. Government Knows It


Today in the US and a growing number of other countries, the official policy is that any scientific study, regardless of its methodology, quality, author credentials, and peer-reviewed process is summarily dismissed as incomplete, irrelevant or unsupported if it finds a connection between any vaccine or combination of vaccines and autism spectrum disorder. Even when the CDC’s own immunologist, Dr. William Thompson, whistle-blows and provides thousands of pages of scientific data and research proving a vaccine-autism connection, the matter is rapidly shoved under the table.

In the case of Dr. Thompson’s release of confidential documents to a Congressional subcommittee, the CDC intentionally concealed their evidence that African American boys under 36 months had a higher risk of autism after receiving the MMR vaccine.  The documents also proved the CDC has know for a long time that neurological tics, indicating brain disturbances, were associated with thimerosal-containing vaccines, such as the influenza vaccine.

We have also known for over fifteen years, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act filing, that CDC officials, vaccine scientists on the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, the WHO and private pharmaceutical executives met secretly for two days at the Simpsonwood retreat center near Atlanta to deliberate on the Verstraeten research’s findings proving thimerosal’s role in the rise of autism. The meeting was held for the specific purpose to find ways to prevent the findings from reaching the public, and spin and manipulate the data to disprove a vaccine-autism connection.

More recently a private medical consultant, Barry Rumack MD, was hired by the FDA to review that status of mercury levels in children with an emphasis on childhood vaccines. According to his findings, “at no point from birth to 16-18 months of age that infants were mercury levels below the EPA guidelines for allowable mercury exposure…. In fact, according to the models, blood and body burden levels of mercury peaked at six months of age at a shocking high level of 120 ng/L. To put this in perspective, the CDC classifies mercury poisoning as blood levels of mercury greater than 10 ng/L.”  Dr. Rumack notes that the FDA chose to hide this finding from the public and higher health officials.[1]

Another damning case of government-industry knowledge about a vaccine-autism connection is a leaked December 16, 2011 document from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers. The text admits the corporation has been aware of the autistic risks associated with its Infanrix vaccine, which combines diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, inactivated polio and haemophilus influenza viruses. The report details adverse effects associated with autism, including encephalitis, developmental delays, altered states of consciousness, speech delays and other adverse reactions.[2]

While these events might be considered criminal activities that directly threaten public health, they have had little effect on changing national policy over vaccine safety. Rather, the official denial of any possible association between vaccines and autism has hardened into an absolute dogma. And to date, there is not a single gold standard publication to refute with certainty a vaccine-autism connection.

Unfortunately, the American media has accepted the federal denial as absolute too. Never do we hear the media questioning the veracity and scientific legitimacy of the official doctrine. In fact, the media goes even further, embracing the principles of fake news, to attack scientists, physicians and parents who provide evidence to the contrary. Therefore, what follows is for readers’ discretion to review and reflect upon the proof being presented to show an unequivocal relationship between vaccination and autistic disorders.

Unlike the US, the UK and Australia, the majority of the governmental health ministries in the modern industrialized world do not take an official national stance on the vaccine-autism controversy and other serious vaccine-related injuries. Only nineteen countries, including the US, have no-fault policies to the pharmaceutical industry for vaccine injury compensation programs. This is partially due to the American and British health agencies being heavily compromised by private vaccine business interests. The revolving doors and conflict of interests between these federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry have been well documented.

In the US, the CDC’s vaccine advisory community are in the deep pockets of pharmaceutical firms. This is not the case for most nations where independent and scientific integrity in ruling compensation for vaccine adverse events remain the norm. In 2014, French authorities ruled there was a direct relationship between the Hepatitis B vaccine and a sudden rise in multiple sclerosis.[3] In 2012, after a long investigative trial, an Italian court ruled that the MMR vaccine caused brain injury leading to autism in the case of Valentino Bocca.[4]

This ruling was intentionally blacked out by the American media. The Japanese government halted the MMR in 1993 due to rising autism rates.

To date, the US vaccine injury compensation court has paid out approximately $3.1 billion to families of vaccine-victimized children. The actual number of awarded cases nevertheless is very small compared to the large number of claims filed and subsequently denied. Among these are cases related to autism, such as Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Ryan Mojabi, Emily Moller, and several others. Many more compensations have been awarded to cases of vaccine-induced encephalitis or brain inflammation, a common event associated with regressive autism. Therefore, within the legal record, contrary to the adamant denials of the CDC and pro-vaxxers such as Paul Offit, vaccines can cause autism.

Thimerosal, the ethylmercury preservative commonly found in vaccines, is perhaps the ingredient with the longest history of controversy. The pharmaceutical company Eli Lily tested thimerosal back in 1930, giving it a clean record of safety even though its own trials had shown it caused serious neurological damage and even death in both animals and humans.  During that decade, a competitor vaccine maker, Pittman-Moore, had also conducted toxicological studies with dogs and concluded the preservative was “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”

During the Second World War, vaccines with thimerosal were required to be labeled as “poison,” and later in 1972, Eli Lily itself discovered that thimerosal in doses a hundred times weaker than in a typical vaccine at that time, was “toxic to tissue cells.”  Nevertheless, the drug maker continued to promote the illusion that thimerosal was safe and highly suitable as a vaccine preservative.  Government health officials and vaccine manufacturers to this day have known of the long history of research confirming thimerosal as a toxic poison unsuitable for human delivery. A former leading vaccine developer for Merck had once warned his firm of the dangers of administering mercury-laced vaccines to newborns and infants and declared that the industry knows very well there are “nontoxic alternatives” that were equally effective and could be used to replace thimerosal.

The scientific literature relied upon to discredit thimerosal risks contain serious flaws in trial design and the quality of science. When the father of the modern pro-vaccine ideology, Dr. Paul Offit, goes on the attack to condemn anyone who would suggest a thimerosal-autism association, it is difficult for a rational, objective person to take him seriously. None of the most commonly cited twenty-plus primary flagship studies referenced to discredit thimerosal risks is a biological study.  Instead each is either an ecologic or cohort report.

Most of these studies have been independently reviewed and trashed for gross bias, serious design flaws and scientific negligence. The chief author of the ever-popular Danish thimerosal-autism survey is under criminal investigation for embezzling vast funds from the CDC to finance the study. A review of the Danish study’s collection methods reveals immediately it was a complete sham. Since these studies are only statistical analyses using a variety of massaged parameters to compare select populations or sub groups within a population, they are highly predisposed to intentional design defects and data manipulation in order to reach a desired result. For this reason ecologic and cohort studies are politically desirable within the vaccine industry and the CDC. Data can be massaged in numerous ways to reach a chosen conclusion.

However, in the real world of hard science, such observational, non-biological studies lack the methodological rigor to establish trustworthy scientific assumptions. In fact, the only conclusion we can draw from the arsenal of studies cited incessantly by the deniers of thimerosal’s neurotoxicty is that more comprehensive and rigorous research is demanded.

This is not to say that all ecologic and cohort studies are worthless. There are also many important cohort studies showing a vaccine-autism relationship. Some of these also suffer from poor design. Nevertheless, population studies are inconclusive and should never be used as substantial proof nor the final word to posit nor negate biomolecular activity and adverse effects of any toxic chemical or substance. Only double-blind, placebo controlled biologic research can determine a probable medical certainty.  In the case of thimerosal and other vaccine ingredients this requires accurate detection and measurement of toxic activity and its consequences at the cellular level. This is accomplished by observing neurotoxic effects in either of two methods. One is by in vivo studies, which observe the entire living organism. For example, in vivo studies conducted at the University of Pittsburgh report that when macaque monkey infants were injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines equivalent to a human infant’s vaccine schedule, they exhibited neurotoxic disorders characteristic of autism. For the first time, an animal model examined behavioral and neuromorpometric consequences of the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule and primates mimicking autistic abnormalities.

The Pittsburgh studied was attacked viciously by the vaccination community. Consequently it never got past peer-review for publication in a leading medical journal. Every manner of attempt was made to discredit the findings by alleging flaws in the research. Yet, even if there are flaws in the study’s design or execution, a biologic trial should have alerted federal health authorities that further investigation and funding is essential to convincingly duplicate Pittsburgh’s results or negate them. Instead the study has been denied outright and no efforts have been by the CDC or through NIH grants to launch a more thorough biologic primate study to bring greater clarity to the vaccine-autism debate.

The second method is in vitro studies that investigate a substance’s toxicity to cells or tissue in an artificial environment, such as a cultured medium, which are factually known to be related to a serious health or neurological. One critically important in vitro study observed thimerosal’s direct association with the deterioration of mitochondria in human brain cells.

In a 2012 issue of the Journal of Toxicology, neuroscientists at the prestigious Methodist Hospital Medical Center in Houston published their investigation into thimerosal’s toxicological effects upon mitochondria in human astrocyte cells. Astrocytes are the most abundant cells found in the human brain and are critical for maintaining normal, healthy blood-brain barrier function.  The researchers observed that vaccine ethylmercury, which is more lipophilic (able to cross the blood-brain barrier) than methylmercury, is readily taken up by the astrocyte’s mitochondria, thereby disrupting the cell’s respiratory functions and eventually leading to cell death. The researchers observed that astrocytes, when exposed to thimerosal, exhibited extreme signs of oxidation and “highly damaged mitochondrial DNA.”[5] This study seems to provide biological evidence to support claims that thimerosal is very likely associated with some incidences of autism.

The influenza vaccine, which continues to use a high mercury level, and the MMR are the two most cited vaccines associated with autism. Yet studies point to other vaccines as well.  Doctors at Stony Brook University’s Medical Center determined that male infants vaccinated with the Hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 have a three-fold higher autism rather. The risk was greater among non-white boys. During the first four year period of the study—between 1997 and 2000—thimerosal was stilled used as a preservative in the Hepatitis vaccine.[6]

Although significant attention is being placed upon the presence of thimerosal in vaccines, most vaccines no longer contain the mercury preservative.  By 2001, except for the influenza vaccine, mercury has been either completely removed or present only in trace amounts for all other vaccines given to children under the age 6 months. One would therefore expect that autism rates would noticeably decrease; however, the opposite has been the case. Since 2001, autism continues to steadily rise annually.

The CDC argues that this proves thimerosal is not the culprit. It ignores a 2012 Australian study published in the journal Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry that there is a direct maternal transfer of ethylmercury from pregnant mothers to the embryo/fetus.[7] It remains American federal health policy for pregnant women to receive the flu shot that contains 25 mg of mercury.  But vaccinations’ association with neurodegenerative conditions was never solely about thimerosal. Another culpable ingredient now conventionally used in most childhood vaccinations, and also associated with adverse neurological effects is the adjuvant aluminum.  Since 2000, as thimerosal was being phased out, the aluminum adjuvant burden has increased.[8]

Similar to thimerosal, aluminum is a heavy metal that contributes to oxidative stress leading to neuroinflammation and microgliosis, an intense adverse reaction of the central nervous system microglia that leads to a pathogenic results characteristic in some ASD conditions.[9] The National Library of Medicine lists over 2,000 references about aluminum’s toxicity to human biochemistry.  Aluminum’s dangers, often found as alum or aluminum hydroxide in vaccines and food preparations, have been known since 1912, when the first director of the FDA, Dr. Harvey Wiley, later resigned in disgust over its commercial use in food canning; he was also among the first government officials to ever warn about tobacco’s cancer risks back in 1927.[10]

A common argument against vaccine opponents who blame aluminum for a variety of health conditions, including autism, is that the metal is the third most prevalent element found on earth.  What they fail to acknowledge is our gastric-intestinal system is rather impervious to aluminum absorption.  About 2% of orally consumed aluminum from the environment is actually absorbed and much of this is later expelled from the body by other means.  However, injectable and intravenous aluminum compounds directly entering the bloodstream are a completely different matter. And this is why the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines carries a high neurodegenerative and autism risk.  Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants after intravenous feeding, which then contained alum, was observed back in 1997 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.[11] Thirty-nine percent of infants receiving aluminum-containing solutions developed learning problems upon entering schools compared to those receiving aluminum-free solutions.

Drs. Christopher Shaw and Lucjia Tomljenovic at the Neural Dynamics group at the University of British Columbia have conducted the most extensive research to date in order to determine the neurotoxicological effects of vaccine aluminum, and its correlation with the rise of autism spectrum disorders. There is already a strong correlation between children in countries with the highest autism rates and the amount of vaccine aluminum exposure. The maximum amount of aluminum permitted in a single vaccine dose is 850 mg. However the FDA established this measurement based upon the amount necessary to trigger the vaccine’s antigenicity rather than toxic concerns about safety. In an earlier study published in the journal of Neuromolecular Medicine, Dr. Shaw and his team demonstrated that the extreme toxicity of aluminum adjuvant contributed to motor neuron death associated with Gulf War illness.[12]

Another recent 2012 study carried out at MIT and published in the journal Entropy that requires serious further investigation is potentially a combination of aluminum adjuvant and acetaminophen, or tylenol, and the onset of autism. This was noted especially in children receiving the MMR and Hepatitis B vaccines. Both of these vaccines have high incidence of spiking high fevers following administration.  It is common practice for parents to administer children’s Tylenol to counter vaccine-induced fevers. Although this study was not biologic, rather a review and analysis of vaccine injury data from the CDC’s VAERS database. Remaining inconclusive, the study does identify raise an important observation that may explain why autism rates show no sign of decline.[13]

Some of the research to discover aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines toxic levels and their adverse effects have found the following:

  • Aluminum inflicts strong neurotoxicity on primary neurons.[14]
  • Aluminum-laced vaccines increase the aluminum levels in murine brain tissue leading to neurotoxicity.[15]
  • Aluminum hydroxide, the most common form of adjuvant used in vaccines deposits mostly in the kidney, liver and brain.[16]
  • Long term exposure to vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide (which is today an ingredient in almost all vaccines) results in macrophagic myofastitis lesions.[17]

Vaccine opponents for a long time have focused upon non viral ingredients in vaccines. This has led to a sizeable faction within this community claiming to be pro-vaccine but demanding safer vaccines. According to this argument, simply removing the toxic ingredients such as thimerosal, aluminum, polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and others will make vaccination safe. However this denies other vaccine risks.  Significant contamination of vaccine formulas during the manufacturing process is one serious threat that the vaccine industry has no solution to prevent. Today, the fact that a vaccine is likely contaminated with foreign DNA and genetic fragments is a given.  The biomolecular and neuronal risks from genetic contamination remains a no-man’s land and federal officials have barely begun to tackle this problem.

In addition, since 2000, advancements in virology are now identifying serious risks to the viruses and viral components in the vaccines themselves. Other factors increasing vaccination risk include abnormal immunological reactions in response to vaccination.  In 2002, researchers at Utah State University conducted a serological study of elevated measles antibodies and myelin basic protein (MBP) autoantibodies from 125 autistic children and 92 children in a normal control group. MBP has been identified as playing a significant  role in the onset of autism. Ninety percent of the MMR antibody positive autistic children were also positive for MBP autoantibodies. The researchers concluded that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to the pathogenesis of autism.[18] It is well known that in addition to metals such as mercury and aluminum, viral infections also cause oxidative stress that decreases methylation capacity common in autism.[19]

Although not an extended longitudinal study and with a limited number of participants, Dr. J Bradstreet el al detected genomic RNA from the vaccine’s measles virus in the cerebrospinal fluid of children with regressive autism or autistic encephalopathy (AE). In addition each child had concomitant gastrointestinal symptoms previously observed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Hospital London in the 1990s.[20]

According to the World Health Organization, the US ranks 39th in the overall health of its population. A large proportion of this ranking is contributed to the failing health American children, with autistic and neuro-developmental disorders soon reaching 1 in 50.

The public needs to demand a national debate between those who advocate for mandatory vaccination and those who challenge them. More than ever before it is imperative to have this dialogue as privately controlled interests infiltrate the halls of state legislators to lobby for state-wide mandates. It is highly predictable that autism rates will escalate as more vaccines come to market and states mandate the CDC’s vaccination schedule. The public needs to be educated about the science and ultimately decide for themselves. In a real democracy, an informed patient should have the freedom of choice in making his or her own health decisions. Today, there is no honest debate, no informed consent, no real science, no transparency of vaccine research, and no accurate statistics. Instead, we have federal health agencies, such as the CDC, on its own website, making false claims, advocating fake news. Finally, it is worse that the powers of federal and state governments are being used to mandate the enforcement of vaccination in a totalitarian manner upon its citizens. This is not democracy, this is medical tyranny.







[5] Sharpe MA, Livingston AD, Baskin DS. Thimerosal-derived ethylmercury is a mitochondrial toxin in human astrocytes: possible role of Fenton chemistry in the oxidation and breakage of mtDNA. Jounral of Toxicology vol. 2012, (2012)

[6] J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

[7] Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Volume 94, Issue 8, 2012

[8] Brown IA, Austin DW. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

[9] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012


[11] Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New England Journal Medicine. May 29, 1997 336(22):1557-61

[12] Shaw C. Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice. Neuromolecular Medicine, 2007

[13] Seneff S, Davidson RM, Liu JJ. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure. September 24, 2012

[14] Kawahara M et al. Effects of aluminum on the neurotoxicity of primary cultured neurons and on the aggregation of betamyloid protein. Brain Res. Bull. 2001, 55, 211-217

[15] Redhead K et al. Aluminum adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminum levels in murine brain tissue.Pharacol. Toxico. 1992, 70, 278-280

[16] Sahin G et al. Determination of aluminum levels in the kidney, liver and brain of mice treated with aluminum hydroxide.Biol. Trace. Elem Res. 1994. 1194 Apr-May;41 (1-2): 129-35

[17] Gherardi M et al. Macrophagaic myofastitis lesions assess long-term. Brain. 2001. Vol. 124, No. 9, 1821-1831

[18] Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autrism. J. Biomed Science. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):359-64.[19]James J, Culter P, Melnyk S, Jernigan S, Janak L, Gaylor DW. Metabolic biomarkers of increased oxidative stress and impaired methylation capacity in children with autism. Am J Clin Nutr December 2004 vol. 80 no. 6 1611-1617


Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on New Vaccines Still Cause Autism and the U.S. Government Knows It

Amnesty International Fabrications on Syria Intended to Discredit Russia and Justify Trump Military Intervention in Syria “War on Terrorism”


This article analyses the role of Amnesty International in the disinformation campaign on Syria, and suggests that this recent fake-news endeavour by Amnesty may aim to influence political decision-making in Washington on behalf of the faction supporting the activities of ‘moderate terrorists’ combating the Syrian government. These pro NATO-interventionists have intended to pursue the Hillary Clinton doctrine in the region, aimed to replace secular, independent governments, for fundamentalist rulers willing to comply with their ‘global’ economic and military strategy, the new face of imperialism. They vividly oppose the project of a common effort from the part of the US and Russia to fight the jihadist terrorism in Syria and the region.

The political context

President Donald Trump has announced in several occasions that he would cooperate with Russia to fight the jihadist-terrorist enclaves in the Middle East. [1] These terrorist strongholds foremost include those operating in Syria.

In his executive orders issued during the last weeks, Trump has been implementing – one after one – his campaign promises to the voters that elected him. Hence, it would be natural to anticipate that a decision regarding the anti-jihadist war is due to occur soon. What exactly this decision would be is nevertheless difficult to assess in view of recent developments in the White House foreign policy, for instance regarding Iran.

Corollary, during this same lapse, the anti-Syria faction operating in Washington corridors of power activates its pressures on the White House and the Pentagon. This is a faction integrated by known Republican politicians [2] (e.g. Senator McCain), Wall Street oligarchs and their stream media, and representatives of the Arab tyrannies that earlier served the Obama-Clinton doctrine of opposing secular governments in the Middle East –for financial reasons. Needles to say, this faction rides on the powerful pro-Israel lobby, which also entails the anti-Iran stance.

These forces vividly oppose cooperation with Russia in the terrorist campaign, at the same time that they advocate for stauncher stances against Iran, which is also an ally in the anti-terrorist fight in Syria.

In this line, a variety of PSYOP have been undertaken, among other by Amnesty International, to discredit the role of Syria and Russia in the important combat against jihadist terrorism. Now has Amnesty published a new fabricated report – presenting no evidence whatsoever – around ‘mass executions’ that would have taken place in a Syrian prison named as ‘Saydnaya’, and whose fictional physical features are depicted in an 3-D artistic creation made-up in an UK visual laboratory. [3]

This is not the first time that Amnesty International faces international contempt for its biased position, respectively its groundless statements on the Syrian Conflict. Commenting the Amnesty report of December 23, 2015, “Syria: Russia’s shameful failure to acknowledge civilian killings”, the then United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon concluded specifically regarding the verifiability issue in the said Amnesty report:

The Secretary‑General notes with concern Amnesty International’s report on alleged violations of international humanitarian law resulting from the Russian airstrikes in Syria.  The UN cannot independently confirm the cases presented in the report.[4]

The PSYOP routine

The “Fake News” phenomenon is not new, but an inherent phase of the PSYOP endeavour routinely implemented by governmental or corporate agencies, among these the mainstream media. If it seems a phenomenon particularly ascribed to these political times, it’s only because a public debate – initiated in social media – about the meaning and uses of ‘fake news’ has been revived in the last months. The new debate had its start point around fake publications by pro-Clinton stream media targeting the campaign of Donald Trump, which were cabled and reproduced in the rest of Western media. A leading actor in denouncing such fake news was the organization WikiLeaks.

The mainstream media rapidly tried to reverse the paradigm, and subsequently accused either ‘hostile’ government’s agencies in the ‘East’, or alternative media in the ‘West’, of being ‘trolls serving the Kremlin’. To illustrate a modus operandis first used by the MSM for this disinformation purposes, it will be sufficient to recall the Washington Post classical episode of November 2016, namely the promoting of a mccarthyite blacklist sourced in the anonymous site ‘PropOrNot’. [5]

The widespread criticism [6] that Washington Post received for such spurious publication motivated a kind of retraction by the newspaper. The lesson was learnt and the psy op routine changed.

The new fashion is seemingly the sourcing of the fake news in a) flawed institutional decisions (decisions taken by an institution after been object of serious manipulation, such as the case of a Sweden-funded institution that bestowed the alternative Nobel Peace Prize to the ‘White Helmets”) [7], or b) so a called “non governmental organization” (NGO) and under the false assumption that such organization would be independent of governmental policies. This is the case of using “Amnesty International’s reports” as source for disinformation about for instance the Ukraine conflict, or more recently, on the war in Syria.

An illustration of this new fake news modality is given by CNN, whose article’s headline of February 8, 2017, reads: “13,000 people hanged in secret at Syrian prison, Amnesty says.” [8]

Apart of the necessary analysis of such report’s biases, inaccuracies, or plain fabrications, other essential issues to examine are the general political/ideological agenda pursued by Amnesty, the aspect of who is financing the report, and the possible participation of government Intel or Security Police officers in such reports or statements produced by Amnesty (as it was the case of the statement by Amnesty International, Swedish Section, on the Assange case. See here, and here). [9] [10]

“Amnesty reports” and Syria

Examining Amnesty International own statements on the situation in Syria, it emerges a biased, pro “moderate terrorists”, general stance. I state this based on Amnesty International’s own document “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”. [11]

In the Introduction text of this document, the organization uses the text to predominantly indulge in a harsh criticism on the government of Syria and its forces, without any reference to supporting evidence. The text reads, “Government forces carried out indiscriminate attacks and attacks that directly targeted civilians, including bombardment of civilian residential areas and medical facilities with artillery, mortars, barrel bombs and, reportedly, chemical agents, unlawfully killing civilians. Government forces also enforced lengthy sieges, trapping civilians and depriving them of food, medical care and other necessities. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and continued to detain thousands, including peaceful activists, human rights defenders, media and humanitarian workers, and children. Some were subjected to enforced disappearance and others to prolonged detention or unfair trials. Security forces systematically tortured and otherwise ill-treated detainees with impunity; thousands of detainees died as a result of torture and other ill-treatment between 2011 and 2015.” Etc.

Furthermore, the Amnesty report mentions, ensuing the description ascribed to regular Syrian armed forces, “Non-state armed groups that controlled some areas and contested others indiscriminately shelled and besieged predominantly civilian areas.”

Finally, no mention whatsoever is done in the Amnesty Report’s Introduction on the groups funded, armed and trained by the governments and interests that that Amnesty International serves.

Also, the referred text refers only some lines to ISIS, but here no mention is done about ISIS being a terrorist organization, or a jihadist-fundamentalist organization, its brutal executions, etc. It refers instead to “The armed group Islamic State (IS)”.

The Amnesty Report “ Saydnaya Prison, Syria”

With regard to biases and inaccuracies of the Amnesty report on Syria “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria,” [12] I first refer to an analysis provided in Global Research by Tony Cartalucci.  [13] The author put in evidence that “Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.” Catalucci refers to Amnesty’s own text, as it is given in the section “Methodology”:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

Cartalucci also mentions that the Amnesty international report on Syria was fabricated in the United Kingdom “using a process they call ‘forensic architecture,’ in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.” [13]

The above observations by Cartalucci led me to further investigate the firm providing the service, namely, Eyal Weizman’s “Forensic Architecture”.

In the website of “Forensic Architecture” (the Amnesty International contractor), section Cases / Saydnaya, [14] we find the following admission:

As there are no images of Saydnaya the researchers were dependent on the memories of survivors to recreate what is happening inside.

Here the ‘investigators’ refer to five anonymous individuals they say had interviewed in Istanbul:

In April 2016, Amnesty International and Forensic Architecture travelled to Istanbul to meet five survivors from Saydnaya Prison.

And most demonstrative, the fabricators at “Forensic Architecture” declare in the same page: [14] “The Saydnaya project is part of a wider campaign led by Amnesty International”. [My cursives]

A Wikipedia bio article of Eyal Weizman, the director of “Forensic Architecture”, states: “Eyal Weizman (born 1970 in Haifa) is an Israeli intellectual and architect. He is Professor of Spatial and Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London and Director of the Centre for Research Architecture – a “laboratory for critical spatial practices.” [15] The article also states that Weizman directs  “Forensic Architecture”, being this a project funded by the European Research Council, adds the article.[15] Now, as read in its Wikipedia article, the European Research Council (the entity funding Weizman’s project), is an organization ”within” the European Union (EU) and “a part of the European Union’s budget.” [16]

Now, if we compare the stances of the European Union, respectively Amnesty International (also processed by the same European-Union funded ‘Forensic Architecture’), we find those stances identical in its essence:

EU’s statement on Syria: ”The Quint nations and the European Union High Representative called ”halting the indiscriminate bombing by the Syrian regime of its own people, which has continually and egregiously undermined efforts to end this war.” [17]

Amnesty’s statement on Syria: ”Government forces carried out indiscriminate attacks and attacks that directly targeted civilians, including bombardment of civilian residential areas”. [18]

Finally, “following the money”, we find that Amnesty International receives direct funding by states within the European Union. At least this is the case of the Swedish Section of Amnesty International, which receives funding from governmental agencies. Proof of these donations, and name of the providing institutions, is found referred in the article, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights rebuts statement by Amnesty Sweden on Assange case“. [19]

The repercussions of the above in the political bias in the statements produced by Amnesty Sweden are unequivocal. Amnesty Sweden has sided  with the Swedish government in every vital geopolitical issue, and in some instances further to the right than the government’s stances.

Furthermore, while SWEDHR and other human rights organization were condemning the torture of Palestinian children by Israeli forces, Amnesty-International Sweden rejected initiatives to take such crimes to the International Court of Justice. [20] In the same fashion, the Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted in an Annual conference to reject human-right actions on the Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children cases; and at that time Amnesty Sweden also had refused to recognize Chelsea Manning as prisoner of conscience in the U.S. [20]

Amnesty-International Sweden has no credibility at all, it can not be truly regarded as “NGO”, and its international fate is gradually following by other governmental Swedish institutions at the same pace they are selling the sovereignty of this nation to NATO’s interests.


[1] Reuters, “Donald Trump Would Consider Alliance With Russia’s Vladimir Putin Against ISIS“. Newsweek, 26 Jul 2016.

[2] “Republican senators urge Trump to get tough on Russia”. Gant News / CNN, 9 Dec 2017.

[3] Amnesty International, “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria”. 7 Feb 2017.

[4] Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General. UN, 23 Dec 2015.

[5] Ben Norton & Glenn Greenwald, “Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group“. The Intercept, 26 Nov 2016.

[6] 21st Century Wire, “Mainstream Media Blames Russia for “Fake News” While Pushing Neo-McCarthyism“. Global Research, 26 Nov 2016.

[7] M Ferrada de Noli, “Why Is Sweden Giving the “Alternative Nobel Prize” to Syria’s ‘White Helmets’?” The Indicter, 25 Nov 2016.

[8] “13,000 people hanged in secret at Syrian prison, Amnesty says.” CNN, 8 Feb 2017.

[9] M Ferrada de Noli, “Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange“, 6 Mar 2016.

[10] M Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights rebuts statement by Amnesty Sweden on Assange case“. The Indicter, 15 Mar 2016.

[11] Amnesty International, “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[12] Amnesty International, “Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria.” 7 Feb 2017.

[11] M Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Section of Amnesty International voted to reject human-right actions on cases Assange, Snowden and tortured Palestinian children.” The Professors’ Blogg, 11 May 2014.

[13] Tony Cartalucci, “Fake News” and Crimes against Humanity: Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK.” Global Research, 9 February 2017.

[14] Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[15] Wikipedia article on Eyal Weizman. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[16] Wikipedia article on the European Research Council. Retrieved 9 Feb 2017.

[17] EU, “Joint Statement on Syria by the Foreign Ministers of France, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States [Obama administration. Editor’s Note], and the High Representative of the European Union”, October 2016.

[18] Amnesty International, “Annual Report. Syria 2015/2016”.

[19] The references in the cited article corresponding to the governmental funding of the Swedish Section of Amnesty International are:

[a] Ett ljus som har brunnit i 50 årAmnesty Press, 1 June 2011

[b] Anna Widestam. AmnestyfondenAmnesty Historia – fondens historia.

[c] Ulf B Andersson, Amnesty i Sverige : Är krisen i Amnesty över? Amnesty Press, 2 March 2013.

[20] M Ferrada de Noli, “In the record of anti-Amnesty Sweden: Guantanamo prisoners, detained Palestinian Children, Assange, Manning, Snowden…” Followed by an interview with Dr Lif Elinder. The Indicter, 22 Mar 2016.

Posted in Syria, UKComments Off on Amnesty International Fabrications on Syria Intended to Discredit Russia and Justify Trump Military Intervention in Syria “War on Terrorism”

The Children of Syria

A civil defense member carries an injured baby who was pulled out from under debris in Syria. | Photo: Reuters This content was originally published by teleSUR at the following address: "". If you intend to use it, please cite the source and provide a link to the original article.

Initially published in March 2016

There is no other species, no other biological being on this planet that for no necessity at all destroys its own species for sheer greed and power.

Hardly anybody talks about and shows the horrendous situation in Syria on the ground, how this US instigated war affects the people, the individuals – and in particular the children. No future. Three million of them (UNICEF) do not go to school; they are malnourished, many sick, many die – miserable deaths, in unsanitary refugee camps; uncounted children are orphans at young age – have to fend for themselves, are being abused, exploited, mistreated, physically and mentally.

What a future? What a life. – Add to these 3 million from Syria alone the uncounted children from Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan – and the list goes on. All of these children were made homeless and refugees and many also orphans through wars and armed conflicts started by the US and its western ‘allies’.

Syrian Refugees, Sept 2015

Be sure always to remember, who is behind these conflicts; who could stop the misery anytime and who has the power to bring peace to humanity rather than constant war and mass killings to satisfy their greed – greed for dominance, greed for resources.

According to the UNHCR about 60 million people worldwide are on the move as refugees. This figure in reality is probably at least 70 million. It also masks another reality – one of abject poverty and misery, caused by a US-led world elite living in superb luxury and comfort, killing for more wealth and more power. The number of children can only be estimated. It is fair to guess that at least 1/3 of all refugees are children and adolescents, some 25 million. Again, most of these worldwide refugees are the result of US aggressions or conflicts initiated by Washington and carried out by US / NATO armed forces, or by America’s vassals and proxies, i.e. the war in Yemen nominally fought by the Saudis and other Gulf states, but with full backing and arms supplied by the US / NATO.

Young girls and adolescent women are often ending up in the sex-trade. Many of the boys and girls are abused as slaves or at best cheap, hardly-paid labor, working at least 12-hour days and of course – no chance of going to school – a missed opportunity to get a basic education. – What will they do in the future? – Those who may one day be ‘free’ from seeking shelter as refugees, free from slavery and able to enter a ‘normal’ work life?

The number of refugees is increasing with every bombing run by the US and NATO; by drone assassinations, yes, personally approved by Obama, the self-appointed leader of the world who goes around the globe preaching human rights, the biggest human rights abuser in recent history. US drones have killed tens of thousands in the last 15 years. To that you may add the hundreds, perhaps thousands killed by UK and French drones. At least 90% of those killed are civilians, many of them, maybe as many as half, are children or adolescents.

Many children survive as orphans. Especially when the trigger-happy drone-trained operators in Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas or elsewhere on the US territory, or the US Air Force base in Ramstein, Germany, Djibouti, direct their joysticks towards a wedding or funeral celebration in Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan – you name it. They have a particular liking for these mass family gatherings. The ‘bug splats’ – military slang for people killed by remote control – are the most numerous, the most fun, the bloodiest ‘bang for the buck’, for these inhuman monsters, trained to kill in places tens of thousands of kilometers away from their comfort zone – and ordered to do so by the Assassin-in-chief, Obama; he who proudly says that he approves each killing personally. How does the man – if he still deserves the term – sleep at night?

Many of these drone ‘pilots’ work from mobile air-conditioned trailers outside large cities in the US, but also from Africa, Afghanistan or the United Arab Emirates. There are at least 60 drone bases around the world, most of them controlled by the CIA and their proxies. Their number may be flexible with a tendency to grow. They are often operating from simple airstrips, easy to set up and easy to dismantle. They are clad in a shroud of secrecy, therefore difficult to monitor. This is modern American warfare, by robot, removed from emotions. Killing is a mere statistic, a measure accounted for on a spreadsheet. Almost nobody talks about this atrocious way of combat that is easily and painlessly replicated everywhere and endlessly.

How can a future Syria be built without an educated population? There will be a generation gap, for several generations – if ever – before the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region can recuperate its economy, its social and physical infrastructure – its sheer living of normal lives. Syria, Libya and Iraq were the most progressive countries in MENA: free education and health care; a first-class social safety net and physical infrastructure that functioned; a deep and profound history of humanity, the cradle of our western civilization. No more. The very ‘western civilization’ has destroyed it all. Bombed into oblivion. They were and Syria still is socialist by definition – a red flag and no-go for the western neoliberal fascist way of thinking and economic model.

