Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Lebanese journalist intependently investigates alleged Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack

After studying film and pictures of the aftermath of the Khan Sheikhoun attack, an independent Lebanese journalist claims they show the attack was faked.

Published

on

4,603 Views
This article was submitted to The Duran by its author following the author’s own independent investigation into the Khan Sheikhoun incident.  The Duran can’t confirm or corroborate the author’s claims or conclusions.  However the author has informed us that he has contacts in the area.
Independent Investigative Report of Incident in Khan Sheikhoun
This report represents the independent investigation on the chemical attack allegedly carried out by the Syrian Air Forces in Khan Sheikhoun, in Syria’s Idlib. It provided a pretext for the U.S. Navy cruise missile attack at the Al-Shayrat airbase in Homs.
Introduction
April 7, 2017, between 3.42 a.m. and 3.56 a.m., a massive missile rocket attack was carried out by U.S.S. Ross and U.S.S. Porter from the Mediterranean Sea near Crete Island.  The destroyers launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Syrian airbase Al-Shayrat in Homs province.
According to the U.S. statement that the Syrian Air Forces allegedly used this air base for carrying out an attack on Khan Sheikhoun, this has now become the official excuse for the aggression, resulting in at least 100 civilians being killed and more than 400 injured.
The town of Khan-Sheikhoun is located at about 50 kilometers to the South of Idlib province. This territory has been under the control of Jabhat al-Nusra since 2014.
Chronology

April 4, at 8 a.m., Abdullah al-Gani and Muaz al-Shami, freelance journalists who have links with radical groups located in Idlib, provided Orient News and Al-Jazeera with the video footage made by the White Helmets. The graphics show the consequences of the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun. According to Muazz al-Shami, sarin gas was used in the attack.

The White Helmets is an organization that has been repeatedly discredited. It has direct links with Jabhat al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda. The actual aim of the organization is to stage fake photos and videos in order to demonize the current Syrian government and the Syrian Army.
and the Syrian army

 At 10.00 a.m., the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces claimed that as a result of the chemical attack carried out by the Syrian government forces more than 54 civilians had been killed and at least 80 wounded. Most of the injured civilians were evacuated to the Turkish hospitals in Gaziantep.

Meantime the information about the use of chemical weapons has quickly started to spread overseas through mass media and social network.
At 09.25 a.m., Jobar News became one of the first media sources to share the information of the alleged chemical attack. The media source blamed the government forces for using sarin, and claimed that around 40 people were injured.
At 10.41 a.m., British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights spreadthe information that the Russian jets had used chemical weapons in Idlib. They also claimed that 58 people were killed.
At 11.08 a.m., Reuters posted the same information referring to the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights.
At 12.30 p.m., Al-Masdar reported that the Syrian Arab Army had destroyed the rebel’s chemical weapons depot in Khan Sheikhoun.
At 4.30 p.m., Al-Masdar News doubted the fact that sarin chemical attack was conducted. In order to prove this version, the agency presented some photos and videos with the White Helmets providing first aid to injured people without using any individual protective gear. In addition, the behavior of the White Helmets activists was too calm for such an emergency situation which also looked suspicious. It seemed that it looked like a not very well-staged performance.

Reaction of Mainstream media


The Western media sharply reacted to the alleged chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
April 4, 3.00 p.m., the French government urged an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the issue.

Later, UN Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, stated that he had already discussed this barbarous situation with Federica Mogherini. He also called on the UN Security Council to hold a session with the aim to find the guilty side.

The Foreign Ministries of Turkey, Germany, Canada, the U.S., France, the U.K. and also the NATO Secretary General strongly condemned the alleged chemical attack in Syria shortly after.
Meanwhile, Russia and China advocated an impartial and objective investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The American ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, blamed the Syrian government for the ‘chemical attack’ during the UN Security Council session.
Council Session
Debunking the Myths

What happened?
Our experts thoroughly analyzed the materials spread by the mainstream media used to justify the U.S. attack on Al-Shayrat airbase. We provide you with the arguments that there was no chemical attack. 
Arguments
First
 To accuse the Syrian Air Forces of using chemical bombs the mass media published photo below, demonstrating the fact of a chemical attack.
Fact of chemical attack
The type of ammunition presented in the photo does not apply to any airborne or chemical weapons. There are no tail fins or other identifications. Probably, this was a handcrafted mine or another kind of metal ware that didn’t belong to any weapon.

Hence the question arises: why did the government troops use handcraft chemical weapons? 
Besides, there is only one small crater that can’t be considered a consequence of an air strike.
Second
 The White Helmets activists were trying to demonstrate to us the primary symptoms of the organophosphorus poisonous substances effect, namely, miosis or corestenoma. However, this attempt was unsuccessful and we can see the opposite effect of the mydrias on the photos. Such an effect may be caused by narcotic or psychotropic drugs.

This version was confirmed by experts from the Swedish Doctors For Human Rights Organization, who pointed out that the children shown in the videos were unconscious and under the influence of psychotropic substances.
substances 1
substances 2
 Third
third
On these photos there are not any symptoms of mild and moderate degrees of severity, such as abundant salivation, lacrimation and nose discharge.
The filmmakers attempted to demonstrate nose discharges, but to such a weak degree does not have anything in common with sarin gas
Fourth
fourth
 
The video shows the White Helmets activists trying to demonstrate to us severe poisoning instead of medium and moderate poisoning, when people are able to stay in consciousness, sit independently, move and perform other actions. Besides, vomiting, urination, faecal discharge and severe convulsion poisoning are typical symptoms from severe poisoning. There are no such symptoms on the presented photos.
Fifth
Fifth
 
The vaporous sarin gas is easily absorbed by porous structures such as textile materials, wool, wood, brick and concrete. This toxic agent is also absorbed by painted surfaces and rubber products, which causes the danger to a person emerging from the contaminated environment, as well as people who can be near or contact them.

It should be mentioned, that the ‘activists’ help injured people without using such personal protective equipment as gloves and gas mask.

The presence of respirators on their faces proves the weak awareness in the sphere of military chemistry among the film-makers. The vapors of sarin gas are affective not only through the nasopharynx, but also through the mucous of eyes. Therefore, if any poisonous substance were actually used, a person without means of protection would definitely be contaminated if he or she came into contact with affected substances like cloth, wood, clothes. Instead, we see healthy, energetic and vigorous ‘rescuers’.

Moreover, the presence of a person in a gas mask who doesn’t take part in the action raises questions. He only points out the cameramen what to shoot. Who is he and why don’t other activists have such gas masks?
gas masks one
Sixth
sixth
At about 11:00 a.m., various pieces of video were published showing victims in a critical condition being taken to an unknown destination.  According to the elongated shadows, the video was made no later than 9. 30-10. 00 a.m., a few hours before the strike of the Syrian aviation.
Syrian aviation
 At 11.30 a.m.-12. 30 p.m. (judging by the almost complete absence of shadows) more video footage was filmed in the camp of the militants, located to the east of Khan-Sheikhoun, where we can see a consequence of strikes on the air base. There were no persons affected by the alleged chemical attack on the video. At the same time we can see a great number of dead bodies. But where were those who had suffered from the ‘chemical attack’?

Seventh

There were almost no women among the victims of the attack. Most of injured people were men and children, and all the women were dead. If the footage was fabricated, it can be assumed that there were no women in the pictures, because according to Muslim tradition, a man mustn’t touch women.
touch women

 The woman’s body. She is dressed, in spite of many other injured people being undressed. No one touches her.
touches her
Injured men. They are undressed, washed and turned over.

The actions of the White Helmets rescuers

We have to repeatedly point out that the White Helmets is an organization producing fake films with elements of fiction, and it has some links with terrorists.
It is a cheap falsification and there are some other facts.
some other facts
In the pictures, the actions of the ‘rescuers’ look extremely unprofessional: one of them was randomly washing the victims with water, allegedly washing away chemical substances, while others were given them artificial ventilation.

According to the video, one of the White Helmets members takes the injured child and runs with him towards the wasteland for some purpose. Also in the picture we can see how he slowed down after the scenes with his participation was taken.
was taken
was taken 2
 In addition, it is unclear, why the ‘rescuers’ are laying out the bodies of injured children and adults in front of the cameras, instead of providing them with medical assistance as soon as possible?
soon as possible
 When Did the U.S. Administration Take the Decision to Attack the
Al-Shayrat Air Base?
air base
The U.S.S. Porter had been on duty in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas since November 2016. The ship equipment can keep a lot of data on objectives to be destroyed within the area of its duty. It is also able to prepare flight missions for the Tomahawk cruise missiles directly on board.
The U.S.S. Ross has the same operational capabilities.
April 3, 2017, Ross left its permanent location in the Rota naval base, in the South of Spain, and in 72 hours accompanied by the Porter arrived at the designated missile launch area in the East of the Mediterranean Sea.
It is notable that the Ross was deployed in the mission area on April 3, 2017, before the Syrian aviation hit on the targets of terrorists in the settlement of Khan Sheikhoun.
Such a maneuver made by the U.S. ships proves the attack on the Syrian air base was a premeditated operation.

Before the alleged chemical attack the Western mass-media had been creating informational background repeatedly accusing the Syrian army of using chemical weapons against militants and civilians.  April 4, 2017, the staging of chemical attack of Syrian Air Forces against civilians in Khan Sheikhoun was conducted.

As far as the readiness for launching cruise missiles for the U.S. Navy destroyers is up to 8 hours, after conducting information campaign in Khan Sheikhoun the future of Al-Shayrat air base has already been predetermined.
Conclusion
All the facts prove that the decision to attack the Syrian military infrastructure was taken in Washington long before the fabricated events in Khan Sheikhoun. Besides, the film-shooting is a staged falsification aimed at creating an information cause for cruise missile attack and to justify the U.S. aggression against Syria.
The author is an independent Lebanese journalist who writes with a focus on Middle East issues. His articles appear in Beirut Observer.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Vladimir Putin visits Serbia, as NATO encircles the country it attacked in 1999 (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 171.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Serbia.

Putin met with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic to further develop bilateral trade and economic relations, as well as discuss pressing regional issues including the possibility of extending the Turkish Stream gas pipeline into Serbia, and the dangerous situation around Kosovo.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via RT


Russian President Vladimir Putin got a hero’s welcome in Belgrade. The one-day visit to the last holdout against NATO’s ambitions in the Balkans may have been somewhat short on substance, but was certainly loaded with symbolism.

Even before he landed, the Russian leader was given an honor guard by Serbian air force MiGs, a 2017 gift from Moscow to replace those destroyed by NATO during the 1999 air campaign that ended with the occupation of Serbia’s province of Kosovo. Russia has refused to recognize Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence, while the US and EU have insisted on it.

Upon landing, Putin began his first official trip of 2019 by paying respects to the Soviet soldiers who died liberating Belgrade from Nazi occupation in 1944. While most Serbians haven’t forgotten their historical brotherhood in arms with Russia, it did not hurt to remind the West just who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany back in World War II.

After official talks with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, Putin visited the Church of St. Sava, the grand Orthodox basilica set on the spot where the Ottoman Turks torched the remains of the first Serbian archbishop back in 1594, in an effort to maintain power.

Sava, whose brother Stefan became the “first-crowned” king of medieval Serbia, was responsible for setting up the autocephalous Serbian Orthodox Church exactly eight centuries ago this year. For all its own troubles, the Serbian Church has sided with Moscow in the current Orthodox schism over Ukraine.

Russian artisans have been working on the grand mosaic inside the basilica, and asked Putin to complete the design by placing the last three pieces, in the colors of the Russian flag.

Whether by sheer coincidence or by design, Putin also weighed in on Serbia’s culture war, giving interviews ahead of his visit to two daily newspapers that still publish in Serbian Cyrillic – while the majority of the press, whether controlled by the West or by Vucic, prefers the Latin variant imported from Croatia.

Western media usually refer to Serbia as a “Russian ally.” While this is true in a historical and cultural sense, there is no formal military alliance between Moscow and Belgrade. Serbia officially follows the policy of military neutrality, with its armed forces taking part in exercises alongside both Russian and NATO troops.

This is a major source of irritation for NATO, which seeks dominion over the entire Balkans region. Most recently, the alliance extended membership to Montenegro in 2017 without putting the question to a referendum. It is widely expected that “Northern Macedonia” would get an invitation to NATO as soon as its name change process is complete – and that was arranged by a deal both Macedonia and Greece seem to have been pressured into by Washington.

That would leave only Serbia outside the alliance – partly, anyway, since NATO has a massive military base in the disputed province of Kosovo, and basically enjoys special status in that quasi-state. Yet despite Belgrade’s repeated declarations of Serbia wanting to join the EU, Brussels and Washington have set recognition of Kosovo as the key precondition – and no Serbian leader has been able to deliver on that just yet, though Vucic has certainly tried.

Putin’s repeated condemnations of NATO’s 1999 attack, and Russian support for Serbia’s territorial integrity guaranteed by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, have made him genuinely popular among the Serbs, more so than Vucic himself. Tens of thousands of people showed up in Belgrade to greet the Russian president.

While Vucic’s critics have alleged that many of them were bused in by the government – which may well be true, complete with signs showing both Vucic and Putin – there is no denying the strong pro-Russian sentiment in Serbia, no matter how hard Integrity Initiative operatives have tried.

One of the signs spotted in Belgrade reportedly said “one of 300 million,” referring to the old Serbian joke about there being “300 million of us – and Russians.” However, it is also a send-up of the slogan used by current street protesters against Vucic. For the past six weeks, every Saturday, thousands of people have marched through Belgrade, declaring themselves “1 of 5 million” after Vucic said he wouldn’t give in to their demands even if “five million showed up.”

The opposition Democrats accuse him of corruption, nepotism, mismanagement, cronyism – all the sins they themselves have plenty of experience with during their 12-year reign following Serbia’s color revolution. Yet they’ve had to struggle for control of the marches with the nationalists, who accuse Vucic of preparing to betray Kosovo and want “him to go away, but [Democrats] not come back.”

There is plenty of genuine discontent in Serbia with Vucic, who first came to power in 2012 on a nationalist-populist platform but quickly began to rule as a pro-NATO liberal. It later emerged that western PR firms had a key role in his party’s “makeover” from Radicals to Progressives. Yet his subsequent balancing act between NATO and Russia has infuriated both the NGOs and politicians in Serbia beholden to Western interests, and US diplomats charged with keeping the Balkans conquered.

Washington is busy with its own troubles these days, so there was no official comment to Putin’s visit from the State Department – only a somewhat pitiful and tone-deaf tweet by Ambassador Kyle Scott, bemoaning the lack of punishment for $1 million in damages to the US Embassy during a 2008 protest against Kosovo “independence.” Yet as far as Western media outlets are concerned, why Moscow seems to be vastly more popular than Washington on the streets of Belgrade nonetheless remains a mystery.

By Nebojsa Malic

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Curious Bedfellows: The Neocon And Progressive Alliance To Destroy Donald Trump

The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.

Published

on

Authored by Philip Giraldi via OffGuardian.com:


The Roman poet Ovid’s masterful epic The Metamorphoses includes the memorable opening line regarding the poem’s central theme of transformation. He wrote In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas corpora, which has been translated as “Of shapes transformed to bodies strange, I purpose to entreat…”

Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel.

The neocons initially found a home with Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, but they moved on in the 1970s and 1980s to prosper under Ronald Reagan as well as under Democrat Bill Clinton. Their ability to shape policy peaked under George W. Bush, when they virtually ran the Pentagon and were heavily represented in both the national security apparatus and in the White House. They became adept at selling their mantra of “strong national defense” to whomever was buying, including to President Obama, even while simultaneously complaining about his administration’s “weakness.”

The neoconservatives lined up behind Hillary Clinton in 2016, appalled by Donald Trump’s condemnation of their centerpiece war in Iraq and even more so by his pledge to end the wars in Asia and nation-building projects while also improving relations with the Russians. They worked actively against the Republican candidate both before he was nominated and elected and did everything they could to stop him, including libeling him as a Russian agent.

When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawk Richard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran.

Meanwhile, the neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint. Glenn Greenwald reports that, based on polling of party supporters, the Democrats have gone full-Hillary and are now by far more hawkish than the Republicans, unwilling to leave either Syria or Afghanistan.

The neocon survival and rejuvenation is particularly astonishing in that they have been wrong about virtually everything, most notably the catastrophic Iraq War. They have never been held accountable for anything, though one should note that accountability is not a prominent American trait, at least since Vietnam. What is important is that neocon views have been perceived by the media and punditry as being part of the Establishment consensus, which provides them with access to programming all across the political spectrum. That is why neocon standard-bearers like Bill Kristol and Max Boot have been able to move effortlessly from Fox News to MSNBC where they are fêted by the likes of Rachel Maddow. They applauded the Iraq War when the Establishment was firmly behind it and are now trying to destroy Donald Trump’s presidency because America’s elite is behind that effort.

Indeed, the largely successful swing by the neocons from right to left has in some ways become more surreal, as an increasing number of progressive spokesmen and institutions have lined up behind their perpetual warfare banner. The ease with which the transformation took place reveals, interestingly, that the neocons have no real political constituency apart from voters who feel threatened and respond by supporting perpetual war, but they do share many common interests with the so-called liberal interventionists. Neocons see a global crisis for the United States defined in terms of power while the liberals see the struggle as a moral imperative, but the end result is the same: intervention by the United States. This fusion is clearly visible in Washington, where the Clintons’ Center for American Progress (CAP) is now working on position papers with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One of the most active groups attacking President Trump is “Republicans for the Rule of Law,” founded by Bill Kristol in January 2018, as a component of Defending Democracy Together(DDT), a 501(c)4 lobbying group that also incorporates projects called The Russia Tweets and Republicans Against Putin. Republicans Against Putin promotes the view that President Trump is not “stand[ing] up to [Vladimir] Putin” and calls for more aggressive investigation of the Russian role in the 2016 election.

DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causesin the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.

Last week, the Omidyar-Kristol connection may have deepened with an announcement regarding the launch of the launch of a new webzine The Bulwark, which would clearly be at least somewhat intended to take the place of the recently deceased Weekly Standard. It is promoting itself as the center of the “Never Trump Resistance” and it is being assumed that at least some of the Omidyar money is behind it.

Iranian-born Omidyar’s relationship with Kristol is clearly based on the hatred that the two share regarding Donald Trump.

Omidyar has stated that Trump is a “dangerous authoritarian demagogue… endorsing Donald Trump immediately disqualifies you from any position of public trust.”

He has tweeted that Trump suffers from “failing mental capacity” and is both “corrupt and incapacitated.”

Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel. Kristol hates Trump because he threatens the war agenda while Omidyar despises the president for traditional progressive reasons. That hatred is the tie that binds and it is why Bill Kristol, a man possessing no character and values whatsoever, is willing to take Pierre Omidyar’s money while Pierre is quite happy to provide it to destroy a common enemy, the President of the United States of America.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending