It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intl experts have strong proof images of chemical victims fabricated – Moscow

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   


Footage and photos of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, which the US cites as the reason for a planned military intervention, had been fabricated in advance, speakers told a UN human rights conference in Geneva.

Intl experts have strong proof images of chemical victims fabricated – Moscow

Syria is disarmed by fake propaganda ,what makes me think ,WHAT'S NEXT ?
More strikes from Israel , when Syria cant strike back ?
The truth can remain hidden for many, many years, but is always exposed in the end. Thats a golden rule
l




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 


How reliable a source is RT? The statement below, from the bottom of the article, seems a bit biased.



Meanwhile RT learned that Syrian rebels might be planning a chemical weapons attack in Israel. The possible attack would be carried out from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government and would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension.


Would be nice if they had sourced where they learned that Syrian rebels MIGHT be planning a chemical attack. Just seems like a bit of a stretch.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


RT is no more or less reliable than any other source.

The part you quote has no bias whatsoever. But i would suspect that the "information" they have is either fairly flimsy or from a source they completely would not disclose (as per the norm for journalism in a free society).



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Mads1987
 


RT is no more or less reliable than any other source.

The part you quote has no bias whatsoever. But i would suspect that the "information" they have is either fairly flimsy or from a source they completely would not disclose (as per the norm for journalism in a free society).


Well, some sources are more reliable than others. But I take it, that they are not know for making claims and wild accusations.

Bias might not have been the right word. English is not my first language. But flimsy sounds like a good word for it. "..they might be.." and "..from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government.." There are just a lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes'. A bit more than I am used to in journalism.
But also their assumptions that such a terror attack "would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension". I am not saying that such an assumption is wrong, but I am just not used to journalist theorizing to much in articles. Usually in a free society the public draw their own conclusions, and the journalist just provide the facts.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


In a "free" society, Journalists are hard to find.


Yes, RT is State Sponsored, so you know what you are getting. What the "state" wants.

Here, you get what "big money" wants......




posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Mads1987
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 


How reliable a source is RT? The statement below, from the bottom of the article, seems a bit biased.



Meanwhile RT learned that Syrian rebels might be planning a chemical weapons attack in Israel. The possible attack would be carried out from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government and would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension.


Would be nice if they had sourced where they learned that Syrian rebels MIGHT be planning a chemical attack. Just seems like a bit of a stretch.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)


It could also be re-worded to say

"Syria plans to attack Israel from territory it controls and some how blame it on the rebels"



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 


This article underscores the problem with this whole issue. You have 'experts' saying the pictures are faked, former hostages and others coming from Syria saying that they have concrete proof that the rebels did use chemical weapons, a myriad of players saying they found evidence that sarin was used, etc. It's nearly impossible to know what the truth is. All sides have become expert at obfuscating the truth to fit their own agendas.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I personally do not believe that the Syrian leader ordered the use of chemical weapons. I could be wrong though. It just seems to me that he would not strain relation with Russia, forcing Russia to side more with international law which bans chemical warfare especially on innocent citizens. It is more probable that they could have been deployed by radical military at a lower level though.

The present leader of Russia would condone the use of these chemical weapons and the leader of Syria knows this. He would not risk loosing his major weapons provider I suspect. Although I do not agree with many of the things Russia does, I believe there is a lot of humanity in their culture. I cannot say who deployed these weapons, the motive would be strongest for the rebels to have used them. It would benefit them the most.

I'll just let the governments work this out. If the chemical arsonals are controlled by the UN, it still doesn't mean that all weapons in all locations will be secured. I have a feeling that Assad will not be defying Russia though and will relinquish all that they have accounted for. The problem here is are the bombs that they think are real actually real or have some disappeared and been replaced with fake ones. This is hard to fathom but I feel that money or belief can make this possible.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I was just about to add this article to my thread about how a nun, Mother Agnes Mariam, has proof that the attacks were fabricated by the rebels as well.