Most of these people have done no harm, are no terrorists, especially the children, they were happy to go to school, to play with their friends, to have a home and caring family and daily food on the table. Now everything is lost. No home. Street children, begging, eating from the gutters, sick, torn and filthy clothing, cold, no shelter – no health care – no care at all. Washington and Washington directed stooges have taken away their future, have plunged them into misery, those that have survived and are roaming the globe as ‘refugees’. What a western sanitized term out of the handbook on statistics – when these poor souls are more often than not at the edge of survival, expulsed from one country to another, beaten, threatened with guns, sometimes killed, hovering between a life of despair and death from starvation, disease or sheer neglect.

Because the greed-driven neoliberal western colonialists – the same Europeans and some of them have become North Americans in the 18th, 19th and 20th century – who have ravaged and raped and exploited the world for centuries, these same people – can they still be called people? – are now decimating and destroying what’s left of our globe, for full spectrum dominance.

Killing is the new normal. Desolation and misery of living beings is of no importance. Interference without limitation, that is what the west does best, literally best. They have perfected an evil science: how to create a chaos of suffering and misery efficiently, with the least effort, at least cost – bombs, drones – poison gas, spent uranium, GMOs, and finally – the atom bomb – eradicating all. By chaos you divide and conquer.

Paradise going up in flames, taking evil humanity with it – safe for a few indigenous people, who have lived all their lives and are still living close and with nature. They may become the founders of a new humanity.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Children of Syria

President Assad: “How Can We Stop the Flow of Terrorists toward Syria”


Assad’s Interview with Belgian Media. Cooperation Between the US and Russia is Going to be Positive for the Rest of the World, Including Syria. Assad

B. al-Assad

President Bashar al-Assad stressed that Syria is owned by the Syrians and that the peace is two things: fighting terrorists and terrorism, stopping the flowing of terrorism, every kind of logistical support. Second, dialogue between the Syrians to decide the future of their country and the whole political system.

On his expectations from the new administration in Washington,  President Assad said, in a statement to Belgian media,What we heard as statements by Trump during the campaign and after the campaign is promising regarding the priority of fighting terrorists, and mainly ISIS, that’s what we’ve been asking for during the last six years. So, I think this is promising, we have to wait, it’s still early to expect anything practical. It could be about the cooperation between the US and Russia, that we think is going to be positive for the rest of the world, including Syria. So, as I said, it’s still early to judge it.

Question 1: Mr. President, we’ve been to Aleppo, we’ve seen the destruction, how do you see the way forward to peace nowadays after Astana?

President Assad: If you want to talk about how to see the peace, it’s not related mainly to Astana; it’s related to something much bigger: how can we stop the flowing of terrorists toward Syria, or in Syria, how can we stop the support from regional countries like Turkey, Gulf states, or from Europe like France and UK, or from the US during the Obama administration. If we deal with that title, this is where you can talk about the rest, about the political procedure. Astana is one of the initiatives during this war on Syria, and it’s about the dialogue between the Syrians. Now it’s too early to judge Astana, the first one was positive because it was about the principles of the unity of Syria, about the Syrians deciding their future. How can you implement this communique? That’s the question, and I think we are going to see Astana 2 and so on. So, the peace is two things: fighting terrorists and terrorism, stopping the flowing of terrorism, every kind of logistical support. Second, dialogue between the Syrians to decide the future of their country and the whole political system. These are the headlines about how we see the future of Syria.

Question 2: We have seen many breaches in the ceasefire, would you consider the ceasefire is still upholding, or is it dead?

President Assad: No, it’s not dead, and it’s natural in every ceasefire anywhere in the world, in every war, in any conflict, to have these breaches. It could be sometimes on individual levels, it doesn’t mean there’s policy of breaching the ceasefire by the government or by any other party, and this is something we can deal with on daily basis, and sometimes on hourly basis, but till this moment, no, the ceasefire is holding.

Question 3: In the fight against terror group Daesh, do you think all means are justified?

President Assad: Depends on what do we mean by “all means,” you have to be…

Journalist: Literally all means.

President Assad: Yeah, but I don’t know what the means that are available to tell you yes or “all means,” so I don’t what the “all means” are. But if you want to talk about military means, yes of course, because the terrorists are attacking the people – I’m not only talking about ISIS; ISIS and al-Nusra and all the Al Qaeda-affiliated groups within Syria – when they are attacking civilians, and killing civilians, and beheading people, and destroying properties, private and public, and destroying the infrastructure, everything in this country, let’s say, our constitutional duty and legal duty as government and as army and as state institutions is to defend the Syrian people. It’s not an opinion; it’s a duty. So, regarding this, you can use every mean in order to defend the Syrian people.

Question 4: But we have seen the destruction in Aleppo, you have seen the images as well. Was there no other way to do it?

President Assad: Actually, since the beginning of the crisis, of the war on Syria, we used every possible way. We didn’t leave any stone unturned in order to bring people to the negotiating table, but when you talk about the terrorists, when you talk about terrorists, when you talk about Al Qaeda, when you talk about al-Nusra and ISIS, I don’t think anyone in this world would believe that they are ready for dialogue, and they always say they’re not; they have their own ideology, they have their own way path, they don’t accept anything that could be related to civil state or civil country, they don’t, and I think you know as a European about this reality. So, no, making dialogue with al-Nusra and Al Qaeda is not one of the means, but if somebody wanted to change his course on the individual levels, we are ready to accept him as a government, and give him amnesty when he goes back to the normal life and gives up his armament.

Question 5: The Belgian government is contributing in the fight against Daesh. There are six F-16 fighter planes in the fight against Daesh. Are you grateful to the Belgian government for that contribution?

President Assad: Let me be frank with you, when you talk about contribution in the operation against ISIS, actually there was no operation against ISIS; it was a cosmetic operation, if you want to talk about the American alliance against ISIS. It was only an illusive alliance, because ISIS was expanding during that operation. At the same time, that operation is an illegal operation because it happened without consulting with or taking the permission of the Syrian government, which is the legitimate government, and it’s a breaching of our sovereignty. Third, they didn’t prevent any Syrian citizen from being killed by ISIS, so what tobe grateful for? To be frank, no.

Question 6: You have stated several times that it is up to the Syrian people, it is up to the constitution, to decide who their leadership should be, who their president should be. If the Syrian people would decide for a new leadership, would you consider to step aside?

President Assad: If the Syrian people choose another president, I don’t have to choose to be aside; I would be aside, I would be outside this position, that’s self-evident, because the constitution will put the president, and the constitution will take him out according to the ballot box and the decision of the Syrian people. Of course, that’s very natural, not only because of the ballot box; because if you don’t have public support, you cannot achieve anything in Syria, especially in a war. In a war, what you need, the most important thing is to have public support in order to restore your country, to restore the stability and security. Without it, you cannot achieve anything. So, yes, of course.

Question 7: Mr. President, I am 43 years old, if I would have been born in Syria, there would always have been an Assad in executive power. Can you imagine a Syria without a member of the Assad family in executive power?

President Assad: Of course, we don’t own the country, my family doesn’t own the country, to say that only Assad should be in that position, that’s self-evident, and this could be by coincidence, because President Assad didn’t have an heir in the institution to be his successor. He died, I was elected, he didn’t have anything to do with my election. When he was president, I didn’t have any position in the government. If he wanted me to be an heir, he would have put me somewhere, gave me a responsibility, I didn’t have any responsibility, actually. So, it’s not as many in the media in the West used to say since my election, that “he succeeded his father” or “his father put him in that position.” So, yes, Syria is owned by the Syrians, and every Syrian citizen has the right to be in that position.

Question 8: Do you think the European Union or even NATO can play a role in, like, rebuilding the country, like, rebuilding Syria?

President Assad: You cannot play that role while you are destroying Syria, because the EU is supporting the terrorists in Syria from the very beginning under different titles: humanitarians, moderate, and so on. Actually, they were supporting al-Nusra and ISIS from the very beginning, they were extremists from the very beginning. So, they cannot destroy and build at the same time. First of all, they have to take a very clear position regarding the sovereignty of Syria, stop supporting the terrorists. This is where the Syrians would – I say would – accept those countries to play a role in that regard. But in the meantime, if you ask any Syrian the same question, he will tell you “no, we don’t accept, those countries supported the people who destroyed our country, we don’t want them to be here.” That’s what I think.

Question 9: Do you think Belgium can play a role in Syria?

President Assad: Let me talk about the European political position in general; many in this region believe that the Europeans don’t exist politically, they only follow the master which is the Americans. So, the question should be about the Americans, and the Europeans will follow and will implement what the Americans want. They don’t exist as independent states, and Belgium is part of the EU.

Question 10: There is a new administration in Washington, with Trump in power. What do you expect from it? Are you looking to work closely together?

President Assad: What we heard as statements by Trump during the campaign and after the campaign is promising regarding the priority of fighting terrorists, and mainly ISIS, that’s what we’ve been asking for during the last six years. So, I think this is promising, we have to wait, it’s still early to expect anything practical. It could be about the cooperation between the US and Russia, that we think is going to be positive for the rest of the world, including Syria. So, as I said, it’s still early to judge it.

