Irrefutable evidence of a stunning bit of fakery by the BBC:
In this version the medic being interviewed says about the 2 minute mark:
“..It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here, erm we’ve had a massive influx of
what looks like serious burns, er seems like it must be some sort of chemical
weapon, I’m not really sure..”
In this version she says – it is at about 2 mins 20 seconds in this edit:
“..It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here, erm we’ve had a massive influx of
what looks like serious burns, er seems like it must be some sort of, I’m not
really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that..”
The disturbing thing is the footage of the doctor talking is precisely the same each time. It is edited so as to give the impression the medic is talking in real time in her natural voice – there are none of the accepted devices used to indicate a voiceover translation. But it must be true that in at least one, and possibly both, the clips she is not talking in real time in her own voice. It is very hard to judge as her mouth and lips are fully covered throughout. Perhaps neither of the above is what she actually said.
Terrible things are happening all the time in Syria’s civil war, between Assad’s disparate forces and still more disparate opposition forces, and innocent people are suffering. There are dreadful crimes against civilians on all sides. I have no desire at all to downplay or mitigate that. But once you realise the indisputable fact of the fake interview the BBC has put out, some of the images in this video begin to be less than convincing on close inspection too.
@ Fedup
well it wouldn’t take much to pierce you would it you pompous windbag. Just fuck off for once, there’s a good chap.
Here comes the cavalry, who is it? Villagekrishna? TechC the den Mother? This is the state of affairs, to put up with these fuckwits in the name of “liberalism”!
Pub closing time again, Fedup?
Jay –
you bring up a great point –
“I also noticed later in the “napalm” video, some of the burnt(?) survivors appear to be motionless until they are somehow made aware of “Roll ‘em, Action!”, they then start to move and moan”
watch approx 3 mins in…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594
completely fake. so Panorama!
This is what is called editing. Both takes are largely constructed from the same material assembled differently. While it might have editorial spin, this is not fake. If you’ve ever worked in post-production, the techniques applied here are recognizable and common. The reported might demonstrate a bias but it hardly qualifies as a conspiracy.
The last recall I have of Hand in Hand is a positive mention in a Lords debate by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, an MI6 veteran and foreign policy adviser to the late John Smith. They were mates from their student days when Meta Ramsay, as she then was, was up to fun and games in the Cold War politics of the NUS.
Smith, it might be remembered, was on the steering group of Bilderberg. His widow is part of the Hayklut network of ex-MI6 bods.
Fedup: “Macky how do you like the tosser in the iridescent yellow jacket?”
Despite the similar name, just wishing to let you know that “mack” is not me ! (I wonder if it’s the same “mack” that posts on medialens ?)
Also, I’m following your debate with Jon on the previous thread, and am amazed that his position basically seems to be that the status quo (being the frequent one-sided killings & continuing inhuman oppression) is effectively better left to continue, as it has done for many blood-soaked decades now, rather than risk giving the victims the means to strike back, (nevermind defend themselves !), mostly on very speculative grounds, including that this just might even make it even worse for them !!
Interesting as of the 8th of Oct both links to the video do not work!
doesnt BBC stand for big black cock?
well thats what i thought it meant after hours of watching some great sensual videos!
Macky @ 11:57
I think Jon believes, as do I, that the Palestinians should employ ‘Non-violent, non-cooperation’ rather than their usual methods. Those have not worked primarily, because world opinion has not been sympathetic. Ghandi/MLK tactics should be tried. Can they experience more casualties than they already have?
“Interesting as of the 8th of Oct both links to the video do not work! ”
Still working for me.
First they lied to the people when the Muslims started a civil war in Yugoslavia.
Then they lied about Iraq.
Then they lied about Iraq, again.
Then they lied about Afghanistan
After, they lied about Libya et al.
Now they lie about Syria before they set upon Iran.
Fooled the sheep once, twice, three, four, five and later, six times! And still they know everyone is a fool.
Not all of us were naive fools from the get-go. Not like some here tainting the debate.
Who was the fool wearing the iridescent yellow jacket in a war zone full of murderous terrorists brought in from all corners of the Arab World and launching badly made chemical bombs at innocent people? Those actors were pants! Seen more realism in Bollywood.
Ben
Em…have to disagree there…
the Mavi mamara was a peacful venture…and some of those humanitarians got shot in the back of the Head…
Some Great post on this one
Spammer @ 4;49 pm
Vib : 5;09 pm
Great work thanks for that, and the Audio.
PaRadox @ 8;57 pm
Your post alone should have shut the childish rants of Villager on this thread…so telling how they chose to ignore when it suits…
and so we get the same old same old picking on Mary
Sckool Playground nastiness
@Ben, both Ghandi & MLK would have been killed via the ubiquitous Israeli “targeted assassinations”, either that or long been disappeared into an Israeli dungeon; the same twin fates that has greeted all prospectively effective Palestinian leaders, regardless whetever they called for non-violence or not.
Because this non-violent argument stills keeps getting made, even after it has demonstratively proven ineffective countless times, (for example just witness the high profile IDF murders of foreign activists, killed whilst actually engaging in non-violent resistance), Norman Finkelstein decided to study Ghandi’s use of, & actual meaning of “non-violence” as a tactic to occupation; this resulted in a book called “What Gandhi Says”, and is summarized in this interview here;
http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/human-rights/2147-interview-norman-finkelstein-on-is-new-book-what-gandhi-says
Exactly Andyj
It makes one wonder if the footage was even filmed in Syria…
recollections of the so called anti Ghadafi images taken in Pakistan – and used by the msm as being photos of green square
“The disturbing thing is the footage of the doctor talking is precisely the same each time”
I feel like I’m on Jeremy Beadle here or something. Clearly the footage is NOT exactly the same each time. On the first report, the guy in the white jacket walks up behind her as she speaks. On the second report it cuts to her when the guy behind is already there. Clearly it’s her remarks from a moment later than the first edit.
I’m really puzzled. Why on earth would you try to spread black propaganda about a horrific crime against humanity? How does that benefit the anti-war movement? What does that do for your credibility? How does it effect the reputation of social media campaigning in general?
I’d like to see technically qualified comment on Sean Quay’s comment of 7 Oct at 11.39 pm (ie that such discrepancies could well arise from “normal” editing practices). Peter Martello at 12.10 am 8 Oct says that the links to “both videos” are not working. That was not true for me when I successfully accessed the two links in Craig’s original blog a few minutes ago.
I suspect there’s a lot more routine fakery around than we are usually aware of [think of the wrinkle and “fat” reduction techniques used in many celebrity photos]. In this case, I’d like to know from the BBC if the doctor was actually filmed in situ at the scene in Syria or in a studio (whether in London or Syria); and whether the differences were two takes or “editorial amendments”. It’s worth asking these questions, because even if one gets a lying or temporising reply, that will be read by some BBC staff who will know the truth. It’s also important for the BBC to know that these questions matter to its licence-payers.
It’s also possible that the BBC will reply truthfully.
The facts remain. MI6 and the CIA fomented the uprising in Syria. We, not Syrians are to blame for the 100 000 dead.
Link text
Ryan’s right! No more unsubstantiated smears! We have to get to the bottom of this! Have the ICC investigate the UK’s government’s prima facie war propaganda in breach of ICCPR Article 20 in the context of UK government aggression against Syria, specifically, substantial involvement in sending on behalf of a State armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed in Article 8 bis.
Let’s allow the presumption of innocence to the UK government officials involved, and let Tony Hall have his day in court in the Hague. It’s only fair to let him clear his name.
Well you don’t see her mouth in either video. It might be a mistake or a cover up. But then why would they leave both videos online? Makes no sense.
to anyone trying to disprove the excerpt in question is not the same, please explain how the bespectacled, fluro-top guy walks up to Rola’s righthand side precisely while she is reciting the contradictory claims.
Saudi Arabia’s Al-Arabiya, with plenty of BBC, & even Bloomberg input, lays out the “planned” balkanisation of Yemen, Libya, Iraq, Syria & Levant:
7 Oct: AlArabiya: Sharif Nashashibi: Redrawing the map of the Arab world
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/10/07/Redrawing-the-map-of-the-Arab-world.html
What did you people expected from the BBC? (British Bullshit Corporation. Or is it British Buggering Children?)
“It might be a mistake or a cover up. But then why would they leave both videos online?”
That’s the question, isn’t it. If one of the videos was ‘doctored’ as the conspiracy boys would have it, why was the other one left for all to see – and if this was a ‘mistake’ by the conspirators, how come it’s still there for the viewing, you’d have thought it would have been removed rather quickly surely?
Many people are ‘getting it’ judging from some of the comments here, those 66 comments below the Live Leak link (thanks Mack) and on Medialens.
Incidentally, a mouthpiece from the Conservative Friends of Israel has been shunted out of the FCO, to be replaced by an ex Army officer and a frequent visitor to various parts of the Middle East, courtesy of the Conservative Middle East Council. Anyone know the exact provenance of the latter? I have seen it as an offshoot of the CFoI
Alistair Burt exits Foreign Office
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/112123/alistair-burt-exits-foreign-office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Robertson_(politician)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11190
This is all conspiracy crackpottery. Given the context (just before “I’m not sure”), what difference does it make whether the original Arabic was translated “some sort of chemical weapons” or “maybe napalm”? 🙂
You should have heard the discussion on the papers review last night on Sky News. Anna Botting, the presenter, Andrew Pierce of the Mail and Zoe Williams of the Guardian were jeering at Norman Baker and his move from Transport to the Home Office.
He was variously described as a ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘an anorak’, ‘a nerd’, ‘the worst kind of Liberal’, etc etc. They said he thinks that Dr Kelly was bumped off by Blair and co and that there was a cover up (gales of laughter there) and they expressed sympathy for Theresa May who ‘has been landed with him’. This morning on BBC Radio 4, we heard that she is ‘spitting tacks’.
On the BBC website this morning –
‘But even Lib Dems raised eyebrows at Mr Browne’s replacement at the Home Office, the former transport minster Norman Baker, the author of a book alleging a cover-up over Dr David Kelly, the government scientist whose death led to the Hutton inquiry.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24438875
A good example of the workings of the propaganda machine at work.
“to anyone trying to disprove the excerpt in question is not the same, please explain how the bespectacled, fluro-top guy walks up to Rola’s righthand side precisely while she is reciting the contradictory claims. ”
To anyone trying to prove the excerpt is the same please explain why said guy has his arms down by his side in one version and behind his back in the second.
Also why the guy in the white shirt who walks behind Dr Hallam in the second clip is invisible in the first.
This one, last night….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24406548
….amounted to an extended plea by David Aaronovitch for letting the state security apparatus do exactly what it likes.
Aaronovitch, like David Frost, has risen without trace, with few obvious qualifications, to become a pundit in the national media. He is a naked Zionist, and a supporter of the Iraq war. Of whom it has been said:
You are a columnist on the Jewish Chronicle. Not once in the years you have been writing, have you ever criticised or even analysed, the outrages that Israel commits in the name of all Jewish people. Not once have you offended your paymasters or the JC’s diminishing readership. When a controversy broke out 2 years ago over the right of the Jewish National Fund to allocate land to Jews only, David Aaronovitch remained silent, even though the JC itself staged a debate of sorts. sd
When Jewish anti-Zionists, myself included, were accused in the Jewish Chronicle of being ‘self-haters’ (22.4.09.) you thought it very amusing to pen an article alongside that stated that ‘Jews active in the movement to boycott Israel don’t hate themselves they hate their parents.’ A vacuous combination of offensiveness and childishness. Presumably if never occurred to you that those who support a Boycott of Israel do it not because they hate anyone but because they hate racism and apartheid and the massacres we have seen in Gaza recently.
Not from *rense.com. From a Jewish blogger with a conscience.
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/humiliation-of-david-aaronovitch.html
So I guess that if HM Government decided in its wisdom to use white phosphorus shells to burn dissidents out of their homes, Aaronovitch’s expertise and attitudes would be once again in demand by the BBC. He’s sound on security.
One thing occurs to me about the footage in these videos is who did the bombing. Fighter-jets patrolling the border are not necessarily from the Syrian air-force. Turkey has been known to use jets on the border (it is their border) and recently shot down a Syrian helicopter which it claimed had violated Turkish airspace.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171986#.UlO3V9KsjlM
The Israelis too have executed bombing excursions into Syria in 2012, January 2013 and most likely.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-israel-attack-syria/5342356
But the unbiased BBC is sure who the culprits are.
In the first video at about 45 seconds “his wife and family were killed by government warplanes”.
In the second video at 1 minute 15 seconds “witnesses describe seeing a fighter-jet circling round looking for somewhere to bomb”.
Speculation and implied culpability in these videos are the worst kinds of journalism. Coupled with disturbing images particularly of children they are aimed at convincing the ‘sheeple’ of a need for UK/US/French humanitarian bombing to bring an end to it – as they did in Iraq. Precisely!
It is 40 years since the start of the Arab Israeli war when Syria and Eqypt attempted to recover the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, seized by Israel in the previous war. Always war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War Massively long and in detail.
There were thousands of casualties on both sides and the oil crisis* followed.
President Sadat in power from 1970 was subsequently assassinated in 1981 and PM Rabin who replaced Golda Meir in 1974 was also assassinated in 1995.
* I think I still have petrol rationing coupons somewhere. We had the three day week and power cuts. Very concerning times I seem to remember as there was talk of nuclear retaliation by Israel in the Yom Kippur war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis