Syria: Leaked Chemical Weapons Watchdog Report Suggests Assad Not Responsible for 2018 Gas Attack


Tucker Carlson reported that an internal document was leaked from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that contained information from an investigator who argued that the gas attack in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018 was not an aerial attack, but the chemical weapons were manually placed on the ground, suggesting that Bashar al-Assad’s regime was not responsible for the attack. The OPCW omitted the engineer’s portion of the report proposing the bombs were manually placed at the scene, indicating a cover-up. The attack, which may have been based on fraudulent information, led the US to the brink of war.

The Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has begun responding to
queries by the press about a leaked document that contradicts official
OPCW findings on an alleged chemical weapons attack last year in Douma,
Syria. The prepared statement they’ve been using in response to these
queries confirms the authenticity of the document.

To recap, a few days ago the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM) published a document signed by a man named Ian Henderson, whose name is seen listed in expert leadership positions on OPCW documents from as far back as 1998 and as recently as 2018. It’s unknown who leaked the document and what other media organizations may have received it.

The report picks apart the extremely shaky physics and narratives of the official OPCW analysis on
the gas cylinders allegedly dropped from Syrian government aircraft in
the Douma attack, and concludes that “The dimensions, characteristics
and appearance of the cylinders, and the surrounding scene of the
incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the
case of either cylinder being delivered from an aircraft,” saying
instead that manual placement of the cylinders in the locations
investigators found them in is “the only plausible explanation for
observations at the scene.”

Cylinders Did Not Arrive by Air 

To
be clear, this means that according to the assessment signed by an
OPCW-trained expert, the cylinders alleged to have dispensed poison gas
which killed dozens of people in Douma did not arrive in the locations
that they were alleged to have arrived at via aircraft dropped by the
Syrian government, but via manual placement by people on the ground,
where photographs were then taken and circulated around the world as
evidence against the Syrian government which was used to justify air strikes by the U.S., U.K. and France.
There were swift military consequences meted out on what appears now to
be a lie. At the time, the people on the ground were the Al Qaeda-linked Jaysh
Al-Islam, who had at that point nothing to lose and everything to gain
by staging a false flag attack in a last-ditch attempt to get NATO
powers to function as their air force, since they’d already effectively
lost the battle against the Syrian government.

We now have confirmation that, for whatever the reason may be, this assessment was hidden from the public by the OPCW.

British journalists Peter Hitchens and Brian Whitaker have
both published matching statements from the OPCW on this report.
Hitchens has been an outspoken critic of the establishment Syria
narrative; Whittaker has been a virulent promulgator of it. The
statement begins as a very mundane and obvious assertion that it takes
information from numerous sources and then publishes its conclusions,
but concludes with an admission that it is “conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised release of the document in
question.” This constitutes an admission that the document is authentic.

Text of Statement

Here is the text of the statement in full; the portion I’m drawing attention to is in the second-to-last paragraph:

The
OPCW establishes facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic
chemicals for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic through the
Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which was set up in 2014.

The
OPCW Technical Secretariat reaffirms that the FFM complies with
established methodologies and practices to ensure the integrity of its
findings. The FFM takes into account all available, relevant, and
reliable information and analysis within the scope of its mandate to
determine its findings.

Per
standard practice, the FFM draws expertise from different divisions
across the Technical Secretariat as needed. All information was taken
into account, deliberated, and weighed when formulating the final report
regarding the incident in Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, on 7 April 2018.
On 1 March 2019, the OPCW issued its final report on this incident,
signed by the Director-General.

Per
OPCW rules and regulations, and in order to ensure the privacy, safety,
and security of personnel, the OPCW does not provide information about
individual staff members of the Technical Secretariat

Pursuant
to its established policies and practices, the OPCW Technical
Secretariat is conducting an internal investigation about the
unauthorised release of the document in question.

At
this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate requests for interviews.

Should Be Major Global News

This
should be a major news headline all around the world, but of course it
is not. As of this writing the mass media have remained deadly silent
about the document despite its enormous relevance to an international
headline story last year which occupied many days of air time. It not
only debunks a major news story that had military consequences, it casts
doubt on a most esteemed international independent investigative body
and undermines the fundamental assumptions behind many years of Western
reporting in the area. People get lazy about letting the media tell them
what’s important and they assume if it’s not in the news, it’s not a
big deal. This is a big deal, this is a major story and it is going
unreported, which makes the media’s silence a part of the story as well.

Also conspicuously absent from discussion has been the war propaganda firm Bellingcat,
which is usually the first to put the most establishment-friendly spin
possible on any development in this area. If Eliot Higgins can’t even
work out how to polish this turd, you know it’s a steamer.

Read full article here:




UK Prime Minister Theresa May Announces Resignation After 3-Year Brexit Failure



Mrs. May said that she would be resigning as leader of the Conservative Party on June 7th, so that a successor could be chosen. However, May revealed she would also be staying on as Prime Minister until her replacement is selected, which could take weeks or months, depending on how the election runs. Nigel Farage’s Brexit party is predicted to win a majority according to this report.

Prime Minister Theresa May announced her resignation from outside 10
Downing Street Friday morning, stating she would be officially stepping
down in two weeks time.

In her remarks outside the Prime Minister’s official residence,
Theresa May said she had “done her best”, and “everything I can” to
deliver Brexit by negotiating a deal with the European Union, but
conceded “sadly I was not able to do so”.

Saying it was time for a new Prime Minister to lead Brexit, Mrs May said she would be resigning as leader of the Conservative Party on Friday 7th of June, so that a successor could be chosen.

In doing so, the Prime Minister fires the starting gun on a
leadership race that has already been run behind closed doors for weeks.
The details of her departure mean Mrs May could remain party leader,
and hence Prime Minister, for weeks if not months more.

While she will officially relinquish the title of Conservative party
leader in 14 days, May revealed she would also be staying on Prime
Minister until her replacement is selected, which depending on how the
election runs. When Mrs May became leader following the resignation of
David Cameron in the wake of the 2016 EU referendum, she was selected
within days as other candidates dropped out to give her a clear run.

In the case of David Cameron’s own ascension to the leadership, it
took five and a half months between it being announced, and the final
selection.

Read full article here…




The US Navy Wants to Archive 350 Billion Social Media Posts



The Navy is soliciting contractors for bids for a project that would collect a massive 350 billion social media posts dating from 2014 through 2016 across at least 100 countries and multiple languages. The Navy did not disclose which social media site it is targeting. The Navy claimed that its aim was to study the evolution of linguistic communities and collective expression.[Sure…That is what all naval military services need to know about. Right?] -GEG

The United States Navy wants to archive 350 billion social media posts in order to conduct “research.”

What exactly does the military want to study? “Modes of collective expression.”

The Department of the Navy has posted a solicitation asking contractors to bid on a project that
would amass a staggering 350 billion social media posts dating from
2014 through 2016. The data will be taken from a single social media
platform – but the solicitation does not specify which one. -RT

We seek to acquire a large-scale global historical archive
of social media data, providing the full text of all public social media
posts, across all countries and languages covered by the social media
platform
,” the contract synopsis reads. The Navy said that the archive would
be used in “ongoing research efforts” into “the evolution of linguistic
communities” and “emerging modes of collective expression, over time
and across countries.”

This is simply spying and the research will be used for propaganda
purposes, and that is blatantly obvious at this point. The intentions
are far from benign.

The archive will draw from publicly available social media posts and no private communications or private user data will be included in the database. However,
all records must include the time and date at which each message was
sent and the public user handle associated with the message.
 Additionally,
each record in the archive must include all publicly available
meta-data, including country, language, hashtags, location, handle,
timestamp, and URLs, that were associated with the original posting.
 -RT

So basically, most of your information is going to be stored by the
U.S. military. The data must be collected from at least 200 million
unique users in at least 100 countries, with no single country
accounting for more than 30 percent of users, according to the contract.

The U.S. government has previously expressed interest in
collecting social media data for more tracking and spying on Americans.
Last
year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a notice asking
contractors to bid on a database that tracks 290,000 global news sources
in over 100 languages. The contract also mentioned the ability to keep
tabs on“influencers,” leading some reports to speculate that theproposed database could be used to monitor journalists.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? DHS Is Compiling A Database Of Journalists And ‘Media Influencers’

Without propaganda and brainwashing, leftist policies would have died decades ago. People are born wanting freedom from tyranny. It takes an effective campaign starting in childhood to change their minds and support their masters willingly while decrying those who seek actual freedom from oppression.

The Daily Sheeple

Read full article here…




Justice Department Hits Julian Assange with 17 Espionage-Act Charges


The US Department of Justice charged Julian Assange with 18 crimes, claiming that he violated the Espionage Act by soliciting information through posting a list of “Most Wanted Leaks,” which included classified material. The DOJ asserts that Assange purposely published names he knew to be confidential human sources in warzones. Assange faces 10 years in prison for each of the 17 counts of espionage and five years for the hacking charge. -GEG

The worst fears of Julian Assange’s legal team have just been realized.

Just as Wikileaks’ editor in chief anticipated, the DoJ has revealed
that a grand jury in Virginia has returned a new 18-count superseding
indictment against Assange that includes violations of the Espionage Act
stemming from his role in publishing the classified documents leaked by
Chelsea Manning, as well as his original charge of conspiring to break
into a government computer, per the New York Times.

The DOJ said with the indictment that Assange will face a maximum of 10 years for each of the 17 Espionage Act violations, plus the five-year penalty for his earlier hacking charge.

In addition to significantly raising the punishment threshold (from a
maximum of 5.5 years under the previous indictment to the prospect of a
death sentence for violating the Espionage Act), the new charges will
raise serious first amendment issues as Assange will become the first
journalist charged under the Espionage Act.

Though it’s not a guarantee, Espionage Act violations have, in the
past, carried the prospect of a death sentence, though Assange’s
specific violations will likely spare him the possibility of such a fate
(read more about Assange’s charges here).

For context, the Espionage Act of 1917 has been used to convict
suspected spies – most famously Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. The
Rosenbergs were famously put to death by electric chair in 1953.

The Justice Department’s decision to pursue Espionage Act charges
signals a dramatic escalation under President Trump to crack down on
leaks of classified information and aims squarely at First Amendment
protections for journalists. Most recently, law enforcement officials
charged a former intelligence analyst with giving classified documents
to The Intercept, a national security news website.

Legal scholars believe that prosecuting reporters over their work
would violate the First Amendment, but the prospect has not yet been
tested in court because the government had never charged a journalist
under the Espionage Act.

Though he is not a conventional journalist, much of what Mr. Assange
does at WikiLeaks is difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful
way from what traditional news organizations like The New York Times do:
seek and publish information that officials want to be secret,
including classified national security matters, and take steps to
protect the confidentiality of sources.

Per the NYT, the Obama administration considered bringing the
Espionage Act charges against Assange, but balked because it didn’t want
to raise the First Amendment issue. While Wikileaks had warned of this
possibility, they suspected that the US would wait until Assange was on
American soil before bringing Espionage Act-related charges, since they
would carry a much more severe penalty.

Wikileaks said the new charges were “madness” and that this would be “the end of national security journalism.”

Read full article here…