Question 11: If you look back on the last couple of years, are there any things that you regret?

President Assad: Every mistake could be a regret, by any individual, and as a human…

Journalist: Have you made mistakes?

President Assad: As a human, I have to make mistakes to be human. Otherwise, I’m not a human.

Journalist: What would you consider a mistake?

President Assad: A mistake is when you either take a wrong decision or make a wrong practice, it depends on the situation. But if you want to talk about the crisis, as I understand from the question, the three decisions that we took from the very beginning is to fight terrorism, and I think it’s correct, is to make dialogue between the Syrians, I think it’s correct, to respond to every political initiative, whether it’s genuine or not, and I think it’s correct, and actually we supported the reconciliation between the Syrians, and I think it’s correct. Anything else could be trivial, so you have a lot of things regarding the practice, regarding the institutions, you always have mistakes.

Question 12: If you look back, was this war avoidable?

President Assad: No, because there was bad intention regarding the different countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, UK, and the US in order to destabilize Syria, so it wasn’t about the Syrians. That doesn’t mean that we don’t have many flaws before the war and today as a country that allow many of those countries to mess with our country. I’m not excluding, I’m not saying it’s only about them, but they were the one who took the initiative in order to wage this war, so I don’t think it was avoidable.

Question 13: You have just had a visit from a Belgian parliamentary delegation with Mr. Dewinter and Mr. Carcaci, do you consider them as friends?

President Assad: The most important thing about those visits is not to be friends with them. As a politician, you don’t come to Syria to visit your friend; you come to Syria to see what’s going on.

Journalist: Do you see them as political allies?

President Assad: No, they’re not my allies at all. They are coming here not for that reason; they are here in order to see what’s going on. They are the allies of the Belgian people. They came here because the government, the Belgian government, like many European governments, are blind today, they have no relation with this country on every level, so they don’t see what’s going on, they cannot play any role. So, now the only eyes that you have are the delegations that are coming from your country, and this is one of them, this is one of the eyes that your government could have, and you could have many other eyes and delegations coming to Syria. So, they’re not my allies, they’re not coming here for me; they’re coming here to see the situation, and I’m one of the players in the Syrian conflict, it’s natural to meet with me to hear what’s my point of view.

Question 14: Mr. President, just one more question: after the victories in Aleppo, Wadi Barada, your troops are close from al-Bab, do you think that all these major victories can change the mind of European governments concerning the Syrian government?

President Assad: I don’t know, I think they have to answer that question. For us, it’s our war, we need to liberate every single inch on the Syrian territory from those terrorists. If the European governments think that their efforts went in vain, that’s good, they may change their mind, and at least to stop supporting those terrorists that don’t have the support of the public in Syria; they only have the support of the Europeans and the Gulf states, the Wahabi Gulf states, in order to have more terrorism and extremism in Syria. We hope, I think during the last two years, the whole world has changed, the United States has changed, the situation in Syria has changed, the situation in the region in general has changed. Two things didn’t change or hasn’t changed till this moment: first of all, Al Qaeda is still there through ISIS and al-Nusra, and the mentality of the European officials, it hasn’t change yet, they live in the past.

Question 15: Mr. President, in your opinion, what is our ______ to question if after the war, the international court in the Hague should go over some responsibles on the crimes against humanity against the Syrian people, do you support that view, that the responsibles of the crimes at war should be judged by the international court in the Hague?

President Assad: We all know that the United Nations institutions are not unbiased, they are biased, because of the American influence and the French and British, mainly. So, most of those institutions, they don’t work to bring the stability to the world or to look for the truth; they are only politicized to implement the agenda of those countries. For me, as president, when I do my duty, the same for the government and for the army, to defend our country, we don’t look to this issue, we don’t care about it. We have to defend our country by every mean, and when we have to defend it by every mean, we don’t care about this court, or any other international institution.

Question 16: Yes. Do you accept the position of the United Nations?

President Assad: It depends on that position. Most of the positions are biased, as I said, regarding every organization, regarding every sector, regarding most of the resolutions against Syria. That’s why it was for the first time maybe for Russia and China to take so many vetoes in few years, because they know this reality. So, no, we don’t accept, we don’t accept.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on President Assad: “How Can We Stop the Flow of Terrorists toward Syria”

Lots of Shouting, Tiny Stick: Iran is “Not Behaving… They are the No 1 Terrorist State” according to Trump

Trump téléphone Gentiloni

Here we go again. General “Mad Dog” Mattis, the US Secretary of Defense, declares Iran “is the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn puts Iran “on notice.”

President Trump says “they are not behaving,” and, on his Superbowl interview, doubles down: “They are the No 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place – and weapons. And… [they] can’t do that.” Iran is slapped with new sanctions. It’s as if Dick “Dark Side” Cheney and Donald “known unknowns” Rumsfeld never left.

Never allow facts to get in the way of a bombastic quote. “State sponsor of terrorism” is a neocon meme for any nation/political system that resists US Exceptionalism. The industrial-military-intelligence-security complex feeds on massive budgets to engage these manufactured “threats” while real, on the ground terrorism – yielding from the Salafi-jihadi matrix – has absolutely nothing to do with Iran.

The birth of al-Qaeda was inbuilt in the official Dr Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski doctrine of fighting the former USSR in Afghanistan in the 1980s via a Wahhabi-controlled Jihad Inc. Nothing to do with Iran. Even Trump’s own national security advisor admitted on the record there was a “willful decision” by the Obama administration to let ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fester. Nothing to do with Iran.

As for the Iranian missile test, the UN resolution concerning the nuclear deal “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. This was a conventional missile test, as even the White House admitted.

So what is it all about? We must once again resort to the shadowplay/wayang of a Henry Kissinger-devised new balance-of-power US foreign policy bent on preventing Eurasian integration by prying away Russia from China while antagonizing Iran.

Putting the New Silk Roads “on notice”

Beijing was not amused by the new “unilateral” (Foreign Ministry description) anti-Iran sanctions barring access to the US financial system or dealings with US companies. After all, the sanctions include two Chinese companies and two Chinese nationals. Xinhua worries that overall this may become “a ticking time bomb for peace and stability in the Middle East.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov for his part stressed that Russia and Iran “cooperate on a wide range of issues, [we] value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”

Whatever the administration, and whoever the privileged dalang advisor in the shade, the US strategic imperative in Eurasia always remains the same – to prevent the ascent of a peer competitor, or worse, an alliance, as in the case of a Sino-Russian strategic partnership.

For China, Iran is an absolutely critical node of the New Silk Roads, or One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Along with Russia, it is a key player in the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), is set to increase its cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), and will become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). All this spells out Eurasian integration. By 2030 Eurasia may exceed the US and Europe in global GDP terms. Eurasia, not the Atlantic alliance, is the future.

Most of the geostrategic game ahead hinges on whether there can be a “win-win” grand bargain between the Trump administration and the Kremlin. Assuming Washington would back off in eastern Ukraine and accept Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence in Eurasia – hardly a given – the price to pay for Moscow would be to let go of its very close partnership with Tehran. Kissinger should know better; this is not going to happen.

In between, there are pressing facts on the ground. The avowed, much ballyhooed Trump smashing of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh across “Syraq” simply cannot happen without Tehran-supported Shi’ite militias/boots on the ground, the Quds force led by Gen. Soleimani, as well as Hezbollah fighters in Syria. Trump is waiting for his ordered 30-day Pentagon plan of “victory” against the jihadis. Bets can be made that the Pentagon won’t integrate both Iran and Russia – both doctrinally regarded as “threats”.

In a nutshell; Trump cannot win his war against Islamist terror if he fully subscribes to the neocon wet dream of crippling the Russia-China-Iran alliance.

It also wouldn’t require a PhD thesis for Trump to understand that Iranophobia is bad for business. Iran is a tremendous developing market ripe for investment, as attested by European, Russian, Chinese and South Korean interest.

Assuming Trump’s campaign promise of no more regime change adventures holds, the new US strategic mission across Southwest Asia would be to essentially guarantee that global supply chain sea lanes remain open and secure – to the benefit of booming business across the Rimland. Russia and China could not agree more.

Everyone who’s been to Iran – neocons haven’t – knows Tehran won’t be subdued with angry threats. Iran has been under US sanctions for no fewer than 38 years. Absolutely nothing across Southwest Asia can be accomplished, geopolitically, without Iranian participation.

Nobody – except the usual suspects – wants confrontation. The Joint Chiefs had already informed then President Obama that Washington cannot go to war again until at least 2022; part of Trump’s platform is exactly to facilitate the means to recruit, retrain and re-tool a new US military.

And even in the (terrifying) event that the Pentagon hits Iran, it would take just a few Iranian ballistic missiles strategically deployed against oil fields and oil refineries around the Persian Gulf to spell out the end of the petrodollar.

