Saturday, December 13, 2014

My part in Postol's Investigation of Dan Kaszeta's Hexamine Smoking Gun Claims

 My part in Postol's Investigation of Dan Kaszeta's Hexamine Smoking Gun Claims

Prof. Theodore Postol of MIT concluded Daniel Kaszeta, the media's frequently cited 'chemistry expert' on , is a fraud. Here's my part in his investigation:

Sunday, November 30, 2014

What the Fake Syria Sniper Boy Video Tell Us About Media Experts

November 27, 2014 (Maram Susli - NEO) Many mainstream media websites helped a fake video go viral this month. The video showing a young Syrian boy running through sniper fire to save a little girl, was exposed as a fake when the Norwegian producer Lars Klevberg made the fact public. One of the stated aims of the Norwegian film makers was to “see how the media would respond to a fake video." This article examines how that experiment went. 

The western press very quickly accepted the video as real and used it to support the US administration's narrative on Syria. Many top US news sources began to spread the story. Even though the producer said he explicitly added big hints that the video was fake, like the children surviving multiple gun shots.

Propagating false stories on Syria, is nothing new for the western press. In the lead up to the conflict many stories were exposed as frauds, such as the Anti-government activist “Gay Girl in Damascus” which turned out to be a middle-aged American man in Scotland. Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem which was frequently interviewed by CNN  was using fake gun fire and flames in his interviews.

The fake sniper video wasn’t enough to support US government narratives by itself, as the now deleted original upload didn’t suggest the identity of the snipers. So the west’s media suggested that it was Syrian military snipers that were targeting the children without any evidence. Journalists failed to mention how they reached the conclusion that an actor in Malta was shot by the Syrian military. It may be that the western press is quick to trust pro-rebel sources, as the video was uploaded by the pro-rebel Sham Times along with their own twist.

The Guardians headline for the video was ‘Syrian boy saves girl from army sniper’ and the Telegraph delicately suggested Syrian military were responsible for fake bullets. The International Business (IB) times stated, “the snipers, who reportedly are said to be the government forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” IB Times never explicitly mention who reported this information. They then took it a step further and concluded the article with “The incident certainly is not the first time that Pro-Assad gunmen have targeted children”. Well it is at least not the first time the mainstream media has presented false reports as fact. In 2012, CNN claimed a bullet that killed a four year old girl in Aleppo was shot by government snipers even whilst admitting the bullet came from rebel held buildings.

Other journalists took to twitter to make unfounded claims about army snipers targeting the boy.
Vinnie O’Dowd who has done work for Channel 4 and Al Jazeera tweeted “Syrian Regime Targets kids. Liz Sly of the Washington Post tweeted incredulously that “Soldiers kept shooting” at children.

These tweets inline with an official State Department twitter account @ThinkAgain_DOS which blamed Assad for the fictitious bullets in the film. This casts doubt on how deeply the US administration scrutinizes information it bases it’s policy on. In 2013 they relied heavily on video footage provided by rebels to support its planned attack on Syria in the wake the Ghouta chemical attack.

Scrutinising the Scrutinisers (Experts)

But it isn’t just the mainstream media that was easily duped by the convenient propaganda film. The video experts that were asked to scrutinise the video, failed to recognise that the video was a fraud. The Telegraph stated that upon enquiry ‘experts told them they had no reason to doubt that the video is real”. International Business Times went a step further spinning the statement to “experts told The Telegraph that they have no doubts on the authenticity of the footage.”

This is very strange since both children in the film walk away after being directly and repeatedly  hit by bullets. The creators of the film said he purposely scripted this a big hint that the video is fake. The lack of scrutiny the media experts employed suggests incompetence or the same level of bias as the media that employ them .

Heather Saul of the Independent wrote that one of the ‘Middle East experts” she showed the video to were Human Rights Watch. Indeed, Human Rights Watch European Media Director Andrew Stroehlein, showed no doubt on the authenticity of the film when he tweeted it out to his followers. The New York based human rights organisation is not new at tweeting false information, last month they used an image of the Odessa fire, where US-backed militia’s burned thirty two people to death, as an example of ‘Putin’s repressive policies’. In 2008 Venezuela expelled two HRW staff members accused of "anti-state activities” after producing a report against the Chavez government. Guardian journalist Hugh O’Shaughnessy accused HRW of using false and misleading information in the report, as well as pro-Washington bias. In 2009 HRW received financial donations from the Saudi government which may, in part, explain the anti-Syrian slant.

