Washington Institute Messengers for ALQaeda to The State Department

EXPOSED: Goon from the Washington Institute think tank acts as messenger boy for Al Qaeda to its supporters in the State Department.

Washington Institute fellow Aaron Y.Zelin sent a private message through his twitter account @Azlan, to the leader of Al Qaeda of shoot Ahrar Al Sham, suggesting that he may help relay a message to his supporters in the US State Departement.

"Any personal message you want to send to the people in the state department who want to support you? I'm talking with them in the morning my time"

The Ahrar Al sham's leader answered with "My reply to your message will be in public", and followed through by leaking out the private message in a tweet.

This tells us two things, first that there are people within the State Department that support ALQaeda and Zelin knows who they are. Secondly,think tanks like the Washington Institute , are acting as mouth pieces for Al Qaeda to stir up support in the US State Department.

This would not be the first time a think tank suggests that ALQaeda become the US's new best friend. In January 2014 the CFR wrote an article headlined " The good and Bad of Ahrar Al-Sham: An Al Qaeda-Linked Group Worth Befriending". But it is the first time an american analyst has shown his links and support for ALQaeda so directly, and exposed members of the State Department along with him.

ISIS Destroys Palmyra Artefacts

ISIS Destroys Palmyra Artefacts.

ISIS barbarian kneels to destroy 2000 year old Statue in Palmyra, Syria.

In what the UNESCO are calling 'Cultural Cleansing' ISIS is continuing to destroy Syrian artefacts, this time in the ancient city of Palmyra. While we watch thousands of years of history get destroyed by ISIS barbarians, we should remember how we got here. In 2011 the US destabilised Syria by backing the muslim brotherhood and alQaeda linked insurrection, just enough that it would cause a protracted war. Without the US intervention, non of this would have happened.

What ISIS is doing in Palmyra is much deeper than broken Statues in the desert, and in fact is part of the US's plan to balkanise and dissolve the Syrian and Iraqi Nation states. By destroying these ancient artefacts in the city of palmyra and earlier nimrod old artefacts, ISIS are wiping out any tangible evidence of Syrian and Iraqi ancient civilisations and national identity.

But ISIS are just tools in this endeavour and in fact the systematic destruction of middle eastern artefacts was happening before ISIS even existed. The Taliban who the US supported into power in Afghanistan destroyed the ancient Buddha statues The looting of Baghdad museums at the start of the Iraq war in 2003 is an example of this. Many of Iraq's artefacts ended up in new York and Israel. Before ISIS was even a presence in the Syrian crisis the US backed FSA were digging up archeological sites and selling artefacts for guns. Jabhat al nusra was busy wiping out historical sites well before ISIS became a presence. But perhaps the Syrian content within Jabhat Al Nusa caused some of them to have a semblance of a conscience left, which prevented them from the extent of the destruction that ISIS has been responsible for. Perhaps that's why ISIS was needed by the powers who want to balkanise Syria.

Even Statues aren't safe from ISIS beheadings.

ISIS shares the US's destain for middle eastern nationalism. Furthermore Islam forbids Idolatry, and in ISIS extremist mind that translates as 'statues are forbidden', even though no body worshiped these statues in Palmyra. That doesn't explain why they destroyed walls and buildings in Nimurd, does the site of a pre-islamic civilisation offend them or do they get their orders from above?

Does this sound far fetched? In response to ISIS destruction of Palmyra, US think tank Middle east Briefing mention an idea to dissolve Iraq and Syria. In order to break a part a country, you have to first dismantle its national identity, and our history is a key to this identity. This plan was laid out by Condoleezza Rice in the project for a new middle east. By destroying or simply removing artefacts from Iraq and Syria they destroy any tangible evidence our civilisation even existed. It is then far easier to deny the history ever happened, or at least detach that history from current Iraq and Syria. They hope the world will forget its existence as difficult as that sounds to do. But the history of 'cultural marxism was' removed form wikipedia last month in response to GamerGate .The history of our civilisation is being memory holed. They don't just want to destroy us, they want to destroy any evidence that we ever existed, and ISIS is but a tool in this endeavour.

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 Syria, is a fraud. Here's my part in his investigation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1B_DCeZ6N6OTlRpMFAtV1VEZGM/view?usp=sharing

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”.

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.

Confirmation 

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.

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.

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.