Archives For Propaganda

The BBC have replied to HRI’s initial complaint about their “Idlib double Tap Air Strike Russia says never happened” report, failing to apologise or issue a retraction whilst strengthening the case they have used faulty OSINT and deliberate video fakery to make the case that Russia was responsible for an alleged double- tap air strike in Maarat al Numan on 22 July 2019.

In response to HRI pointing out that they have used the same footage to make two different narratives (firstly that the White Helmets were arriving at the scene and secondly that a sun dial calculation immediately followed the alleged second strike.) the BBC have claimed that the footage was taken by an eyewitness called “Mohammed Sharawy”:

“We asked this eyewitness to send us his complete footage that day and we are able to follow his journey and match it to map and satellite imagery of the town. It is clear that he was very close to the attack and approached the back of the block that was destroyed. He hid in a building when the second strike took place alongside a White Helmets team and then ran and followed them into their ambulance which drove around the corner to the other side of the building where there was greater damage.  We did not show this ambulance footage for taste/decency reasons as it contained images of dead bodies and body parts.”

So, the BBC’s new narrative is that after running from his house in his pajamas, Sharawy hid in a house coincidentally with the White Helmets from where the second strike was filmed, before asking the White Helmets if he could take a lift to the scene of the bombing in the ambulance. They allowed him to do so despite the ambulance already containing body parts and bodies from the first strike. The ambulance, with a Mohammed and bodies on board, headed for the bomb location with its windscreen wipers on despite it being a completely dry day on 22 July.

This unlikely narrative poses a number of questions, not least why the BBC maintains Sharawy is independent of the White Helmets and why there is no footage of a cameraman wearing pajamas at the scene, but lets move on to a couple of points before getting to the main point of this article:

  1. The BBC fails to apologise or issue a correction for the obvious mistake in its geolocation of Sharawy’s initial footage.

One of the major flaws in the BBC report is the erroneous geolocation of Sharawy’s shots allegedly after the first strike.

In their response to HRI’s complaint, the BBC gloss over this, despite the fact it means there are major doubts over the verification measures over other shots in the report (in particular those supposedly showing the second strike).

Just to lay out the BBC’s error so it is crystal clear:

The BBC geolocate Sharawy’s footage at 02.29 (English version) here:

The footage which they now claim was taken by Sharawy after jumping out of the ambulance they geolocate here:

As we can see the BBC geolocations are in the same place, but the actual street scenes are radically different (from street shown at 02.29) as we can see from the continuation of the shot at 00:08:

So the BBC now tacitly admit their mistake saying, Sharawy approached the back of the block that was destroyed.”

The BBC also claim:

“We forensically analyse footage using a variety of techniques, including video verification, posting information and usually interviews with the people posting content.  We compare footage posted by different people claiming to show same incident with satellite imagery and with any other stills in the public domain. We use mapping techniques and identify individual identifiable buildings, or distinctive parts of buildings (such as doors or windows) in order to match the location where something was filmed with previously existing material in the area or otherwise. Using this process we are able to determine with a significant degree of accuracy the location of an incident.”

However, they have failed to correct their report, failed to explicitly admit to their mistake, failed to provide any geolocation evidence for the “back of the block” claim and failed to explain why they made the mistake after all the verification methods they claim to have in place.

This leads to the second point:

  • The BBC have shown no evidence as to the location from which the shots of the alleged second strike were taken.

Having failed to correctly verify Sharawy’s initial location we have no evidence the BBC has correctly verified the location of the shots showing the alleged second strike, They have provided no evidence they have even geolocated these shots. So how do we know this footage was not taken at a different place or a different time? – A strange omission as it should be easy enough for the BBC to prove the location.

So BBC Arabic – Let’s see the locations of the “distinctive parts of buildings (such as doors or windows)” which are shown in the shots of the alleged second strike:

If we freeze frame the second strike shots we can see that what first appears to be continuous footage includes a number of cuts and it is has to be doubted that the individual shots which are spliced together were taken at the same place and time.

