The SYRIA Stage-Production Continues: And a New ‘Chemical Attack’ is Imminent…

Posted: February 22, 2018 in (Politics) CURRENT AFFAIRS
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to Syria, you can set your watch for all the different acts in the stage-play that is the mass-media and international coverage.

I referred to Syria previously as ‘Syria the Movie’, in regard especially to the media production company known as the White Helmets. It’s a movie with endless sequels: and the script and structure never changes, the dialogue is all the same.

First up, let’s make an obvious prediction: there’s going to be another staged ‘chemical attack’ very soon – if not in the next few days, then definitely in the next few weeks.

The White Helmets will put out footage of it, the international media will run heavy coverage of it for days, Nikki Haley will put on her operatic performance in the UN Security Council, and various political leaders will renew calls for the Assad regime to be ‘held to account’.

We know this for three reasons. First, I’ve seen Syrian observers in the passed week saying that the White Helmets have been found transporting chemical weapons components. This might not be true. But, even if it isn’t, the fact that media coverage has squarely returned to Syria in the last few days meansthat now is the perfect time for another chemical false-flag.

Thirdly, a week or so ago the White Helmets travelling theatre company called on France’s Emmanuel Macron to strike against the Syrian government forces if another chemical attack is carried out by the regime. Macron, essentially, said France would carry out attacks on Syrian government targets if it was clear a chemical attack had been carried out by the regime.

To be fair to Macron for now, his response could be construed as cautious and non-committal. However, the fact alone that the White Helmets are baiting Macron (just as Trump was baited a year ago over Idlib) means that the fake chemical attack is already being set up.

By the way, if France does start directly attacking Syrian state targets, it will be joining the United States and Israel, both of which have already been doing this.

Again – as we’ve said every time this movie plays out – the Assad regime has no reason to use chemical weapons against civilians when it can just as easily use conventional weapons. In fact, it has every reason NOT to use chemical weapons, as it knows the world is watching for any chance to catch them doing it.

Still, the Trump administration – sticking to the script – resumed laying the ground for the next chemical false-flag a fortnight ago, saying there was evidence the Assad government was “probably” still producing chemical weapons for use against civilians. Yep, just to be clear about this – “probably”.

Ramping the bullshit up one level, Jerusalem Online reported that “Syrian President Assad’s forces may be developing new types of chemical weapons, which which could reach as far as the US..”

So apparently now Assad’s chemical weapons could threaten American soil, suggesting that Assad is being slowly promoted to Kim Jong-un stature. Jerusalem Online’s only source for this information was an unspecified “US official”: but this is smelling like a reboot of Saddam’s WMDs.

We’ve done this same movie several times over the last few years, from the highly disputed 2013 incidents right through to last year’s Idlib attack (see here): so I’m not going to go back over all of it again (for the backstory of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Saga, see here, here, here, and here).

Meanwhile, as we wait for this inevitable chemical false-flag, news coverage is hitting all the usual marks. Here in the UK, we’re being shown the usual apocalyptic coverage as the Syrian regime drops bombs on rebel-held East Ghoutta – the news coverage is an absolute re-run of the Aleppo coverage from a year ago in every respect, from the White Helmets’ dramatic (but highly inconclusive) footage right down to the conspicuous lack of reference to Al-Qaeda.

Also, as with the mass Aleppo coverage, we see the ‘Syrian’ ‘rebels’ (it’s not even clear who they are anymore – White Helmets, Al-Qaeda, or just actors?) making dramatic, movie-script statements like “this is the end – we are waiting to die here”.

In fact, I just checked my post from a year or so ago on the Aleppo coverage and the lines of dialogue are PRECISELY the same: in the Aleppo coverage, White Helmets were literally saying the lines “this is the end” and “we’re waiting to die now”, and this is same dialogue now being said in the BBC’s East Ghoutta coverage. They can’t even be bothered to change the fucking script.

 


And let’s ask the same question now as I asked back then: why are the Skype video calls (and Internet connection) between East Ghoutta and London of such good quality if the area is under heavy assault from the regime forces?


 

In terms of the innocent civilians being killed by regime bombs in East Ghoutta, I’ll assume this is true (though we can’t know what the real numbers are: we’re being told something like 250 civilians have been killed in the last attack) – and that’s horrible.

But the mainstream coverage generally isn’t interested in asking how many civilians have been killed by the jihadists there: and the key ommission in all of the coverage is the fact that the Syrian regime is trying to take back territory held by extreme militias and NOT simply bombing civilians for sport.

‘Eastern Ghouta is another Srebrenica, we are looking away again’, declares The Guardian (a newspaper I once had hoped to write for, but now just find embarassing).

Eastern Ghoutta and Idlib are under control by extreme Islamist militias: and, as in Aleppo, the situation seems to be that the jihadists are holding the civilian population hostage, as re-stated this week by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

In fact, a year ago the different jihadist factions in Eastern Ghouta began fighting each other, with the Syrian military pretty much taking a breather and letting them weaken each other.

At any rate, the vast, fake production being staged by the major news media continues: the movie goes on. And I’m calling it – there will be a new chemical attack in the next two weeks, if not in the next few days. And all the staged/scripted reaction and coverage will be – in every detail – precisely the same as all the other times.

 

 


Read more:Syria: The Sarin Saga‘, ‘Chemical Warfare in Syria: Then and Now‘, ‘The End in Aleppo – A Confused Narrative Plays Out‘, ‘Idlib Chemical Attack & the Theatre of the Macabre‘, ‘Vanessa Beeley Exposes the White Helmets‘…


 

Advertisements
Comments
  1. I read recently a detailed and credible-sounding account of how the White Helmets had been set-up by cyber propaganda from the Assad-Russia side. But as always with matters Syrian, nothing is clear. Waiting with trepidation and hoping your chemical attack prediction is wrong

    Like

    • I accept that possibility, John, and am open to all possibilities. On the White Helmets, however, I will say the evidence against them seems pretty substantial.
      Vanessa Beeley, who used to comment here on this blog quite a lot (and who was frequently been in Syria, including Aleppo, in the last couple of years), was investigating the White Helmets as long as four years ago – long before they became a high-profile organisation. And she exposed way back then that the group was being funded and controlled from the UK.
      In regard to a chemical attack, I hope i’m wrong too – but what I was really predicting was not a real chemical attack, but a staged production designed to look like one.
      More broadly speaking, John – as I know we’ve discussed this before – I am disgusted when any civilians are being killed, regardless of whether it’s in rebel-held territory or in government-controlled areas. I feel deeply sorry for the Syrian populations.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes. The crux of the matter is always what ordinary people suffer and in war they always lose, no matter what side they are on. I have also known about the White Helmets for several years and I am not convince by Vanessa. Not to say that she is a paid agent of the Assad government (as I believe some others are), but I am not convinced.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        Mr Badenhurst
        Would you care to share with us who those paid Assad agents are?
        White Helmets is an evil piece of work, Hollywood style.
        The angloamerican establishment used the Red Cross to spread Bolshevism in Russia. They consistently hide behind fake humanitarian causes. Coopting progressive movements to do their bidding. The environmental movement has been controlled by big oil since the fifties.
        Wayne Madsen counted the number of color revolutions= (Gene Sharps Cia subversions) to be more numerous than the crayons in a Crayola 64 kids set.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I guess we will have to agree to differ. All of my information comes from people on the ground, not always in Syria, but Syrians. Not “activists” as such, ordinary people, many of them friends of long standing, from long before 2011. The best comment I ever had was, “Yes John, Assad is an arsehole de luxe, but so are all of them, every group is as bad”. Sums up what I feel, the situation is so polarised in the media and even debates such as this, but there are no heroes, except the Syrian people themselves. None of the actors in the drama, local or foreign, has clean hands. But damning any one side is naïve. This for PeterG above.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        You mention a handful of people without giving a hint about why these people would give a balanced view.
        Naive are those who see no evil on the part of the constantly interfering US/UK. The two whose economy is based on usury and reserve currency and whose outlook is Malthusian. Meaning that they see development as an evil. Not only do they want to drastically decrease the worlds population, in addition they want to deprive them of their opportunities to develop their societies. Syria stands in the way for some of the imperial plans to prevent Russia from peaceful trading and development. And for the establishment of greater Israel. Israel was and still is a bufferstate for the angloamerican empire and not like many believe, a project by and for the jews. But their present government is so closely aligned with the angloamericans that it doesnt make any practical difference. The point is the Us is there to expand their influence at the expence of national independence and at a high cost in human life.
        Nothing the Us has done has been for a good purpose. The bulk of their input has been to create misery. Funding of terror and lyingly accusing the government for chemical weapons attacks which were carried out by their own allies.
        Harry Elmer Barnes titled a collection of essays Perpetual war for perpetual peace in 1954
        He exposed the allieds’ warguilt in WWI and propaganda lies. He pointed out that the US in 1937 evolved into something like Orwells 1984. The lies about Germany still havent been explained to a large part of the public. The lies about Putin meet with some resistance on the web but the msm is truly the ahole. Perhaps the people you meet are simply victims of propaganda.
        I wonder how americans would react if they were invaded by paid terrorist armies. I dont think the invaders would find americans welcoming them.
        Is a governments task not to drive intruders away?
        Due to the angloamericans and their moneybags many Russians became traitors before the revolution(s). How would americans deal with such traitors among their own side when struggling against the invaders.

        Like

      • Peter, no one I refer to, nor I, denies America’s role in destabilizing world regimes, nor have I implied this. I am old enough to go back to the CIA’s murder of Patrice Lemumba in the Congo and the installation of the Shah in Persia. But the malevolent presence of the USA and other foreign actors in Syria does not render Bashar or his family innocent. The Assads rule with fear and repression. At the same time, one can find beneficial things done by Bashar, e.g. his land reforms. But the Assad’s wrongdoing predates the current tragedy by decades. My “informants” are all friends and intelligent people, not naïve lamebrains likely to be swayed by propaganda. One has a son who was in the thick of the original protest in Deraa, another’s father is a dissenter who was in and out of political prisons for 20 years, another lived in Aleppo though the siege and has relatives all over the city, another had to leave his town because successive “rebel” groups insisted he minister only to THEIR adherents (and he had to flee from their death threats) … etc. I know these people, you don’t, nor could you. I say again there re no absolutes in Syria the only heroes are the people, but all power groups are culpable, firstly the government and secondly all the foreign governments. I respect your right to believe what you will, but don’t suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        People are not idiots for being fooled by propaganda. That is why I mentioned the still widely believed lie about Germany’s warguilt in WWI. Nothing you wrote gives any indication about whether they (or you) realize that mercenaries/snipers/infiltrators payed by the imperialists provoked both sides in 2011 by killing those who were there to prevent a destabilization. The government responded in kind.
        Which country in the west would prevent the police from defending themselves against snipers?
        The method also was used by the imperialists in multiple other countries. For example in Russia in february 1917, where just like in Syria, the regime got the blame. Again in China in 1989( although there never was a single casualty on the Tianmin) It happened again in Russia in 1993.
        In iran in 2009 and in Ukraine in 2014. When you consider that aspect together with a series of false flags involving chemweapons in Syria you have to be very stubborn to insist on the split culpability.
        The aholes are to found entirely on the side of the angloamericans and they know it.

        Like

  2. larryzb says:

    The White Helmets are proxies and allies of the terrorist factions. By doing these chemical attacks, the terrorists get the West to come down hard on Assad. The stupid Americans will do the work the terror factions cannot do themselves against Assad.