Tehran is betting on – and wants to profit from – a new multipolar world order. Beijing knows there is no New Silk Road if Iran is constrained. Iran’s arc of development is inevitable – and European, Russian and Chinese investors know it. An American geography professor who conducted a project on the US presidential race told me that among pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions, “in no case did any of the four sides mention the New Silk Roads, or OBOR.” Trump’s cabinet – with the possible exception of Secretary of State “T.Rex” Tillerson – may also fit this mould.

To speak loudly and carry a tiny stick could not be more counter-productive. It might be a stretch to expect Trump to actually read his foreign policy dalang, but if he went through Kissinger’s World Order he would learn that “the United States and the Western democracies should be open to fostering cooperative relations with Iran. What they must not do is base such a policy on projecting their own domestic experience as inevitably or automatically relevant to other societies,’ especially Iran’s.”

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Lots of Shouting, Tiny Stick: Iran is “Not Behaving… They are the No 1 Terrorist State” according to Trump

The Syrian Draft Constitution is Only Aimed at Improving the Situation in Syria


Since the peace talks in Astana ended, meaningful progress has been made towards the settlement of the Syrian crisis. The guarantor countries managed to do impossible – to make Syrian government and the armed opposition sit down at one table to discuss the current situation in the country.

As a result of the talks in Astana, all sides have stated in final statement that they have common views to monitor the ceasefire process, they also achieved the agreement on setting up trilateral mechanism to monitor the ceasefire in Syria. In addition, the Russian delegation proposed a draft of a new Syrian constitution for its further discussion with the Syrian government, the opposition, and the countries in the region.

Most of the Syrian experts agree that this project might be a starting point for discussions in Syria, in which the warring parties should direct their efforts not at empty talks, and at the discussion of the real future of their country.

Despite the fact that the armed opposition’s reaction on the proposed draft constitution was critical, it is becoming clear that occurrence of one of the possible variants of the constitution is only aimed at the earliest settlement of the conflict. Today, when the ceasefire is generally respected, it is the best of times to define a clear plan of further actions, including the discussion of the future political system of the country.

It should be mentioned that on February 7, the second meeting of the operational group, which controls the ceasefire regime in Syria, was held in Astana. At the meeting the group was discussing and solving specific problems of the ceasefire at those sectors of the front, where it is possible. At this time, Jordan joined the meeting in the capital of Kazakhstan. Its participation could play an important role in resolving the conflict.

Of course, lots of controversial issues arise in the discussion of the Syrian problem, but the continuation of the talks is a great progress by itself. Over time, everything that causes the contradiction could be solved in cooperation with Russia, Iran, Turkey and Jordan.

It is known that at the second meeting it was not discussed a question of the draft constitution, however, it is planned to bring it to the agenda of the next meeting in Astana, which is scheduled for mid-February. However, we can already say that this project has the potential to become a full-fledged basis for a future constitution, which will be developed by the Syrians.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The Syrian Draft Constitution is Only Aimed at Improving the Situation in Syria

A Deadly Legacy: The CIA’s Covert Laos War


In the first of many mistakes of the Vietnam War, President Dwight Eisenhower said in 1954, “You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over quickly.”

CIA pilots and crews prepare to re-arm a T-28 bomber for bombing missions on Laos 1964.

By January 1961, Eisenhower had warned his successor John F. Kennedy that Laos was the most pressing foreign policy issue in the world and he had initiated Operation Momentum in Laos, for the CIA to train and arm a small force of Hmong tribesmen to fight the communist Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese supporters.

But history would prove the “domino theory” in Southeast Asia was a misconception of tragic proportions. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines would all confidently resist communist influence and would have surely have done so without the bloodbath of millions of deaths across Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

As a young freelance journalist in 1965, I tried to cover the secret war in Laos. In the capital Vientiane, I encountered CIA pilots running supplies to the Hmong army in Long Chen and urged them, over many beers at the bar of the Continental Hotel, to take me along but without success.

Now, more than a half century later, author Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, has published a book, A Great Place to Have a War, based on recently declassified documents and interviews with major players behind the secret war in Laos.

He also analyzes how the conflict in Laos was the genesis of the CIA’s support for clandestine paramilitary operations around the world, a pattern that continues through today. He concludes that the strategy in Laos set a sinister precedent for American presidents to conduct war without congressional or media oversight.

Kurlantzick writes,

“The Laos program would balloon in men and budget. It would grow into a massive undertaking run by CIA operatives. CIA leadership saw that an inexpensive proxy war could be a template for wars when U.S. presidents were looking for ways to continue the Cold War without going through Congress or committing ground troops. The CIA leadership thought that Laos was a great place to have a war.”

An army of hill tribes, mostly Hmong under the command of General Vang Pao, who initially led a ragged band of 5,000 guerrillas recruited and equipped by CIA officers. For 14 years, this irregular army fought the communists with Vang Pao’s guerrilla forces finally numbering 100,000 irregular troops.

Over those years, more bombs were dropped on Laos than were dropped on Japan and Germany during World War II. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, some 200,000 Laotians, both civilian and military had been killed, including at least 30,000 Hmong, with another 750,000 Laotians made homeless by the bombing. Some 700 Americans, mostly CIA officers, contractors and U.S. military also died in the Laos conflict, although those American deaths would not be revealed for decades.

Today, Laos is a failed country still strewn with landmines and other ordnance that take the limbs and lives of Laotians every day. Only 1 percent of the unexploded ordnance is believed to have been cleared and an estimated 20,000 Laotians have been killed or injured since the bombing ceased.

A Destructive Debacle

By most measures, the CIA’s war in Laos was a debacle that virtually destroyed a civilization. Plus, the war was “lost” from the U.S. government’s perspective when the country disappeared into the communist Vietnamese orbit. But by the CIA’s yardstick, it was a great success.

Hmong warlord Vang Pao who led the tribal army under the direction of the CIA until 1975.

“In the opinion of many officers in the CIA Clandestine services, the paramilitary programs that the agency operated in Laos between 1963-71 were the most successful ever mounted,” according to a quote from newly declassified CIA records cited by author Kurlantzick. “Small in numbers of personnel and even smaller in relative dollar costs, the CIA Laos operations shone in contrast to the ponderous operations of the US military forces in Vietnam.”

CIA Director Richard Helms declared that the agency had proven itself in Laos and had tied down 70,000 North Vietnamese troops who might otherwise have fought Americans in Vietnam. Laos would become the template for a new type of large, secret war for decades to come.

In his book, Kurlantzick concentrates on four remarkable individuals who in partnership with the CIA would control the agency’s war in Laos. All four have died recently, but Kurlantzick interviewed three of them.

There was Bill Lair, an American veteran of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Division in World War II who joined the CIA in Bangkok to train Thai troops for a possible invasion by China. Lair, adept at the Thai and Lao languages, was later sent to Laos where he would become the first chief agent to deal with the Hmong warlord Vang Pao.

There was Vang Pao, who met Lair in January 1961 and promised that if Lair would provide weapons he would gather 10,000 men to be trained by the CIA. Vang Pao had a reputation of having a sharp mind but his rage, sadness and energy sometimes overtook his abilities and knowledge.

There was Ambassador William Sullivan, who took his post in Vientiane in 1964 and soon became the most powerful U.S. ambassador in the world, in charge of the secret war in Laos. Sullivan’s power encompassed far more than the usual duties of filing reports on the political situation and attending diplomatic receptions. He had a strong respect for the CIA, unlike many U.S. ambassadors.

Sullivan also had a close relationship with President Lyndon Johnson, which Sullivan felt gave him a free hand to run the war in Laos. Called to testify before Congress, Sullivan drew the ire of Sen. William Fulbright, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who complained: “We pretend Laos is a sovereign country. We are pretending we are not there? You are deceiving the American people and Congress.”

Sullivan, who didn’t mention that he had commanded nearly every aspect of the operation in Laos, later became National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s right-hand man at the Paris peace talks. (Sullivan was the only one of the four principals whom Kurlantzick did not interview.)

The fourth principal in the Laotian war was Tony Poe, who had experienced heavy combat with the U.S. Marines island-hopping across the Pacific during World War II. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Poe signed up to train Korean saboteurs. In 1961, Poe arrived in Laos to help train the Hmong who had become the center of Operation Momentum.

Graphic for the movie, “Apocalypse Now,” which featured Marlon Brando as a crazed U.S. intelligence operative leading an irregular army, a character believed drawn from the CIA’s covert war in Laos.

Poe was a hard-drinking combat trainer who sought opportunities to fight with the troops he had trained. He had a reputation of ruthlessness that included tales of cutting heads off North Vietnamese troops and dropping them from a helicopter. He is said to have shipped bags of ears cut from enemy soldiers to the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane.

In the mountains with his private army and drinking heavily, many of Poe’s colleagues believed he had gone mad. However, in 1975, Poe was awarded a second CIA intelligence medal for “extraordinary heroism.” It is believed Poe was the model for Marlon Brando’s portrayal of Col. Kurtz in the film “Apocalypse Now.”

Enduring Lessons

The lessons from Laos had long-term effects on how the CIA would operate for years. After 1975, agents with Laos experience took over CIA stations all over the world and held senior jobs in agency headquarters. They brought with them a conviction the CIA could handle large-scale war fighting skills, reported Kurlantzick.

The secret war also had echoes up to the present.

“The post-9/11 war on terror replicates the Laos war in other critical ways: CIA activities are totally unwatched by the public and the media. The strategies used to keep most of the war on terror secret … would have been completely familiar to the CIA operatives running the Laos war.”

In his last foreign trip, President Obama went to Laos, the first sitting U.S. president to ever do so. In a speech in Vientiane in September that got little notice back home, he offered no apologies, but pledged to increase funding for clearing unexploded bombs by $90 million over the next three years.

President Barack Obama speaks in Vientiane, Laos, in September 2016 to announce an additional $90 million aid for bomb removal in the next three years. (White House Photo)

“Given our history here, the United States has a moral obligation to help Laos heal,” Obama said. “At the time the U.S. did not acknowledge America’s role. Even now, many Americans are not fully aware of this chapter in our history, and it’s important that we remember today.”

Kurlantzick didn’t complete the research and transcript for his book until October, before the election of Donald Trump as president, but in an article for the Washington Post’s Outlook section Jan. 22, he analyzed the new administration’s likely policy toward the CIA:

“The incoming President seems eager to cut some of the agency’s spies and analysts. Instead, power would flow to operatives in the field – those who help arm allied foreign military forces and manage drone strikes … the Trump administration is poised to accelerate a transformation that has been happening since the 1960’s, with the CIA becoming less focused on spying and more on paramilitary organizations with a central role in violent conflicts.”

The first secret counter-terrorism operation under Trump’s orders took place on Jan. 29 in Yemen against an “Al Qaeda affiliate” and appeared to have been a botched mission though the Trump administration hailed it as a success. It was reported to have been carried out by U.S. Special Operation Forces, with no mention of CIA participation.

A senior Navy Seal was killed during the raid and Yemeni officials reported 30 civilians also killed, mostly women and children. The New York Times said the civilian casualties triggered widespread anger across Yemen toward the U.S., adding to the tensions over President Trump’s entry ban on Yemeni citizens.

Kurlantzick’s A Great Place to Have a War could help Americans remember the chaos and destruction visited upon one of the world’s most primitive societies. Whether the book will influence the future history of America’s way of war remains to be seen.

Posted in USA, Far EastComments Off on A Deadly Legacy: The CIA’s Covert Laos War

Crimes against Humanity? Nazi regime Bans Delivery of Anaesthesia Gas to Gaza Hospitals


Nazi Jewish has banned anaesthetic gas from entering the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Ministry of Health revealed yesterday.

This is the third time that the occupation has prevented Nitrous Oxide (nitrox) gas, which is used for patients during surgery, from entering the besieged enclave, the ministry’s spokesman, Ashraf Al-Qidra, said. The ban means a number of urgent medical procedures have now been halted, he explained.

There are currently 200 patients awaiting urgent medical treatment in Gaza’s hospitals, Al-Qidra said.

In addition, he said, there healthcare sector in Gaza needs more than 4,000 kilogrammes of Nitrous Oxide each year, noting that the Israeli occupation rations the entry of the gas.

He urged international organisations to put pressure on the Nazi Jewish occupation in order to resume the entry of the vital gas to allow surgical operations to continue.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Health, Human RightsComments Off on Crimes against Humanity? Nazi regime Bans Delivery of Anaesthesia Gas to Gaza Hospitals

Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK


“Fake News” and Crimes against Humanity: Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK


Amnesty International’s 48 page report titled, Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria,” boasts bold claims, concluding:

…the Syrian authorities’ violations at Saydnaya amount to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International urgently calls for an independent and impartial investigation into crimes committed at Saydnaya.

However, even at a cursory glance, before even reading the full body of the report, under a section  titled, “Methodology,” Amnesty International admits it has no physical evidence whatsoever to substantiate what are admittedly only the testimony of alleged inmates and former workers at the prison, as well as figures within Syria’s opposition.

What you are looking at is a 3D model fabricated entirely in the United Kingdom, based solely on satellite pictures and hearsay. Passed off as evidence this technique of “forensic architecture” may soon become a new tool in the dissemination of war propaganda if it is not exposed.

Within the section titled, “Methodology,” the report admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

In other words, Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.

The only photographs of the prison are taken from outer space via satellite imagery. The only other photos included in the report are of three men who allege they lost weight while imprisoned and a photo of one of eight alleged death certificates provided to family members of detainees who died at Saydnaya.

The alleged certificates admittedly reveal nothing regarding allegations of torture or execution.

Articles like, Hearsay Extrapolated – Amnesty Claims Mass Executions In Syria, Provides Zero Proof,” provide a detailed examination of Amnesty’s “statistics,” while articles like,Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” Report Lacks Evidence, Credibility, Reeks Of State Department Propaganda,” cover the politically-motivated nature of both Amnesty International and the timing of the report’s promotion across the Western media.

However, there is another aspect of the report that remains unexplored – the fact that Amnesty International itself has openly admitted that the summation of the report was fabricated in the United Kingdom at Amnesty International’s office, using a process they call “forensic architecture,” in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.

Amnesty Hired Special Effects Experts to Fabricate “Evidence” 

In a video produced by Amnesty International accompanying their report, titled, Inside Saydnaya: Syria’s Torture Prison,” the narrator admits in its opening seconds that Amnesty International possesses no actual evidence regarding the prison.

The video admits:

There are almost no pictures of its exterior [except satellite images] and none from inside. And what happens within its walls is cloaked in secrecy, until now.

Viewers are initially led to believe evidence has emerged, exposing what took place within the prison’s walls, but the narrator continues by explaining:

 We’ve devised a unique way of revealing what life is like inside a torture prison. And we’ve done it by talking to people who were there and have survived its horrors…

…and using their recollections and the testimony of others, we’ve build an interactive 3D model which can take you for the first time inside Saydnaya.

The narrator then explains:

In a unique collaboration, Amnesty International has teamed up with “Forensic Architecture” of Goldsmiths, University of London, to reconstruct both the sound and architecture of Saydnaya prison, and to do it using cutting-edge digital technology to create a model.

In other words, the summation of Amnesty International’s presentation was not accumulated from facts and evidence collected in Syria, but instead fabricated entirely in London using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.

Eyal Weizman, director of “Forensic Architecture,” would admit that “memory” alone was the basis of both his collaboration with Amnesty International, and thus, the basis for Amnesty’s 48 page report:

Memory is the only resource within which we can start [to] reconstruct what has taken place. What does it feel like to be a prisoner in Saydnaya?

Weizman’s organization, “Forensic Architecture,” on its own website, describes its activities:

Forensic Architecture is a research agency based at Goldsmiths, University of London. It includes a team of architects, scholars, filmmakers, designers, lawyers and scientists to undertake research that gathers and presents spatial analysis in legal and political forums.

We provide evidence for international prosecution teams, political organisations, NGOs, and the United Nations in various processes worldwide. Additionally, the agency undertakes historical and theoretical examinations of the history and present status of forensic practices in articulating notions of public truth.

In other words, special effects experts and their tools – usually employed in the creation of fictional movies for the entertainment industry or for architectural firms to propose yet-to-exist projects – are now being employed to fabricate evidence in a political context when none in reality exists.

While the work of “Forensic Architecture” may be of interest to developing theories, it is by no means useful in providing actual evidence – evidence being understood as an actual available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid – not a fabricated body of supposed facts or information.

Technology used for creating Hollywood dinosaurs and aliens, or an architectural proposal for a vacant lot, is now being used to fabricate evidence for politically motivated reports when no actual evidence exists.

The work of “Forensic Architecture” and the witness accounts gathered by Amnesty International – all of which were admittedly gathered outside of Syria – would form the basis of an initial inquiry, not a final report nor the basis of a conclusion that human rights violations not only took place, but that they constituted crimes against humanity and demanded immediate international recourse.

Amnesty International’s report lacked any actual evidence, with its presentation consisting instead of admittedly fabricated images, sounds, maps, and diagrams. Amnesty – lacking actual evidence – instead abused its reputation and the techniques of classical deception to target and manipulate audiences emotionally. What Amnesty International is engaged in is not “human rights advocacy,” but rather politically-motivated war propaganda simply hiding behind such advocacy.

Exposing this technique of openly and shamelessly fabricating the summation of an internationally released report – promoted unquestioningly by prominent Western papers and media platforms, including the BBC, CNN, the Independent, and others – prevents Amnesty and other organizations like it from continuing to use the trappings of science and engineering as cover to deliver monstrous lies to the public.

Posted in Syria, UKComments Off on Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK

Shoah’s pages


February 2017
« Jan   Mar »