True, RT may have bias, but it's hard to find a really good news source that doesn't look like it's pushing an agenda.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 

For me, in a way it doesn't matter who conducted the chemical weapon attacks, all sides involved in the Syrian conflict have shown the world their barbarism and brutality, they've been butchering each other over there for quite a while, it makes me laugh in dark way when I hear politicians go on about how despicable the CWA's were, as if torture, summary executions, beheadings and cannibalism(of innocent men, women and children) are acceptable elements of warfare.

What the issue is here IMO, is the US and UK's rush to grab at any excuse they can to get Assad, they're trying to exploit the CWA event for their own agenda's. Just like 9/11, whatever your theory about who was responsible, it was how the US government reacted, what they implemented, and how they used that tragedy to their own benefit.

People in general seem to be more aware these days of the duplicity involved when it comes to international military intervention, it's as old as history itself, that's why the British Parliament voted no to attack Syria.


edit on 10-9-2013 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Mads1987
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 


How reliable a source is RT? The statement below, from the bottom of the article, seems a bit biased.



Meanwhile RT learned that Syrian rebels might be planning a chemical weapons attack in Israel. The possible attack would be carried out from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government and would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension.


Would be nice if they had sourced where they learned that Syrian rebels MIGHT be planning a chemical attack. Just seems like a bit of a stretch.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)


What?

So CNN and Fox news isnt biased?

Perlease!!!

Of course RT is biased, I dont think there is a news organization on the planet that isnt biased.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


I don't see what's really biased about the story you quoted at the bottom? That was a headline story on RT from the other day. I don't think RT is a terrible source, but I can't say if it's a great one because it's basically a glimpse of Russian MSM. So who knows. I don't trust our MSM so probably can't trust theirs much more. I do think we likely hear more of the truth from them regarding this topic, but they might exaggerate. They want people against the war as much as our govt wants it for the war.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Mads1987
reply to post by WhySoBlinded
 


How reliable a source is RT? The statement below, from the bottom of the article, seems a bit biased.



Meanwhile RT learned that Syrian rebels might be planning a chemical weapons attack in Israel. The possible attack would be carried out from the territory supposedly controlled by the Syrian government and would trigger another round of escalation, leaving little hope of defusing the tension.


Would be nice if they had sourced where they learned that Syrian rebels MIGHT be planning a chemical attack. Just seems like a bit of a stretch.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)


What?

So CNN and Fox news isnt biased?

Perlease!!!

Of course RT is biased, I dont think there is a news organization on the planet that isnt biased.


Did I mention CNN and FOX?
First off - Im danish. So I do not watch either of those two channels. Second - I don't own a TV, so I actually don't watch any channel.

But sure, those channel are biased as well. Whats your point?
I was just asking if anyone knew how good a source they were.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Thank you for the information, I didn't even know they were Russian.

As I pointed out earlier, biased might have been the wrong word. But I found that they drew a lot of conclusions, that I found should had been left to the reader to draw for himself.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


and to be honest, your point about "weasel words" is pretty much spot on.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I have very serious reservations with the videos that were "shown" to select congressman... first and foremost, none of the aid workers shown were wearing any protective gear at all. Sarin is viable for up to 30 minutes as a vapor hazard to anyone contacting the contaminated or contaminated clothing. You NEVER EVER EVER provide first aid or decon measures without protecting yourself from contamination. PERIOD! Unprotected aid workers are walking casualties. ANY unprotected aid worker would be drooling and twitching without immediate atropine injections...

It is sad that our government has stooped so low as to parade this video as a reason for retaliation... sickening...



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
This kinda confused me when I first read it. I thought it was trying to say that the images were fabricated.

I was like what?... Then I read the article and no, they have images? that show it is fabricated? What?

I was looking at the article to see these fabricated images and still keep seeing dead people and maybe it's late but that confused me for a second, but I think I got it now.

So where can we see these images of proof of fabrication as opposed to "images fabricated"... because unfortunately all the people in the images they provided are not playing possum. I was actually kinda hoping for that on two different levels.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
To anyone claiming they were fabricated,

Why not hop on a plane and visit Syria, and breath in the air.

No?




top topics



 
9

log in

join