    Who benefits if Assad falls? Consider Libya post Ghaddafi. It will not get better, but only worse. The Zionists who control Trump and US foreign policy are the ones behind all this. We feel for the poor Christians of Syria who have suffered terribly over the past several years.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mark says:

    Hardly a predictive prophecy. More, doing the sums. Fair and rare-sounding call though. What might drive the imminence and desire, aside from maintaining war? How about registering gullibility and acceptance. Ensure wide-enough media outposts obey and pretend along. All about voices, in and on the edges, daring to question. The need to test and produce results. Tight fall-in behind the broadcasting corps. And cometh a vengeful slap for any opposing-exposing ones. The alternative few with pro. looking websites. Pushing into their suppose-protected sphere. Depleting takers. Most conspicuous is the talk about The White Helmets. Provoked reaction. In ‘having to’ watch TV etc. news, witness the conning excel. Once it was bias mixed with lying, now the pretence is disappearing. Gun-talk in the US gets similar treatment. So… this my guess. Need to push credulity and pride-driven, “we know better”. Told surface-level and one side — if that? The ‘one-side’ and a bloke in Coventry. Said to be the main conduit. Clips from inside the zone. Question when, and saying, what? Bollocks to justify deception and ‘deeper’ requirements. This might be what the media lackey’s want to believe? Imagine serving truth, too-complicated and not for a wobbly public. Offical secrets. Any get through and get home for a gin or what have ya. It’s quite astonishing stuff. All the while more death and destruction. Prolonged by slick and earnest sounding presenters, patronising in their sickness. Tis naked emperor. Stark. ‘Yes, it’s time for the Dr. Goebbels show’ — and too cynical to care? Nuff. Get me caring and bothered. Something like. About all, must first do.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I can only say again, to believe that the Assad government is clean and every sign of resistance is the result of dirty foreign intrusion is not correct. I base my observation on hearing first-hand, since the early 2000s, from Syrians. And so khalas. Thank you for your comments, but I am done with mine.

    Liked by 1 person

    • petergrafstrm says:

      Thank for your polite tone. But Syria has been the target for evil subversion much earlier than 2000.
      And you and your sources were probably not aware of the infiltrations behind the 2011 events. They and you are not to blame for being affected. The imperialists’ cunning has been perfected over a long period.

      Like

      • Just to speak a little bit more for John’s position here: I believe the main point John is making is that a lot of us (on our approximate side of the argument) have a tendency to whitewash the Syrian regime and the Russians and some of us make the mistake of painting Assad and the Russians as angels – and the opposition as all being evil. When, in reality, it is more blurred than that.
        And I think he is right in that sense: a lot of us, in defending the Syrian regime, do overlook the fact that it has always been a dictatorship and that it has previously been highly repressive – and that a very large percentage of the Syrian population (prior to 2011) had no great love for the regime (particularly for the regime under Bashar’s father).
        John has been in Syria and knows a lot of different Syrians of different persuasions. I too am well aware that there was a lot of genuine civil opposition to the regime at the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’ and that most of these people had nothing to do with Islamism, Jihadism, the Gulf States or the US.
        The problem many of us drift into is that we’ve ‘taken a side’ so firmly that we fail to see the grey areas and we only see everything in terms of one side or the other (the Assad/Russia/Iran side or the Western foreign policy and jihadists’ side).
        My counterpoint to John, however, is that the unyielding extent to which pro-Assad or pro-regime commentaters defend (and even whitewash) the regime is largely a response to the excessive extent to which mainstream media refuses to portray the situation honestly (along with the fact that the foreign policy agendas or motivations for the regime-change have nothing to do with civilian casualties or the innocent Syrian people on both sides of the conflict).
        And also, of course, the prevailing perspective now is to view the situation in Syria also in terms of what has already happened in both Iraq and Libya – in which case, it becomes virtually impossible to support regime-change or foreign intervention.
        But I agree with John’s position (I think) that the opinion-divide concerning Syria has become so black-and-white that it fails to account for the more complex reality.
        The bigger dilemma is this: if you know that there was a longstanding agenda in Syria to force a regime-change and to use extremist groups to split the country into mini states – and you also know that the Syrian regime itself was a repressive dictatorship that many Syrians were fed up of – it can be very difficult to figure out where the ‘right’ is. You end up – at best – in a position where you’re defending the existence of a regime that, under normal circumstances, you would not support or have any love for: but a regime that, under *these* circumstances, is surely the lesser of all evils.
        Had this always remained a clear-cut scenario of the Regime on one side and Protesters on the other, it would be easy for most observers to express their solidarity with the protesters. But the moment it became an international conflict with multiple countries involved and multiple proxy militias and agendas, the argument – for a lot of people – died.
        It’s very, very sad for those specific (large) groups of ordinary people who were genuinely just protesting for change and democracy – because it is simply isn’t their fight anymore: it got taken away from them.
        I feel sorry for them; and for all Syrians.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        There is no need for whitewashing since the evil angloamerican empire has nothing but evil intentions nomatter what puppet regime they insert. Assads father was overwhelmed by similar regimechange projects and managed to drive out the muslim brotherhood which is sort of a branch of British freemasonry, just like illuminati and the jewish b’nai b’rit. All branches disguised as separate entities while they were all created for Britains deep state.
        John sounds like a good person but you need to be cynical to sort out the cynics.
        As long as the media and historians are under angloamerican control people mostly never meet any balanced info. Dont forget that John didnt appear to understand that the violence in 2011 was totally an externally induced special operation. Just like every other revolution for centuries. And with masterminds from the same side. When people are blind to that they really dont understand anything. Their leaders are wiser since they know things didnt happen the way the opposition believes. Its much easier for the targeted regime to know there was a conspiracy. So they need to stay firm.
        If the french had been more aware of the truth about the french revolution it might have strengthened their resolve against becoming an angloamerican puppet. I wonder how many in their establishment recognize that Britain directed it from London. As for the more recent era the angloamericans sought to sweep clean national archives to hide their own deceptions.
        The Russians also tend not to be wellinformed about the angloamerican special operation behind their revolution. We live in an Orwellian world designed by angloamericans.

        Like

      • Assad;s father shot tens of thousands of people in Hama. Perhaps you are not wanting to understand that foreign interventions succeed when there is fertile ground to flourish in. The Assad government was a dictatorship, it was/is corrupt; political prisoners abounded … the protests in Deraa began as genuine protests from civilians … in a happy society there would have been no protests and thus no staging post available to the foreign agents (whose subsequent intrusion I do not deny). I like to think I am a good person, but we are many, you too, I am sure.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        His father probably saved many more than those shot.
        I am not defending it but that was probably the result of previous foreign subversion.
        It repeats itself everywhere and it is always the same party behind it. You need to be more suspicious.
        Had the shah of Iran struck down effectively on the angloamerican special operation against him he would have saved a million Iranians who fell victim to the muslim brotherhoods ayatollah Khomeini’s rule and was dragged into a war which would otherwise never have happened.
        I am not saying all the mullah’s are traitors but I suspect that there might be some infiltrators among them. Britain earlier and the US later have seen backward fanatics as a weapon against progressive nationalism.
        Had the Tsar regime in Russia stood firm they would have saved how many millions?
        In all cases it was believed by the masses that they were under an evil regime for those with the money and freemasonic networks could control the narrative.

        Like

      • The Shah himself killed many thousands of political dissenters. In Hama it was murder, no ifs and buts. But you’re crossing lines. I’m not denying the malevolent actions of the CIA, in Persia and elsewhere. However, if the Shah had not been so corrupt, Ayatollah Khomeni would not have had such fertile ground to flourish in, ditto the Taliban in Afghanistan, for that matter. And even Wahabi-ism found the same fertile ground because of corrupt rulers and upper classes. It’s always a matter of cause and effect, one can’t simply stop at a point advantageous to one’s argument, or impose one’s personal theory on history. even there if has to be major shoehorning.

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        I may have som news för you John, the shah’s secret police was organized by Britain and they used the Mossad for torture according to what I’ve read. What does that mean? In my view the shah wasnt free to act. And who were the corrupters? The Cia? The angloamericans thrive under corrupt conditions and are often the worst. In confessions of an economic hitman we learn that the alternative to taking bribes from the US was sometimes to face assassination.
        The shah was weak in that he surrounded himself with yes-men but he didnt strike down on the protesters in time because he was fooled to believe it was genuine.
        The BBC and not any genuine opposition was the reason Khomeini could have such an impact. The shah’s wife said when you lift the beard of a Mullah it says Made in England. The shah offered land at a nice price to something like half a million poor people. It was the wealthy land owners who hated him for that and the evil greedy angloamericans who didnt want him to modernize Iran using income from their national resources.
        There are even rumours, not contradicted by K’s son, that his father may have been a British spy born in Bristol who ‘went native’ according to former colleagues in the oilbranch.
        As you know the shah was put in power by the same angloamerican elites(and also the mullahs) who later ousted him. Because his predecessor didnt accept the enormously greedy British big oil. When the shah realized the large percentage of their oil revenue the British took the shah was shocked. But he knew who his masters were so he had to bide his time. Meanwhile the US/Uk continued looting the country. Something which I have never seen confirmed by other authors is claimed by Robert Dreyfus. He says the Iran crisis was about more than meets the eye. Namely that there were ongoing preliminary plans for an economic collaboration between West Germany the USSR (and France and Japan) to try a new currency backed by Opec’s oil in return for development plans for Africa and the ME. It isnt surprising if the participants might be denying that if it failed or the US threatened them.
        Dreyfus claimed (in 1981) that in order to twart the plans the US deliberately set the occupation plans of the embassy in motion to get an excuse for military intervention. And that the US threatened the mentioned project to cut off their access to ME oil if they pursued the plans. It is clear that there was a deal about Soviet-German collaboration made between Brzezhnev and Helmut Schmidt in 1978.
        Otherwise the official motive for Carter to accept to help Khomeini was that the Cia in accordance with previous British ideologues desired reactionary islamism as a way to prevent Soviet advances in the area. Another way of saying that nobody must be allowed to peacefully collaborate with the Soviets. Did you know that the real reason there was a cold war was that Stalin aimed to use a goldbacked rouble instead of trading with dollar? The shah developed Iran, modernized it. The angloamericans managed to put an end to it. The nuclear power plant projects were stopped and K sent a million to die. Saddam would not have attacked if the shah hadnt been toppled
        But your priority is on blaming the victim assuming all evil is unprovoked despite the obvious motives and the long series of previous cases proving the pattern.
        Your lack of focus on this pattern tells me you have tunnelvision. The Muslim Brotherhood was the reason there were serious clashes with Assads fathers regime. The brotherhood was the angloamericans proxy. Are you sure the ten thousand (if true) was worse than having allowed the brotherhood to take over? Consider it seriously.
        Egypt saved themselves from that evil proxy. And where strongly criticized. Are you sure they ought to have left them to rule Egypt? Are you sure you have given this sufficient thought? Could it be that you hesitate to consider the proposition that there are no decent outcomes if you give in to the imperialists? That there is no happy ending if you turn the other cheek in this area.
        And that the imperialists will always create the conditions from which you will side with the opposition nomatter what the other side tries? I’m not 100% sure about anything but I gave you several examples as food for thought concerning the pattern in past imperial deceptions. Do you really need more to question your on the face-analysis and maybe dig deeper before you make up your mind ending up defending imperialism. Could it be that the same foul play was used against the father?

        Like

      • History is a Rorschach test, people. What you see when you look at it tells you as much about yourself as it does about the past.”
        Jennifer Donnelly

        Like

      • petergrafstrm says:

        There is no need to muddle the issue since there is a very real ongoing struggle between imperialists acting with elaborate deceptions against peoples who simply wish to mind their own business.
        Saying there are no good guys means you side with the imperialists since all the havoc entails imperialist meddling. Without that conflicts would have been sorted out peacefully.
        Btw I was once under suspicion and therefore subjected to a seeming Rorshach test. But beware! it was manipulated and contained inserted barely discernable entities intended to expose whether or not I had german origin.
        Deception everywhere John! 🙂 they wont even let you trust your own subconscious.

        Like

  5. Thank you for this – you understand perfectly what I am saying and I see what you are saying. There never has been such a mess, such a tangled web, such propaganda and counter-propaganda and the same again. The ultimate truth is, there are NO good guys, except the Syrian people,

    Liked by 1 person

  6. petergrafstrm says:

    Patrick Seales Assad the struggle for the middleeast 1988 is recommended here:
    https://m.facebook.com/notes/tim-anderson/the-muslim-brotherhoods-hama-syria-rebellion-in-1982/10151553345131234/

    Like I expected it looks similar to the current war. Us and their allies in the ME sponsored it
    Seale says Hafez Assads fears were not paranoical when he said they faced a large-scale foreign conspiracy
    The number of casualties was around 2000 not ten. Including 400 from the MB
    It began when MB snipers attacked government troops and then the MB terrorists burst into peoples homes and slaughtered some 70 officials
    Had he not crushed the MBs there Syria would probably have been taken over by MB. Sober observers were of the view then like now that the Syrian population did not want to be ruled by them.
    And you bet the deathcount would have risen…

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Peter, are you glossing over the CIA;s role and putting all the blame on Britian? Of course the UK was involved (oil) but do you have any proof of your statements (which is not to say they are wrong).? You may like to communicate further by e-mail: johnbadenhorst@yahoo.co.uk. “Proof” means documents/independent verification/first person statements, and the like.

    Like

  8. petergrafstrm says:

    Of course the Cia were involved in the ousting of the predecessor of the shah and the shah himself, but the British role is often less mentioned. Moreover everything the Cia is up to in the ME is predated by earlier and more sophisticated British operations. The British orientalists were much more deeply studied and more genuinely interested in their targeted peoples while the Cia would be more dependent on bribing ( and threatening) people. (I have come to believe that the British must be or have been more intelligent than most or somehow have had superior minds in some other manner than raw intelligence)
    The muslim brotherhood was established overseen by the British on the territory of the Suez Canal Company. It never was an independent arab creation in the interest if the arabs but more like a branch of western intel with the ” bonus” of also being a terrorist organization on the lower levels.
    The British wouldnt hesitate to use assassinations if deemed necessary but they had a way of gaining acceptance. Winning the hearts and the minds as it where. Think about Lawrence of Arabia. A contemporary agent the wealthy oligarch Aubrey Herbert specifically mentioned these traits of his colleagues in the subversive operations taking place around that time. He said that the British more than other peoples have this talent.
    The Cia and the american masterminds for their aggressive foreign policies usually had British mentors. Like Bernard Lewis who mentored Brzinzky. I believe he also mentored Samuel Huntington.
    Lewis became a naturalized american but came from British academia. His plan for rearranging the ME in a very drastic manner is believed to be a template for some of the efforts the US are up to although some of it has met obstacles as you know.
    One interesting source about Iran is Robert Dreyfus, Hostage for Khomeini from 1981. I know that there were threats of them being suited around say 1992 by some Iranian who had been in collusion with the US and had been shuttling back an forth between Wall street and Teheran. This may be a reason why the text is seldom cited but you will probably find it wortwhile to check out.
    If I recall correctly he even suggests that Khomeini may have been the son of a British spy, one Richard William Richardson from Bristol, who according to former colleagues in the oil business went native and lived like a muslim. Although the official narrative doesnt acknowledge any such connection Khomeinis own son left open that possibility in 2011 by confirming that his fathers real origin is uncertain.
    Thank you for your email. I have no secrets so we might continue here if that is ok for the burning blogger.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. petergrafstrm says:

    Correction concerning the speculative hypothesis about Khomeini’s origin. The Brit’s name was William Richard Williamsson

    https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/ayatollah-khomeini-british-ahmadinejad-iran-opinions-columnists-melik-kaylan.html

    Here with a picture suggesting K looks like a Brit when the beard is removed.
    http://www.discoveringislam.org/Khomeini_british_agent.htm

    But I realize Dreyfus interesting book adheres to the official narrative regarding his origin in so far as I could glean after briefly consulting my paperback copy.

    Independent of any conspiracy theories about Williamsson
    see this site. http://www.haji-williamson.com/profile.php

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s