Here are some freeze frames from the BBC report to illustrate the point (which may also be useful in geolocating the actual camera locations):

Shot within sky sequence showing top of building:

Apparently behind glass. Beginning of bomb noise (Bomb noise and fast movement of the camera are classic tricks used to disguise a cut):

End of bomb noise, behind window frame, no points of similarity in this frame (BBC Russian version):

How the BBC used fakery to persuade its audience of a Russian double tap.

It’s a tactic previously used by insurgent propagandists to splice two pieces of footage together in order to fake evidence of, for instance, a helicopter bomb drop. The audio sound tracks may be altered to try and deflect the viewers’ attention away from the cut.

So, have the BBC fallen for a similar technique, or even used it themselves?

Following the shots showing an alleged second strike, the camera person runs from the location and the narrator says:

“In the footage filmed by Mohammed immediately after the second hit, we can see the shadow cast by a rescuer, which we use as a sundial. 30 minutes after the reported time of the first strike – the “double tap”.”

The narrative is clearly at odds with the explanation the BBC have now given.

The BBC are now claiming the footage used for the sun dial to establish the time of the second strike was filmed after Mohammed asked the White Helmets for permission to ride in the ambulance with the body parts, after he and the White Helmets got into the ambulance and after the ambulance had driven to the location of the bombing at the front of the building from the location of the filming of the second strike.

So not “immediately” as the BBC claim in their report.

In what appears to be a deliberate technique to hide the relevant cut, the audio on the shot of people running out of the building after the second strike is synchronised with the audio of the White Helmet running leading up to the sun dial frame. This is done by having the sound of radio communication on both shots (around 03:27).

The BBC now implicitly admit, through their claim Mohammed traveled on the White Helmet’s ambulance, that the two shots they spliced together link two pieces of action separated by some time.

The exact same footage of the White Helmet running, used at the beginning of the BBC report (at 00:08), has no such radio communication noise on the audio track, but rather than sound of an ambulance.

Viewers are thus provided with audio clues which deceive them into perceiving that the action is continuous between the video of the second strike and the shot of the White Helmet whose shadow is used as a sun dial.

Viewers are indeed prompted to pay particular attention to the audio track, by the device of showing a graphic of the audio whilst Mohammed is talking.

The deception is achieved through a combination of the audio and video tracks and also because the narrator falsely (as we now know from the BBC’s own admission) claims that:

“In the footage filmed by Mohammed immediately after the second hit, we can see the shadow cast by a rescuer, which we use as a sundial. 30 minutes after the reported time of the first strike – the “double tap”.”

Conclusion

The BBC fail to admit the obvious flaws in their anti-Russia hit piece.

Their new narrative (in response to HRI’s complaint) is at odds with the narrative in their report.

The BBC have manipulated the video, audio and narrative to create a false impression of continuity between the supposed second air strike and the point at which they use the shadow of the White Helmet as a sun dial – which is their primary evidence of a second strike.

So what does the “Idlib double Tap Air Strike Russia says never happened” represent? It has nothing at all to do with journalism, educating or entertaining the public and everything to do with propaganda.

There is no consideration of alternative explanations of the incident including fakery and use of car bombs or VBIEDs.

The targets of the propaganda are not just the public, but also US and UK politicians and the timing can be seen in the light of the changing dynamic on the ground in Syria, which has been reflected in the USA having recently turned against members of the insurgent camp, no doubt much to the dismay of the regime change lobby.

The legal situation with such a broadcast, which has a propaganda intention rather than an intention to educate or entertain, is set out in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

With Al Qaeda on the back foot in Idlib, certain Western journalists haven’t lost their will to use the situation in the province for a bit of Russia bashing and many seem unconcerned that their efforts are ill-thought out and ridiculous as we see in this recent instance.

A few chosen journos (such as Alex Crawford) venture into the Al Qaeda-controlled area, guided by the likes of Hadi Abdallah and given (relatively) safe passage on the tacit understanding they will support the Jihadi propaganda effort. Now hacks at BBC Arabic have found a new angle, interspersing footage from insurgent propagandists such as the UK government funded White Helmets with some anti-Russian rhetoric which they no doubt feel will benefit their future careers.

The latest from the UK state-funded propaganda outfit is a 9:18 piece purporting to prove a Russian double tap strike on Maarat al Numan, a town which stands directly in the path of any attempts to rid Idlib of its foreign-funded al Qaeda problem. A double-tap strike is a technique employed, according to Wikipedia, by Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen and by the United States in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, so there may be an element of projection on the part of the BBC journos – perhaps aware, somewhere in the back of their minds, that the state for whose propaganda arm they work is instrumental in the ongoing destruction of Yemen.

Anyhow, a certain SM Nader, Producer, Investigations Unit, Digital Documentaries seems to be claiming the credit for the OSINT behind the “Idlib ‘double tap’ air strike Russia says never was” mini-doc.

So there are a number of problems with Nadar’s mini-doc. The first that sprang to view was that the proof of a double-tap seems to lie in the position of a shadow proving there was a second strike 30 minutes after the first. This conflicts with the 25 page report of the SN4HR group which said the second strike was just 5 minutes after the first.

It is difficult to see how such a large discrepancy can be explained but Nader appeared unconcerned saying “eyewitnesses” had said 15-20 minutes – which appears to do little to settle the issue.

The next problem lay in the identification of the target which the BBC team give as a vegetable market. The Russians claimed the Maarat al Numan vegetable market was undamaged but the BBC scoffed at this saying it was a different market – and they have a picture of a falafel stall next to a destroyed building to prove it.

Nadar had no reply when it was pointed out to him that Obada Zekra, the ubiquitous Director of the White Helmets for Maarat al Numan had said the attack took place at the end of the street leading to the vegetable market near a motorcycle repair shop.

Analysis of the BBC video threw up another couple of problems. The first is that the graphic showing where star witness Mohammed al-Sharawy was supposedly initially filming from in his pajamas appears to be in the wrong street.

But, more seriously for the credibility of the BBC’s work (if anyone still takes their work seriously) – and the main point of this article – is that there is an amazing coincidence of images from near the beginning and a few minutes into the mini-doc.

At 00.08 we see film from a cameraman exiting a White Helmet vehicle dashing to the scene. Still:

At 03.28 we are told we are seeing footage filmed by star witness Mohammed al-Sharawy as he runs from cover immediately after the 2nd hit. Still:

The problem being the cameraman is clearly one and the same – knocking the BBC narrative for six.

The BBC film concerned:

So, what we have is a very sloppy BBC attempt to blame the Russians for a war crime (of using the US and Saudi double-tap technique). The “evidence” is based on very poorly understood video, most likely provided to them by Al Qaeda-linked propagandists and their attempted use of OSINT – a shadow to ascertain the time of a purported second strike – actually throws even more doubt on the veracity of their whole narrative.

For details of the BBC response and further analysis see this later post

In the days since the downing of MH17 a lot of people have jumped to conclusions prematurely. Evidence provided by the Ukrainian Security Service, combined with the results of social media investigations, suggests the Ukrainian authorities have been less than honest in key disclosures of information to date. Continue Reading…

The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory. Continue Reading…

Evidence shows that photographic evidence is being misused to “prove” the presence of Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine. It is clear that corporate media are complicit, either through stupidity or design, in this attempt to mould perceptions of the situation in post-coup Ukraine. Continue Reading…

The text of the letter from the White House to John McCain and Carl Lewin, reproduced below, makes it clear that the Obama Administration has, despite media reports, not been able to confirm the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Continue Reading…

Abby Martin of RT is doing some good work exposing mainstream media war propaganda. The video below is from her latest programme. Continue Reading…

Seasons greetings to our readers! Our festivities are on temporary hold as we look at the Halfaya bakery massacre.

