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, UK0 Comments

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, UK0 Comments

‘Panicked’ British advertisers pull airtime on RT UK after phone calls from Sunday Times

Image result for RT LOGO

Several British advertisers “panicked” and pulled airtime on RT UK after the Sunday Times called them to ask for comment for an upcoming article about RT, according to a sales house used by advertisers on the channel.

“The Agencies on behalf of their clients pulled their airtime for the reason that they had been contacted by the Sunday Times. The Sunday Times asked them to make comment on their advertising on RT for the Sunday 5th February edition. These advertisers have panicked about the content of the article and pulled their airtime,” the sales house said in comments on Tuesday.

“The sales house the advertisers use to order airtime on RT UK has informed us that several companies at once decided to break up with RT after phone calls from the Sunday Times,” RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan said.

“Meanwhile, the Sunday Times article alleges that the advertisers refused to cooperate with us because of ‘Kremlin propaganda,’ and it also cites a British MP urging to boycott RT, though in fact he didn’t say that,” she emphasized.

The RT Press Office said that “the calls from the sales house with requests to pull advertisements from several companies came shortly after the Sunday Times requested comment from RT for their story.”

In the article published on February 5, an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times, Josh Boswell, claimed that “top British brands are pulling their advertisements from the television channel RT UK amid accusations that it is spreading ‘propaganda and fake news’ for Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin,” naming the manufacturers of Gaviscon, Strepsils and Vanish and the make-up brand Max Factor among those advertisers.

Boswell goes on to claim that last weekend Damian Collins, chairman of the UK Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, “called for all British companies to boycott the ‘disinformation and propaganda’ channel.”

The MP is also quoted as saying that “British companies should not be advertising on channels that disseminate fake news designed to spread fear and confusion… I would call on any such company that has not already done so to withdraw their advertising.”

As the newspaper inserted the definite article ‘the’ into the explanatory sentence – “the ‘disinformation and propaganda’ channel” – the reader can’t help but draw the conclusion that the MP’s statement was made about RT.

However, when asked by RT to clarify the comment he made for the Sunday Times, Collins confirmed the statement contained no specific attribution, and was intended as a broader remark.

“Yes, I am happy for you to use the quotation from the Times. My comments were aimed broadly at any channel or website which produces and broadcasts fake news. I did not name any individual organization in my remarks,” Collins explained.

Before the article was published, Boswell contacted RT “to give you an opportunity to comment” on the story. The RT Press Office responded to the request with a comprehensive email, including an explanation of how the channel is publicly funded, much like the BBC and France 24, and how the channel’s mission is clearly stated as exploring underreported stories and providing more balance in the international news arena.

Boswell skipped most of this, however, and reduced RT’s response to a brief quote: “RT, formerly Russia Today, said it was an ‘editorially independent, autonomous non-profit global news organization.”

After RT asked the Sunday Times for comment, the newspaper’s public relations team answered: “Thank you for your enquiry. Due to the high volume of emails we receive, we will only be able to respond if we are in a position to help with your request.”

The Russian embassy in the UK has dismissed the Sunday Times article, writing in a statement: “We understand that not everyone in the UK is happy about the popularity of the Russian channel and the alternative worldview it represents. But this shouldn’t be a reason for a blatant crusade against the channel in such a foul fashion.”

Foreign policy analyst Michael Hughes told RT that the whole approach of the Sunday Times towards RT “is horrible, one-sided and biased.”

“They don’t treat any other stations this way except [RT]. It has nothing to do with the actual programming, they don’t like Russian policy, so they are doing whatever they can to target Russian stations right now.

“It is an obvious violation of the basic standards of journalism. You couldn’t be more obvious in violating journalistic integrity,” he added.

In the past there have been similar instances of Western mainstream media discussing the prospect of RT coverage being restricted, subjected to greater scrutiny or given less equal treatment.

In January, the Wall Street Journal speculated on what would happen if US pay TV operators were to consider dropping RT from their networks. The story followed the US intelligence community’s findings on alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, with seven of the report’s 13 pages devoted to RT.

The prospect of dropping RT appeared unrealistic, however, with Frederick Thomas, chief executive of MHz Networks, saying: “The reality is we live in an age where every nth degree of opinion is available 24/7 and 98 percent of people know that you either just turn the channel off if it’s TV, or if it’s a website, you go to another one.”

In a separate article in January, the Atlantic noted that “RT stories regularly appear toward the top of Google search results,” and that there are more than 4 million ‘likes’ on RT’s Facebook page. The magazine asked Google for information on whether the company had any policies “for how to rank and display news stories and videos from state-sponsored outlets like RT,” but a spokesperson for the search engine declined to comment.

The Atlantic also contacted a spokesperson for Facebook to clarify “if articles or videos from state-sponsored outlets are treated the same way as content from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.”

Facebook responded by mentioning “changes the company has already announced, which suppress the circulation of links to news stories that users report as false.” However, RT stories “are more likely to be biased than to be ‘purposefully fake or deceitful,’” alleged the article’s author, Kaveh Waddell.


Why are US tech firms suddenly trying to restrict RT’s access to social media?

At war with Russia’: EU Parliament approves resolution to counter Russian media ‘propaganda’

Posted in Media, Russia, UK0 Comments

Trident whistleblower calls out MoD’s ‘lame attempt’ to excuse nuke malfunctions



Trident whistleblower William McNeilly. / RT

Royal Navy whistleblower William McNeilly has returned fire after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) again tried to discredit him. He labeled it an attempt to cover up the dangers of Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

McNeilly was thrown out of the navy in 2015 after publishing a dossier of potentially catastrophic security and safety issues relating to Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

After reports in January this year of a failed 2016 missile test, which saw senior government figures accused of lying, McNeilly told RT that he himself had been witness to a number of serious mishaps during a Trident patrol a year earlier.

The 2016 test saw a missile which was supposed to be aimed in the direction of Africa veer toward Florida due to an internal systems failure.

The MoD responded to the former weapons engineer’s comments to RT by telling the Independent newspaper: “McNeilly’s claims, from his brief serving time before being discharged, have proved to be factually incorrect, demonstrate a lack of understanding or drew on historic, previously known, events.

“We have absolute confidence in the nuclear deterrent,” they insisted.

The Independent specifically referred to McNeilly’s “claims that there were four unreported Trident missile test failures in 2015…”

McNeilly responded Monday, telling RT: “I have never stated that there were four failed missile launches.

“The Trident report and the information I gave RT made it clear that I was talking about missile tests.”

McNeilly pointed out he had served on a nuclear missile patrol, including on watches in the command center.

“There are multiple missile tests conducted every patrol,” he said.

“The MoD has tried to downplay the information in the Trident report by claiming that I said things that I have never said.”

The truth of the matter, he insisted, was that “I have never said I witnessed four failed missile launches… that is a lame attempt to discredit me and the Trident report by fabricating nonsense.”

Posted in UK0 Comments

As Naziyahu and Theresa May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed


Nazi’s in London ‘Shoah’

The Israeli Embassy has seventeen Israeli “technical and administrative staff” granted visas by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The normal number for an Embassy that size would be about two. I spoke to two similar size non-EU Embassies this morning, one has two and one zero. I recall I dealt with an angry Foreign Minister during my own FCO career incensed his much larger High Commission had been refused by the FCO an increase from three to four technical and administrative staff.

Shai Masot, the Israeli “diplomat” who had been subverting Britain’s internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.

I queried this with the FCO, and was asked to put my request in writing. A full three weeks later and after dozens of phone calls, they reluctantly revealed that Masot was on the “technical and administrative staff” of the Israeli Embassy.

This is plainly a nonsense. Masot, as an ex-Major in the Israeli Navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List, which includes typists and personal assistants. There are six attaches – support staff – already on the List.

Masot was plainly not carrying out technical and administrative duties. The term is a formal one from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and it is plain from the convention that technical and administrative staff are in official status lower than the diplomatic staff. The majority of support activities are carried out in all Embassies by locally engaged staff already resident in the host country, but a very small number of technical and administrative staff may be allowed visas for work in particularly secure areas. They may be an IT and communications technician, possibly a cleaner in the most sensitive physical areas, and perhaps property management.

These staff do not interact with politicians of the host state or attend high level meetings beside the Ambassador. The level at which Shai Masot was operating was appropriate to a Counsellor or First Secretary in an Embassy. Masot’s formal rank as an officer in his cover job in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs would entitle him to that rank in the Embassy if this were a normal appointment.

The Al Jazeera documentaries plainly revealed that Masot was working as an intelligence officer, acquiring and financing “agents of influence”. It is simply impossible that the FCO would normally grant seventeen technical and administrative visas to support sixteen diplomats, when six of the sixteen are already support staff. The only possible explanation, confirmed absolutely by Masot’s behaviour, is that the FCO has knowingly connived at settling a large nest of Israeli spies in London. I fairly put this to the FCO and they refused to comment.

I asked my questions on 10 January. On 12 January the FCO asked me to put them in writing. On 2 February they finally replied to the first three questions, but refused to comment on questions 4 or 5 about involvement of the intelligence services in Masot’s appointment.

On 2 February I sent these follow-up questions to the FCO by email:

FCO Media Department have replied that they refuse to give me any further information on the subject, and that I should proceed through a Freedom of Information request so the FCO can assess properly whether the release of any further information is in the national interest.

What is it they are always saying to us: if you have got nothing to fear, you have got nothing to hide?

I am confident I know what they are hiding, and that is FCO complicity in a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted. It is also worth noting that while the media could not completely ignore the fantastic al Jazeera documentaries that exposed the scandal, it was a matter of a brief article and no follow up digging.

This was not just a curiosity, it reveals a deep-seated problem for our democracy. I intend to continue picking at it.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Naziyahu greeted by pro-Palestine protests on London visit

Image result for Netanyahu CARTOON

Nazi Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu will face hundreds of protesters when he meets with his British counterpart Theresa May in London on Monday morning.

Pro-Palestine activists have organized a demonstration outside Downing Street, where Naziyahu is due to discuss among other things the rising ‘threat’ of Iran.

A Facebook page advertising the event claims to have support from several activist organizations, including Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, War on Want and the Muslim Association of Britain.

Some 268 people have confirmed they will attend, according to the page.

Before flying to Britain, Naziyahu said he wants to “tighten” relations with the UK in the face of the “extraordinary aggression” from Iran after the Islamic Republic tested a ballistic missile over the weekend. Tehran denies the test was in breach of the 2015 nuclear deal.

“We are in a period of diplomatic opportunities and challenges. The opportunities stem from the fact that there is a new administration in Washington, and a new government in Britain,” Naziyahu said.

“I intend to speak with both of them about tightening relations, between each side and Israel and trilaterally.”

According to the Telegraph, a Downing Street spokesman said Zionist May was expected to raise concerns about illegal Jewish settlement building, but it would only form a small part of their discussions.

Naziyahu’s visit comes six weeks after Britain assisted in the passage of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Nazi Jewish illegal settlements in the West Bank as a “flagrant violation under international law.”

The resolution was able to pass because the United States made the unusual choice not to exercise its veto power.

Britain played a key role in brokering the resolution, according to the Guardian, which claimed the Foreign Office did not deny it had been involved in the drafting process.

Naziyahu reacted furiously to UNSC resolution 2334, reserving his strongest condemnation for outgoing US President Barack Obama.

In a sign of frustration with London, Naziyahu summoned Britain’s ambassador on Christmas Day for a telling-off.

Nine other ambassadors were also summoned by the Nazi regime, including the US ambassador.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

‘Become a suicide bomber!’: Trident whistleblower says artist’s spoof Navy ads are accurate



Spoof Royal Navy recruitment posters, which claim sailors on board Britain’s nuclear submarines are effectively suicide bombers, have won the approval of Trident safety and security whistleblower William McNeilly.

The posters point out that if a Trident submarine actually launched its nuclear missiles it would very likely be destroyed in a counterattack.

This, they claim, makes nuclear submariners little more than suicide bombers, whose job is to kill millions of civilians.

The satirical posters have appeared at bus stops across London.

The campaign is the brainchild of artist Darren Cullen, whose past works have included the Action Man: Battlefield Casualties series and Pocket Money Loans.

His work has the endorsement of Veterans for Peace UK.

Picking up on the campaign on Friday, Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid the Sun said the posters had sparked “fury.”

However, former Royal Navy weapons engineer William McNeilly, who was kicked out of the Navy after handing WikiLeaks a dossier of serious security and safety failures in 2015, told RT the campaign’s message is accurate.

“The Sun claims that the message in the posters is ‘fake,’” McNeilly told RT on Friday. “It is well known on board nuclear submarines that the Trident submarine on patrol will be the prime target in a nuclear war.”

The former submariner pointed out that once a submarine starts launching missiles it becomes immediately detectable. Those on board know “it is extremely unlikely that they would survive a major war against Russia. They are ready and prepared to be suicide bombers.”

Referring to the recent allegations of a government cover-up of a failed nuclear launch in 2016, McNeilly said: “Judging by the last missile test, it is not unlikely that the Trident submarines would nuke the United States by accident.”

Read more:

Trident whistleblower tells RT he ‘witnessed 4 unreported missile test failures’

Posted in UK0 Comments

The more Juif becomes Theresa, the more ‘antisemitic’ becomes Britain


Related image


By Gilad Atzmon 

Today, the Jewish Chronicle (JC) reported that the number of antisemitic incidents in Britain in 2016 were the highest on record. The CST’s statistics show that there were 1,309 incidents of ‘Jew hatred’ last year — a 36 per cent increase on the previous 12 months.

Of course, the CST is not a reliable source and its‘antisemitism figures’ have been debunked numerous times before. However, if these statistics are accurate, they suggest only that the more the British government invests in fighting anti-Semitism…. the more antisemitic Britain becomes.

This is easy enough to explain. The fight against antisemitism is now a profitable industry.  Every day, we learn of some new Jewish organisation dedicated to fighting antisemitism and to hunt down the Jew haters, and all at the expense of the British tax payer*.

And, as always in the case of Israel and Zionism, these organisations are financially sustained by the very Jewish hatred they seek to oppose. And, when there is no Jew hatred to be found, they will either induce, or even invent some.

For instance, we learned in the last few weeks that Stephen Silverman of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) launched a war against popular cult figure David Icke. The same Stephen Silverman who launched this war also launched a war against musician Alison Chabloz for expressing her thoughts on Holocaust religion by means of a cabaret performance.

These ugly campaigns against British truth-seekers are unlikely to make UK Jewry popular. Quite the opposite. Both these campaigns immediately backfired – Alison’s work went viral and the campaign against Icke proved only that Icke’s investigation into Rothschild Zionism is not only legitimate, it is actually essential. These campaigns clearly are not going to silence Icke or Chabloz but they will confirm  that Jewish institutions here in Britain do not subscribe to the notion of freedom of thought and elementary human rights.

Dave Rich, Deputy Director of Communications at the CST told the JC : “I think there is an overall climate rather than one specific thing that is responsible for the rise in (antisemitic) incidents.”

Rich is wrong. There is one crucial factor in the rise in opposition to Jews and their politics: Jewish power has lost all its subtlety. It is now crude and vulgar and manifested right out in the open: whether it is the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour party or the Israeli embassy crudely interfering with British party politics or the constant hunting of critics of Israel or even the impunity of suspected child molester Lord Janner – more and more Brits are now reading between the lines. They have had enough.

If the British government is really concerned about antisemitism, it could eliminate it in no time at all. It must immediately strip Jewish organisations of any special treatment and funds and must stop spending millions on the CST and all the other Jews-only paramilitary organisations operating in the kingdom.

We all agree that racism is a bad thing, so let’s fight it in a universal manner rather than following the whims of one particular tribe.

* Theresa May vowed recently to allocate more than 13.4 million pounds annually to Jewish security matters.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Theresa May to push EU members to up NATO spending




UK Prime Minister Theresa May will use the upcoming EU summit in Malta to demand Europe strengthen its commitment to NATO and spend more on defence.

May is expected to conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with EU leaders, including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Spain’s Mariano Rajoy, in order to secure “new, positive and constructive” relationships with the Union.

The prime minister, however, is not expected to attend the part of the talks in which Brexit will be discussed. Instead, she is using the summit as an opportunity to press the EU’s NATO members to fulfil their defence expenditure requirements.

According to a 2016 NATO report, only five of its 28 members actually reached the required defence spending limit of two percent. The list of those failing to spend enough includes Germany, France, and Spain.

Britain’s push for Europe to open its wallet comes after a meeting between Theresa May and US President Donald Trump last Friday.

At a joint press conference, May agreed with Trump that NATO spending should be “fairly shared” among its members.

Trump has in the past criticised NATO as being “obsolete” and “costing too much money.”

The president has also suggested that the US may not come to the assistance of NATO members who do not satisfy the two percent requirement.

May, however insisted she had received a “100 percent” commitment to NATO from the Trump administration. She also promised to “encourage fellow European leaders” to comply with their obligations.

It remains unclear how Britain will convince EU leaders to increase defence spending, as relations with Brussels have been significantly affected by Brexit. One possible way might be to emphasise the threat to European security that is supposedly posed by Russia.

Earlier this week, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon urged other NATO states to fulfil defence spending targets in order to effectively counter alleged Russian attempts to destabilise the continent.

Fallon has accused Russia of “becoming a strategic competitor to the West” and mounting a sophisticated information and cyber campaign against various NATO members.

Moscow has categorically denied these allegations, describing them as “baseless” and a “witch hunt.”

Read more:

‘British PM May aims to reassure Trump of continued support for US interventions’

Posted in UK0 Comments

Give war a chance: Murdered MP’s report backs UK military intervention


Image result for Jo Cox CARTOON

War should always be an available option for Britain, according to a report initiated by murdered Labour MP Jo Cox and finished by a former military intelligence officer-turned-Tory backbencher.

Due to be launched on Thursday by former prime minister Gordon Brown at the Policy Exchange think-tank, the study titled ‘The Cost of Doing Nothing’ seeks to recondition Britain’s ability to intervene militarily in the affairs of other nations.

Although the report was first begun by the late-Jo Cox, who was murdered by a far-right extremist in June of 2016, the study was finished by Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat and Cox’s parliamentary colleague Alison McGovern.

Tugendhat was a colonel in British Army intelligence and served a number of operational tours in Afghanistan and Iraq before becoming an MP.

The report warns that the UK has become bogged down in anti-interventionism because of the unpopularity of failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It warns against a “selective reading” of history, while arguing that “successful” examples like Sierra Leone and Kosovo should be examined in more depth.

The authors also try to argue that, as the report’s title suggests, the cost of inaction in places like Rwanda, and more recently Syria, should be taken into consideration.

In an accompanying piece published in the Telegraph, Tugendhat writes that his experience as a soldier and Cox’s as an aid worker gave them particular expertise on the subject.

“The UK has at times swung towards non-intervention but the long view shows clearly that Britain has done better, both for ourselves and the wider world, when we have championed international law, human rights, the international community, and the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable,” Tugendhat argues.

He insisted that “Britain is a positive influence in the world” and that to “remain an effective ally, we must be prepared to engage, cooperate, and keep military intervention as a legitimate foreign-policy option.”

The report was quickly rubbished by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC).

“The Chilcot Report and recent Parliamentary Committee Reports on Iraq Libya and Syria have all concluded that the interventions were disastrous,” the group said in a statement.

“All of the countries recently attacked by British armed forces are now failed states,” it stressed.

The anti-war group also pointed to public opinion.

“The majority of the British public have grasped these facts and the obvious truth that bombs can under no circumstances be humanitarian instruments,” the coalition said.

“Polls show most oppose existing and future wars and wish to see a shift towards a foreign policy based on mutual respect, negotiation and diplomacy.”

Posted in UK0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


February 2017
« Jan