HRW employed so called video expert Eliot Higgins and his colleague Daniel Kaszeta to investigate the August 21 chemical attack in Ghouta, and quickly reached the conclusion the Syrian government was behind the attack. Daniel Kaszeta was referred to as a fraud by prominent physicist and MIT Professor Theodore Postol. HRW’s CEO Kenneth Roth recently used a report by Eliot Higgins to make unfounded claims about Ukrainian rebels shooting down Malaysian flight MH17. Heather Saul did not respond to questions on whether Eliot Higgins was one of the expert she asked for advice. However the mainstream media’s most often quoted video expert, did not recognise that the video was a fraud, tweeting that he wasn’t sure if it was authentic but gave the video a reaction non the less.

However many viewers who aren’t referred to as video or Middle East experts, immediately recognised the video was a fraud and flooded social media sites Twitter and Youtube with doubts on its authenticity. If Heather Saul had used these individuals as experts rather than HRW, she would have reached the correct conclusion about the video. But perhaps it is this unbias eye that the mainstream media avoids. The vast majority of Higgin’s conclusions support US government narratives and agendas, and that’s the kind of bias the mainstream media prefers.

Blaming the Producer

Instead of humbly accepting blame for spreading disinformation, many western journalists and their experts reacted by blaming the producer of the film. The collective rage of the entire mainstream media forced the film's producer to delete any trace of this 30,000 dollar experiment. Some journalists took to twitter to express their rage at being exposed as easily duped by convenient propaganda.

The experts that were fooled by the video also strongly protested. HRW posted a complaint that the fake video “eroded the public trust in war reporting’, in other words blind trust in HRW analysis and war propaganda. Eliot Higgins posted an open letter to the producer of the film on his website Bellingcat, condemning the film. 

GlobalPost referred to the film as ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ but not because it could be used to promote wars and make false accusations. What the real danger to the mainstream media and their experts seems to be, is that as a result of the films exposure as a fraud, future video claims may now have to be properly scrutinized and the public may not be so unquestioning in future. However it is the journalists' lack of scrutiny that is truly what is irresponsible and dangerous. Had the director not admitted the film was fake, these journalists more than likely would have kept promoting the story as an example of Syrian Army war crimes.

Maram Susli also known as "Syrian Girl," is an activist-journalist and social commentator covering Syria and the wider topic of geopolitics. especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Beheaded Journalist Sotloff Had Info Rebels Used Chemical Weapons

and believed being Kidnapped by AlQaeda would earn their trust

Journalist Steven Sotloff who was kidnapped and beheaded by ISIS believed the Syrian rebels possessed and possibly used chemical weapons on Aleppo and wanted to report it leaked conversations show. American foreign fighter Matthew Vandyke who fought along side the Libyan insurgency and also went to Syria on a pro Syrian Rebel mission, revealed to Sotloff that he had information that Syrian rebels posed chemical weapons before they were used in Aleppo.

In another conversation Sotloff told Vandyke that he believed being kidnapped by AlQaeda group Jabhat Al Nusra would be a way to earn their trust. Vandyke agreed claiming some of the best connections he made with Al Qaeda groups were after being 'arrested'. In another conversation Vandyke was very eager to meet with the AlQaeda group Jabhat AL Nusra and network with them.

The conversations where leaked by the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) who hacked Vandyke's email and Facebook account. A Zip file of several hundreds of conversations can be downloaded here.  Vandyke has confirmed that his Facebook account and email were hacked by the SEA as well as stating that his comments about rebel chemical weapons were true, and other individuals have also authenticated that the leaked conversations are real and accurate.


Authenticity of private conversations were made public of Vandyke and Jack Murphy's wall.


The leaked conversations

Downloaded Facebook history is compressed into this format you will end up with, compressed without images.

Stoloff tried to convince Vandyke to go on record about Rebels possessing chemical weapons , assuring him the information could be spun in favour of the rebels

Dangerous acquaintances - meeting with Jabhat Al Nusra
Sotloff told Vandyke that he believed being kidnapped by AlQaeda group Jabhat Al Nusra would be a way to earn their trust.

Thursday, August 28, 2014

James Foley Beheading Censored - Are Americans lives worth more than Syrian ones?

The moment the James Foley beheading video was released, Twitter had begun to ban accounts for posting it. This would be the first time Twitter Ban the dissemination of a beheading video, after years of allowing videos of Syrians and Iraqis being beheaded.  It also seems to be the only beheading video Twitter is currently banning, since users continue to post other beheading videos with no problem. It appears that so long as non-American's are being beheaded Twitter doesn't really care.

Even more shockingly LiveLeak, known for it's long standing anti-censorship policy, said they would no longer allow "future islamic state beheading" videos on their site. Odd that they would specify beheadings from the Islamic state alone. The new policy came as a shock to all it's users, this was a site people referred back to, when Youtube would refuse to show the world the true horrors of war and the Syrian insurgency the west was supporting. After years of openly displaying the beheading of Syrians why the censorship now? Does LiveLeak believe Americans are human whilst Syrians are sheep for the slaughter?

After Facebook openly defended their policy of allowing beheading footage on their site. They turned a full 180 degrees and helped censor the James Foley video. Philip Smyth, researcher of Jihadist media, said he was impressed at the speed at which the video was censored, having seen nothing like it before.

Philip Smyth, researcher of activity of jihadists on social media, who has been monitoring the developments of the James Foley beheading video released by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and has found that tech corporations such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were integral in stopping the viral spread of this content on the internet.  This “rise in speed” with which the video was removed from the web impressed Smyth who remarked: “It’s happening. I can tell you first hand because I look at this stuff every day.”

Obama said that James Foley's beheading shocked the world. Indeed, mainstream media journalists contributed to the censorship of the video, by using the a hashtag #ISIS media blackout . In an open letter Phil Bigley of the guardian asked other journalists not to even show screen grabs from the James Foley video out of respect for the man and his family. Meanwhile the beheading of Syrians didn't seem to shock these journalists, nor do they feel that Syrians deserve the same respect. Far from censorship, Time Magasine gave their photographer Emin Ozmen an award for filming the beheading of a young Syrian soldier. Why has Time not featured Foley's beheading in a similar fashion? Perhaps the idea to desensitise the wests population to the slaughter of Syrian, the more of dead Syrians shown the less valued their lives become.

Even UK police have joined the crusade, by claiming that merely watching the video would constitute an act of terrorism. Lawyers have pointed out there is no legislation to support this statements. Again no such claims have made about any video before.

One may argue the reason for the journalists disproportionate shock is based in a sense of camaraderie for fellow journalist. If that is the case then why was there no outcry when Syrian news anchors were kidnapped, tortured and killed, by Obama backed rebels.

The irony is the violence seen in the Foley beheading video, is nothing compared to the violence shown against the Syrian people, since the Foley video doesn't contain an actual beheading. It seems even the brutal ISIS who supposedly killed James Foley, are in on the censorship of his beheading, the group has never censored their crimes. Does ISIS also feel that american's lives are worth more than Syrian lives, and the american people should be spared the brutality? That is highly doubtful.

This fact along other discrepancies in the video has led experts to conclude that the video was staged. A fact whilst pointed out by my video analysis, was mocked by mainstream media so called Eliot Higgins a.k.a Brown Moses.
In light of this, perhaps there is more to the reason that the Foley Video is being censored than simply racism an hypocrisy.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

The Strange thing about the James Foley Video

The strange things about the James Foley Beheading Video and the circumstances surrounding it. What you were not being told behind the scenes. The hypocrisy in the media, and the use of ISIS and the beheading to garner support for a war with Syria.

Since this video other Video experts are agreeing with my analysis the video was staged 

The mainstream media's darling non expert Eliot Higgins got it very wrong, and he supposedly watches and analysis videos about Syria for a living. 

Friday, June 13, 2014

The US strengthened ISIS as an excuse to attack Iraq and Syria

"When the fox hears the Rabbit scream he comes a-runnin', but not to help"

ISIS is too strong not to have a powerful state backer, it's difficult to believe they have achieved their air of invincibility through simple mosque donations. To answer the question which state is backing ISIS, one must first reach the obvious conclusion that Iran stands to lose the most from the ISIS take over of Iraq. Iran influence in Iraq stretches through the Maliki government. So we ask 'who benefits' in reducing Iran's influence in the region, the usual suspects arise again, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been competing for influence over the Syrian insurgency, which may indeed be reflected in the rebel infighting. Jabhat Al Nusra (JAN) and the Islamic Front (IF)) are fighting ISIS, in spite of the fact all groups are linked to AlQaeda. Saudi Arabia is openly supporting the Islamic Front and by extension Jabhat Al Nusra. It is therefore more likely that ISIS is being supported by Qatar and Turkey. This is consistent with the fact that ISIS suppresses the Kurdish militias, Turkey has always benefited from this fact. It has been Turkey after all that have allowed so many foreign fighters to flood through their borders and into Syria.

But these countries are merely the children of the United States squabbling between each other. The US will allow this so long as it's objectives are still met. The Mainstream media having been pushing the Idea that ISIS is on the verge of taking Baghdad. This will in turn cause panic within the Iraqi government who will ask for US assistance. The strength and speed of the ISIS may appear humiliating to the US in the short term, but it fits long term US objective and vision in Iraq. The incorrect assumption that many make is that the US wanted to establish a viable State in Iraq, they see the descent of Iraq into a failed state as a 'failure' of US policy. However those who have examined US actions closely over the last two decade know, that the objective has always been to turn Iraq into a failed state. It was after all the pursuit of the el Salvador option that stroked sectarian violence in Iraq. It was the US empowering of sectarian Shi'ite militia's and Kurdish Separatists Peshmerga that resulted in the psuedo-balkanisation of Iraq. The balkanisation of Iraq was stated openly as an objective by the Zionist backed Bookings institute. The ISIS take over of Al Anbar province is the last  part of this plan playing out. It worth noting, that ISIS, (originally called ISI), was created in 2006 as a sectarian alternative to the mainly nationalist resistance to occupation, by of Negreponte to divide and conquer any united Iraqi front against occupation

It is extremely unlikely that the US government will send in troops, it is far more likely that they will be flying drones over Iraqi Skies. This breach of Iraqi sovereignty will be used as a corridor to cross over onto Syrian land,  in the supposed "search of ISIS". Al Qaeda will be used as an excuse to for the US to intervene once again., not only Iraq but in Syria. The US will not pass up the change to once again undermine the Syrian state and it's military. They will interfere with Iranian airlift of supplies into the country. Like in Pakistan their objective is not to destroy the militants, but to maintain the illusion that they are fighting them, while at the same time allowing them to grow. It should not be forgotten that ISIS would not have reached the strength that it did if the US had not undermined the Strength of the State in ISIS exists, nor supported Jihadi groups in Syria and Libya. AlQaeda would not have existed had the US not created it in Afghanistan. Like the Mafia charging a protection fee, the US strengthens AlQaeda to take over countries.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

BREAKING: ISIS takes over Mosul

ISIS have taken over Mosul a large City in the northern Part of Iraq, and in the process have captured US military equipment. They have used the attack as a spring board to take over Kirkuk and its oil fields. The attack also has ramifications for Syria as the emboldened terror group ISIS is also attacking Hassakeh city with it's new found power. The attack could be a push towards Baghdad.

As ISIS captures more areas which contain military bases they have mechanised and begun rapidly advancing. Some of the equipment has already wound up in Syria.

military equipment taken by from into Deir ezZour Syri.

ISIS leader Umar as Shishani (the chechen) inspects US hummer taken from Mosul to Deir ezZour Syria.

Iraqi civilians and soldiers have fled the areas that ISIS have over run, creating yet another refugee crisis for Iraq.

i troops leave behind their uniforms and flee. ISIS has also reportedly taken over the oil fields in Kirkuk.

The ISIS take over is a disaster for #Syria #Iran and for keeping the State of Iraq whole. The questions must be raised whose fault is this? What are the true origins of ISIS and with ISIS so strong it's hard to believe that anything but a strong state is backing them. The route of ISIS comes from the then US Ambassador Robert Ford and Negreponte's Death squad supporting 'el salvador option' for crushing any resistance to occupation in Iraq by using divide and conquer tactics, as outline by these Global Research articles (1) (2) (3) .

One of the US agenda's in Iraq was to balkanise the country into three pieces. Quote: "A plan gaining traction in the Congress to separate Iraq into three autonomous territories directly mirrors long term globalist plans to "divide and conquer" in Iraq, an ongoing semi-covert project which has involved the intentional stoking of sectarian violence by occupying forces.

The authors, Edward P. Joseph of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, are hoping to draw the attention of George W. Bush administration policymakers." - 2007
It seems to have finally come into complete fruition, they plan the same for Syria.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Debate on Syria's Presidential Elections with SyrianGirl

Debate on Syria's Presidential Elections with SyrianGirl 

I appeared on UK's Islam TV to debate the legitimacy of the Syrian presidential Elections, and Syria's right to have them.  With me for and two against not counting the host, It was a lively debate.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

US-provided TOW Missiles Already In the Hands of AlQaeda

The US government provided TOW missiles to people they claim are 'moderate islamist' insurgents in Syria and assured their people those missiles would not end up in the 'wrong hands'. However a month after the TOW missiles were provided, Jabhat Al Nusra the AlQaeda linked terrorist group has already claimed to have the missiles in their possession.

A Jabhat Al Nusra twitter account twitted out an image of what appears to be a TOW Missile.
How will the US government explain this to their people?