Many of you will remember our conversation with Campbell Adams from the first of April last year. Well, since then, Campbell has created a YouTube channel devoted to Yarndling, and added a little-known documentary from the 1980s all about the craft. Some of you wanted to know more about the subject, so I can do no better than to recommend this film. I hope you enjoy it and subscribe to the channel!
John Pilger's forthright speech at the Socialist Equality Party* rally in Sydney, organised to demand that the Australian government secure Julian Assange's freedom and safe return to Australia, and guarantee his protection from any attempt to extradite him to the US.
(*Please don't be put off by the fact that this is a "socialist" rally; the issue of Julian Assange transcends politics, at least on this level.)
What are the New Testament Gospels? How should we read them in relation to each other? And are they really "full of contradictions", as some would say?
This week we welcome Dr. Mike Licona, associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University, who joins us for an extended in-depth discussion on the New Testament Gospels and the differences between them. Drawing upon his many years of research into the subject, Dr. Licona leads us through the maze of questions often asked about the NT Gospels, and explains how familiarity with the literary conventions of Graeco-Roman biography and historiography can help to provide compelling answers.
Now the AFP (Agence France-Presse)—which, according to its Wikipedia article, is "the third largest news agency in the world"—interviews a medical student from the Douma hospital who gives the same basic account as that reported by Robert Fisk.
This looks important. It's certainly consistent with other reports I've been linking to at TMR. Or maybe it's more Russian propaganda. Maybe every report that contradicts the positions of Washington, London and Paris is by definition Russian propaganda. Maybe my eyes are now Russian for having watched it.
This, so it seems, is a report from a Russian TV station, so I guess that discredits it in the eyes of many straight away. It is also mirrored on a YouTube channel that openly supports Assad, so again nothing to see here. Or is there? At the risk of being incorrectly labelled as "pro-Syrian government", I simply share this for you to decide for yourself.
This strikes me as very important. Veteran reporter Robert Fisk reports from Douma sharing a particular account of the alleged "chemical attack" that turns out to be very similar to that reported by Russian media in interviews with people who claimed to have been at the scene: that people were being treated for smoke inhalation, but then a "White Helmet" came in shouting "Gas!" and panic commenced.
Some clear thinking from former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff Admiral Alan West interviewed on BBC News. Basically: Why would Assad have done this when it's not to his advantage? Wouldn't the "rebels" have greater motive?* Interesting how the interviewer tries to make him feel as if he shouldn't be asking these kinds of question.
"The BBC does not often help expose government fiction these days, but with the help of a video clip provided by CBS News it did so today—although of course without drawing attention to what it had just revealed."—Skwawkbox
I thought it was worth reposting this link under the present circumstances. A year ago Vladimir Putin claimed that he had intelligence indicating that more "false flags like this one" (the chemical attack in Idlib) were being prepared elsewhere in Syria in order to "accuse the Syrian government of an attack."
"Rebel-allied organizations in Syria have claimed that the government has released chlorine gas near Ghouta, killing dozens. The Syrians and Russians deny the charges. Neocons are all demanding that Trump launch a bigger attack or America will "lose face." Will the Russians sit back and allow another US attack on the Syrian government? And if they don't?"—Ron Paul Liberty Report
What happened in Syria on April 7 had been expected. While raising hue and cry over the alleged chemical attack in Douma, a rebel-held suburb of the capital, Western officials and media wasted no time to put the blame on the Assad government.
"Comrade Putin, we have successfully stockpiled novichoks in secret for ten years, and kept them hidden from the OPCW inspectors. We have also trained our agents in secret novichok assassination techniques. The programme has cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but now we are ready.
"Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian “novichok” agent."
The link is to a briefing note by the Working Group on Syria, Media and Propaganda authored by Professors Paul McKeigue and Piers Robinson. It is important to bear in mind that the note reflects work in progress, but that "the substantive questions raised need answering, especially given the seriousness of the political crisis that is now developing." They welcome comments and corrections.
Although I'm recommending Nafeez Ahmed's article, let me just add a few thoughts on this Skripal affair, because it's been bothering me (as, I suspect, it has you). What would Putin have had to gain from this? It's been suggested that the attack was some kind of warning to other would-be traitors. But if you work for intelligence agencies surely you don't need such a warning. You know the score already: You sell secrets, you may well end up.
“We did not reject our past. We said honestly: ‘The history of the Lubyanka in the twentieth century is our history…’ - Nikolai Patrushev, director of the FSB, Excerpt from an interview in Komsomolskaia Pravda, December 20, 2000.