The main elements of the Halfaya bakery massacre reported by news agency Reuters, CNN, Al Arabiya and other media channels, are that Syrian MIG jets bombed a bakery in Halfaya killing more than a hundred (CNN) and at least 300 (Al Arabiya) people. Continue Reading…

A major thread running through the story of the Libyan conflict has been the information war – propaganda spread by intelligence agencies, military, media and political groups designed to encourage hatred, conflict, war, foreign intervention, death and destruction.

One sad aspect of the propaganda war has been the role played by Amnesty International and – as we will see -the heavily compromised Human Rights Watch (HRW), organisations which used to be highly regarded (and still employ some decent, well-intentioned and brave individuals.)

The daily output of propaganda is difficult to keep up with, let alone dispel. With fabricated stories describing camel bones as mass graves containing 1270 bodies, Moussa Ibrahim reportedly being found in women’s clothing and viagra apparently being distributed as a weapon of mass destruction in order to “rape children as young as EIGHT” the propaganda is beyond parody.

Human Rights Watch – infiltrated

HRW has always been a somewhat dodgy organisation, largely funded by billionaires such as George Soros and the Rausing family whose fortune comes from Tetra Paks, exploiting cheap labor in China and (allegedly) tax dodging on an industrial scale. According to its 2010 financial statements, HRW’s annual spend on fundraising was $8,042,326 and $2,344,370 on management and general costs.

Human Rights Watch is very close to the US foreign policy establishment. Cables recently released by Wikileaks show HRW workers regularly meet with US officials abroad and as 08BANGKOK1522 makes crystal clear, HRW has been infiltrated by US government assets (our emphasis and italics):

2. (C) A long-time and trusted Embassy contact based in Thailand with HRW (STRICTLY PROTECT) revealed to us that the May 14 press release \”Burma: Donor States Must Monitor Aid\”generated a certain amount of internal dissent during its drafting. 

Of particular concern to HRW staff on the ground was reference to a report that the Burmese military appropriated international relief supplies.  The final version released to the media stated \”HRW confirmed an Associated Press (AP) report in which high-protein biscuits supplied by the international community had been seized by the military, and that low-quality, locally produced substitutes were instead delivered to communities in need.\”

3. (C) According to our contact, HRW received the story from a trusted source in Rangoon on May 12.  This Rangoon source stated that a Burmese Ministry official (NFI) had claimed that the Burmese military confiscated a shipment of high-protein biscuits and transferred them to a military warehouse. The Ministry official adamantly believed that the biscuits were replaced with an inferior version before distribution to cyclone victims, though he provided no verification of this claim. The Rangoon source had no first-hand knowledge of the action by the Burmese military and had not been able to follow-up with the Ministry official as to the current whereabouts of the alleged biscuits. HRW Thailand shared this story with their headquarters in New York, but couched it as for internal consumption only.

The Zainab al Hosni affair

The emasculation of Amnesty International is perhaps even more disappointing and it is a major victory for Admiral Stavridis’ information warriors to have neutered this once radical organization. Fresh evidence that Amnesty has been hijacked to a pro-NATO intervention agenda has been revealed by Syrian State TV and Russia Today.

On 23 September (whilst ignoring the genocide of the Tawergha , the NATO bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Libya) Amnesty issued this report about Zainab al Hosni of Homs:

Fresh evidence of the extreme brutality being meted out to Syrian protesters and their families has been revealed today by Amnesty International.

The mutilated body of 18-year-old Zainab al-Hosni of Homs, the first woman known to have died in custody during Syria’s recent unrest, was discovered by her family in horrific circumstances on 13 September.

The family was visiting a morgue to identify the body of Zainab’s activist brother Mohammad, who was also arrested and apparently tortured and killed in detention. Zainab had been decapitated, her arms cut off, and skin removed.

“If it is confirmed that Zainab was in custody when she died, this would be one of the most disturbing cases of a death in detention we have seen so far,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“We have documented other cases of protesters whose bodies were returned to their families in a mutilated state during recent months, but this is particularly shocking.”

The killings of Zainab and Mohammad bring Amnesty International’s records of reported deaths in custody to 103 cases since mass protests in Syria began in March this year.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, CNN, Al Jazeera and most other media outlets used the case of Zainab in order to try to justify the sanctions against Syria (see Infanticide masquerading as policy) and intervention in Syrian affairs by the thoroughly discredited International Criminal Court and by the UN Security Council.

In a statement guaranteed to fan the flames in Syria, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork pronounced:

“Syrian security forces either killed and mutilated Zaynab al-Hosni or are turning a blind eye to gangs committing gruesome murders against anti-government activists and their families.

In either case, the government of Bashar al-Assad is perpetuating a climate of terror in Syria and fanning the flames of sectarian mistrust.”

Now, embarrassingly for all concerned, Zainab has turned up alive and well (though complaining about having had to run away from home due to being abused by her brothers) on Syria TV:

An Amnesty International spokesperson told the BBC:

We will endeavor to be a little more cautious and phrase things a bit more nuanced.

Update: Amnesty Internatioanl and Human Rights Watch have issued a joint-statement  which seeks to explain their position on Zainab al-Hosni case and in which they

“regret any inaccuracy in the misidentification of the body as that of Zaynab al-Hosni.”

As is now well documented, the rebellion in Libya began with violent attacks on police stations, such as this one in Al-Bayda where people locked inside were reportedly burnt to death:

An intensive propaganda campaign systematically distorted the facts on the ground, including in particular allegations that the Libyan airforce was bombing peaceful protestors and that Libyan soldiers were being massacred for not shooting on unarmed protestors (since proven to have been a false flag operation). This propaganada allowed a mobilisation of the international community and the passing of UN Resolution 1973 which imposed the No-Fly Zone.

It is UN Resolution 1973 which NATO argues provides the legal basis for the coalition operation in Libya as NATO makes clear in their Factsheet on Operation Unified Protector:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 mandates “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack. In line with this authorisation, NATO conducts reconnaissance, surveillance and information-gathering operations to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians and civilian-populated areas.

Notwithstanding this NATO supported the rebels as they escalated the level of violence directed against those who opposed them, civilians and guest workers with attacks using Grad rockets, artillery, tanks and mortars – in fact any weapons that could be looted from arms dumps or supplied by NATO, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Here is an early example from Misrata of rebel forces nonchantly firing mortars, in between drinking cups of tea:

With the brutal assault on Sirte, which is facing a bombardment from the air, surpassing Guernica, the indiscriminate assaults on civilian areas are now being taken to a higher level:

As we have seen, NATO’s official justification for their operations includes a requirement “to identify those forces which present a threat to civilians or civilian-populated areas.”

Ralph Jodice

Commander of Allied Air Command Izmir, Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II (U.S. Air Force)

Furthermore the justification includes this:
Targeting depends on the decisions of operational commanders. Targets struck to date have included tanks, armoured personnel carriers, air-defence systems and artillery around and approaching key civilian areas including Misrata, Ajdabiyah and Zintan. [My emphasis]

Yet clearly NATO is supporting the rebel use of tanks and artillery around and approaching the key civilian area of Sirte; indeed NATO and its allies are almost certainly supplying the ammunition for these big guns.

Many journalists are having trouble processing this information, let alone communicating it to their readership, as it does not fit in with the overriding paradigm of an operation “intended to protect civilians.”

It remains to be seen, which journalists have the intelligence to realise that the old paradigm is dead and the courage to communicate this fact to their readers. A new paradigm is required, a new framework to understand the NATO war on Libya, one which recognises that the mantra of “responsibity to protect civilians” which NATO repeats at every press conference and in every press release is nothing more than:

1) A propaganda device, aimed at the fooling the public into supporting a war of aggression.

2) A legal device whereby the NATO command seeks to escape responsibility for war crimes.