Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

LEAKED: The 4 ridiculous slides UK used to “convince” US that Russia was “guilty” of Novichok poisoning

Here are the slides used by UK government to make the case that Russia poisoned Sergei Skripal.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The UK Novichok poisoning hoax continues to unravel, even as European puppet states expel Russian diplomats, so as to provide some cover and legitimacy to the UK government’s false flag nerve agent attack.

Russia’s Kommersant newspaper has obtained the document used by the British government to convince EU and NATO allies to expel Russian diplomats over the Skripal poisoning hoax.

The slideshow PPT presentation called, the “Salisbury Incident” summarizes the UK’s version of events.

The Salisbury Incident PowerPoint presentation was reportedly sent out to 80 top-level foreign embassy officials in Moscow, including US Ambassador Jon Huntsman, who told Kommersant that he found Britain’s evidence “very convincing.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the slideshow a “massive manipulation of world public opinion” on the basis of “6 pictures.”

The document is far from “convincing”, and resembles something that a 12 year old science student would put together, summarizing the Theresa May government’s propaganda over the last two weeks, into powerpoint (bullet point) format.

Anyone that says these four slides are “convincing” is a complete moron. 

Sputnik News examines the facts behind the UK slide show PPT presentation.

We encourage our readers to take a look at these four slides and judge for yourselves as to how “convincing” the case is that Russia is behind the Novichok poisoning.

Faulty Timelines

The slideshow, which London has since confirmed is authentic, starts with a timeline, from Sergei and Yulia Skripal’s poisoning in Salisbury on March 4, to Prime Minister May’s declaration on March 12 that the substance used was the ‘Russian’ Novichok nerve agent and demand that Moscow provide an explanation.

Slide 1 of the Salisbury Incident presentation:

But a British High Court investigation into the incident was not so categorical, concluding Thursday that new blood samples needed to be taken from the Skripals to be sent for analysis by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Court evidence from the Porton Down chemical weapons facility, cited by May in her attack on Russia, showed that scientists were not absolutely certain that the chemical the Skripals were exposed to was indeed Novichok. Nor could they rule out that the ex-spy and his daughter were poisoned by a “closely related agent.”

Court evidence aside, the PowerPoint presentation itself points out that Prime Minister May wrote to the OPCW asking for assistance on March 14, two days AFTER accusing Russia. The same day, London announced its ‘response’ to the poisoning, including the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats, a break in high-level diplomatic contacts, and a ministerial and royal family boycott of the upcoming World Cup.

Finally, the slideshow confirms that the OPCW investigative team arrived in the UK a full week after May gave Moscow its 24-hour ‘ultimatum’ to Russia. On Tuesday, the organization confirmed that it has finished collecting samples from the scene of the crime, but stressed that its analysis would only be completed in two to three weeks’ time.

Contentious Claims

Slide 2 of the presentation, titled ‘A New Phase of Russia Aggression’, repeats London’s claim (debunked above) about Novichok being “positively identified by experts” at Porton Down. It goes on to say that Novichok is “developed only by Russia,” again, not true. Not only has the New York Times reported that the US has had access to the chemical since the late 1990s; on Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry said it had evidence to show that A-234, the agent believed to have been used to posion Skripal, has also been created by the US. Russia itself stopped all research and development on the weapon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and destroyed its stockpiles of the deadly agent.

Slide 2 of the Salisbury Incident presentation, titled ‘A New Phase of Russia Aggression’:

Ignoring these facts, the document goes on about the Skripal case being the “first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War,” and concludes that Russia is “without doubt…responsible” for the crime. “There is no plausible alternative explanation,” it insists.

In other words, instead of offering evidence, waiting for the conclusion of an in-depth investigation, or taking up Russia’s proposal to conduct a full-scale joint investigation into the crime, London simply blames Russia. To Moscow’s consternation, the British government has even rejected Russia’s requests to provide it with investigative materials into the Skripal case, even though the attack also targeted Yulia Skripal, a Russian citizen.

Slide 3 summarizes the consequences of the poisoning attack, and offers a graphic showing what nerve agents do to the body; again, no evidence to suggest Russian involvement is offered.

Slide 3 of the Salisbury Incident presentation:

Blame It on the Bogeyman

Slide 4 of the government slideshow is the most audacious, adding eleven other egregious claims about “malign Russian activity” across the globe, without any evidence to back them up. Debunking these claims isn’t hard:

Slide 4 of the Salisbury Incident presentation, accusing Russia of a slew of crimes going back over a decade:

· The claim that Russia was behind the 2006 assassination of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko has been contested not only by the Russian government, but by Litvinenko’s own father, who believes his son was killed by Alex Goldfarb, chairman of Boris Berezovsky’s Civil Liberties Fund.

· The claim about a Russian “invasion of Georgia” in 2008 is equally absurd. Not only did Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili start the conflict by using artillery against his own people, but the Russian response was limited to protecting the Abkhazian and Ossetian minorities and recognizing these regions’ independence, and didn’t include marching to Georgia and toppling the Saakashvili government (which collapsed on its own in 2013, after which Saakashvili fled the country over embezzlement charges).

· The assertion that Russia ‘occupied’ Crimea and ‘destabilized’ Ukraine in February 2014 is not only factually wrong (Crimea broke off from Ukraine in March 2014), but ignores that Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia after the Maidan coup in Kiev in a referendum organized by Crimean authorities. As for the ‘destabilization of Ukraine’ claim, it would probably be more appropriate to consider Kiev’s actions in the aftermath of the coup, including its decision to send troops into the Donbass to attack independence supporters, and its continuing rejection of constitutionally-guaranteed autonomy for its eastern regions. As for Russia, it is a guarantor, not a participant, in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

· The claim that Russia was responsible for the July 2014 downing of Flight MH-17 ignores Russian investigators’ conclusion that the Boeing was shot down from territory controlled by the Ukrainian military.

· As for the slideshow’s claim about Russian meddling in the US presidential election in 2016, it would be interesting to hear President Trump’s take on the allegation, which implies that he owes his victory to Russian interference. Furthermore, a recently concluded comprehensive report by Congressional investigators found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

· For the remainder of the claims, from Russian DDoS and hacking attacks, to its alleged support for a coup attempt in Montenegro in 2016, it is sufficient to point out that they all follow a consistent pattern: Step 1) accusations are made, with no evidence provided, followed by a political, media and diplomatic scandal. Step 2) the scandal blows over, the public forgets, and those making the accusations are never reprimanded.
Fake Claims, Real Consequences

As this article has pointed out, the Salisbury Incident document is not only light on facts, but contains absolutely no hard evidence about any Russian complicity in the crime against the Skripals. Instead, it’s limited to guesswork and easily disprovable stereotypes. Unfortunately, facts or not, the document has played its part in the decision of nearly 30 countries to expel over 100 Russian diplomats.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Germany Wants Nuclear Bombers

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them.

The Duran

Published

on

Via VoltaireNet.org:


Germany’s armed forces are currently studying the possibility of acquiring nuclear bombers capable of using the new American B61-12 atomic bombs.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon itself plans to deploy these new atomic bombs in the German region of Eifel, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The German air force already has multi-tasking Tornado warplanes, which are already capable of deploying American atomic bombs. But those aircraft are going to be replaced, possibly, by European-developed Eurofighters, or by United States manufactured F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Either way, the warplane that Germany selects will have to be equipped with the AMAC (Aircraft Monitoring and Control) system, which allows the use of the new American atomic bombs and enables the regulation of the power of the explosion as well as at what height the bombs explode after they are launched.

Germany does not manufacture atomic weapons but has come to consider itself as a nuclear power because it has vectors to use them, and believes that this gives it the right to sit on the UN Security Council sharing the permanent member position occupied by France.

Both countries would thus represent the European Union, under the auspices of NATO.

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

Latest

1st since Notre Dame: Yellow Vests back despite ‘unifying’ disaster & they are angry

‘Yellow Vests’ march in Paris for 23rd straight week.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


Yellow Vests protests brought clashes and tear gas back to the streets of Paris, despite politicians’ calls for “unity” in the wake of the Notre Dame fire. For protesters, the response to the fire only showed more inequality.

Saturday’s protests mark the 23rd straight weekend of anti-government demonstrations, but the first since Notre Dame de Paris went up in flames on Monday. Officials were quick to criticize the protesters for returning to the streets so soon after the disaster.

“The rioters will be back tomorrow,” Interior Minister Christophe Castaner told reporters on Friday. “The rioters have visibly not been moved by what happened at Notre-Dame.”

For many of the protesters, grief over the destruction of the 800-year-old landmark has made way for anger. With smoke still rising from Notre Dame, a group of French tycoons and businessmen pledged €1 billion to the cathedral’s reconstruction, money that the Yellow Vests say could be better spent elsewhere.

“If they can give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame, they should stop telling us there is no money to respond to the social emergency,” trade union leader Philippe Martinez told France 24.

Saturday’s protests saw a return to scenes familiar since the Yellow Vests first mobilized in November to protest a fuel tax hike. Demonstrators in Paris’ Bastille district set barricades on fire and smashed vehicles, and police deployed tear gas to keep the crowds at bay.

Sporadic incidents of vandalism and looting were reported across the city, and some journalists even reported rioters throwing feces at police.

60,000 police officers were deployed across the country, and in Paris, a security perimeter was set up around Notre Dame. A planned march that would have passed the site was banned by police, and elsewhere, 137 protesters had been arrested by mid afternoon, police sources told Euronews.

Beginning as a show of anger against rising fuel costs in November, the Yellow Vests movement quickly evolved into a national demonstration of rage against falling living standards, income inequality, and the perceived elitism and pro-corporation policies of President Emmanuel Macron. Over 23 weeks of unrest, Macron has made several concessions to the protesters’ demands, but has thus far been unable to quell the rising dissent.

After Notre Dame caught fire on Monday, the president postponed a television address to the nation, during which he was expected to unveil a package of tax cuts and other economic reforms, another measure to calm the popular anger in France.

Macron’s address will be held on Thursday.

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

Latest

O Canada! The True North Strong and Free – Not

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence.

Jim Jatras

Published

on

Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Canadian visitors to Washington sometimes wonder why their embassy stands at the foot of Capitol Hill.

The answer? To be close to where Canada’s laws are made.

A main showcase of Ottawa’s craven servility to Washington is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s complicity in the US-led regime change operation being conducted against Venezuela. Not content with ruining his own country with multiculturalism, polysexualism, and the like, Li’l Justin has acted in lockstep with Big Brother to the south inslapping sanctions on Venezuelan officials and serving as a US agent of influence, especially with other countries in the western hemisphere:

‘A Canadian Press report published at the end of January revealed that Canadian diplomats worked systematically over several months with their Latin American counterparts in Caracas to prepare the current regime-change operation, pressing [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro’s right-wing opponents to set aside their differences and mount a joint challenge to the government. “The turning point,” said the Canadian Press [Global News], “came Jan. 4, when the Lima Group … rejected the legitimacy of Maduro’s May 2018 election victory and his looming January 10 inauguration, while recognizing the ‘legitimately elected’ National Assembly.” The report cited an unnamed Canadian official as saying the opposition “were really looking for international support of some kind, to be able to hold onto a reason as to why they should unite, and push somebody like Juan Guaidó.”

‘One day prior to Maduro’s inauguration, [Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia] Freeland spoke to Guaidó, the newly-elected National Assembly speaker, by telephone to urge him to challenge the elected Venezuelan president.’

But that’s not all. Canada is out front and center in the “Five Eyes” intelligence agencies’ war on China’s Huawei – with direct prompting from US legislators and intelligence.  As explained by Col. Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Gen. Colin Powell, it’s not that Huawei violated any law when circumventing US sanctions but it is the US that is acting illegally by unilaterally imposing sanctions that were never agreed to internationally. But that’s OK – when it comes to Washington’s claims of jurisdiction over every human being on the planet, Justin and Chrystia are happy to oblige!

Also, let’s not forget Chrystia’s role in keeping the pot boiling in Ukraine. It would of course be cynical (and probably racist) to attribute anything relating to Ukraine to her own interesting family background …

To be fair, the lickspittle attitude of Canadian officials towards their masters south of the 49th parallel is hardly unique in the world. Also to be fair, it’s natural and would be generally beneficial for Canada to have a positive relationship with a powerful, kindred neighbor rather than a negative one. Think of Austria’s ties to Germany, or the Trans-Tasman relationship of Australia and New Zealand, or the links that still exist between Russia and Ukraine despite efforts by the west to set them against each other (as, for example, Spain and Portugal were at loggerheads for several centuries, when the latter was a loyal ally of Spain’s foe, Great Britain, to such an extent that Portugal was sometimes shown on maps and globes in the same pink as British possessions; a similar situation existed between Argentina and British ally Chile).

A close and mutually advantageous relationship is one thing, but Canada’s de facto loss of independence is another. Not only does the US control Canada’s diplomacy, military, and intelligence but also her financial system (with, among other levers, the notorious FATCA law, which places Canadian institutions under the supervision of the IRS, with Canada’s revenue service acting, care of the Canadian taxpayer, as a cat’s paw for not only the IRS but the NSA and other snooping agencies). As explained by one Canadian nationalist (yes, they do exist!), the redoubtable David Orchard, trade is also a critical issue:

‘Canada …, after almost three decades of “free trade” with the U.S., has more than $1.2 trillion in federal and provincial debt, large deficits at every level, no national child or dental care, high university tuition, miserly old age pensions, years of massive budget cuts, and giveaway prices for its exports of oil, gas, timber and minerals.

‘For 150 years, great Canadian leaders have warned that without an economic border with the United States, we would soon no longer have a political border.

‘We once owned the world’s largest farm machinery maker, Massey Harris, headquartered in Toronto; built the world’s largest and most respected marketer of wheat and barley, the Canadian Wheat Board, based in Winnipeg; created a great transcontinental railway system, beginning in Montreal, which tied our country together; and saw Vancouver’s shipyards produce the beautiful Fast Cat ferry.

‘Instead of spending hundreds of billions on foreign-made machinery, electronics, automobiles, ships, fighter jets and passenger aircraft (even payroll systems for federal employees!), we can build our own, both for the domestic and export market.

‘We once designed and built the world’s most advanced jet interceptor, the Avro Arrow, so we know it can be done. [Emphasis added] With Canada’s resources and ingenuity, it could create a prosperous, domestically controlled economy that would give Canadians multiple benefits, security and pride of ownership. All that is required is some of the will that drove our ancestors to create an alternate power in North America. As George-Étienne Cartier, the great Québécois Father of Confederation, put it, “Now everything depends on our patriotism.”’ [Note: Orchard is the author of the must-read book The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. To begin at the beginning, in the late 1680s, as part of English-French rivalry in North America, Massachusetts Puritans sought to root out the nest of popish deviltry known as Quebec. Following their disastrous 1690 defeat, they decided to fight Satan closer to home by hanging witches. The rest, as they say, is history…]

Scratch a Canadian patriot and you’ll hear about the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow. As a watershed moment in Canada’s downward slide into subservience, the cancellation of what by all accounts was a magnificent aircraft – and a snapshot of what Canada’s international competitiveness (including in advanced aerospace) could have looked like had it been able to develop independently – might have been the point of being sucked into the American vortex. As noted by one response to my suggestion that Ottawa’s stance on Venezuela amounted to Canada’s annexation by the US: “Canadian here…unfortunately, the above is true (not literally of course, but in practice). It goes back even before the time of Diefenbaker, who canceled our Avro Arrow program on demand from the US – thus destroying our aerospace industry and causing brain drain to the US/Europe.”

To this day, the decision of then-Prime Minister John Diefenbaker to kill the Arrow project (and “put 14,528 Avro employees, as well as nearly 15,000 other employees in the Avro supply chain of outside suppliers, out of work”) on what came to be known as “Black Friday,” February 20, 1959, remains controversial and shrouded in mystery. A mix of budgetary, political, technological, and personality factors has been cited, none of them conclusive. Pressure from the US side, including unwillingness of Washington to purchase a Canadian aircraft when the US could pressure them to buy American planes and missiles, no doubt played a key role: “Instead of the CF-105, the RCAF invested in a variety of Century Series fighters from the United States. These included the F-104 Starfighter (46 percent of which were lost in Canadian service), and (more controversial, given the cancellation of the Arrow) the CF-101 Voodoo. The Voodoo served as an interceptor, but at a level of performance generally below that expected of the Arrow.”

While we may never know reliably why Diefenbaker cancelled the Arrow or how Canada or Canadian industry might have followed a different path, there’s no question of the superior capabilities of the Arrow. As it happens, one of the few pilots who had a chance to test the Arrow in an impromptu friendly dogfight is now-retired USAF fighter pilot Col. George Jatras, later US Air Attaché in Moscow (also, this analyst’s father). As he related in 2017:

‘I’ve received a number of messages in the last couple days about this bird, including some that say it may be revived. I don’t know how The Arrow would compare to today’s aircraft, but I had a first-hand lesson on how it faired against the F-102.

‘In 1959, I was stationed at Suffolk County AFB on Long Island with the 2nd Fighter Interceptor Squadron. We had an informal exchange program with a Canadian fighter squadron stationed near Montreal. From time to time, two or four aircraft from one of the squadrons would fly to the other’s base on a weekend cross country.

‘On one such exchange, I was #3 in a four ship formation led by [former Tuskegee airmanErnie Craigwell (I don’t recall who the other pilots were). As we entered Canadian airspace, cruising at about 40,000 ft., we spotted a contrail well above our altitude (probably at 50,000ft.) and closing very fast.  As the other aircraft appeared to be passing by, we could clearly see the delta shaped wing and knew it was the Avro Arrow that the Canadian pilots had told us about. Then, instead of just passing by, he rolled in on us! Ernie called for a break and we split into elements. When we talked about the encounter afterwards we all agreed that our first thought was, “This guy is in for a surprise; he doesn’t know that he’s taking on the F-102.”  Well, we were the ones in for a surprise. Even with two elements covering each other, not one of us could get on his tail. His power and maneuverability were awesome.  After he had played with us for a few minutes, like a cat with four mice, he zoomed back up to about 50K and went on his way. What an aircraft! What a shame that it never went into production.’

What is perhaps most curious about the Arrow’s demise is that “everything was ordered brutally destroyed; plans, tools, parts, and the completed planes themselves were to be cut up, destroyed, scrapped and everything made to disappear.”  Why? Well, security of course! Don’t engage in conspiracy theories …

The Canadian national anthem finishes with a pledge: “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.” It should be noted that understandably resentful Loyalists fleeing the US following the American Revolution were a major contribution to the growth of Canada’s English-speaking population. American troops – back when we were the plucky underdog fighting the mighty British Empire – invaded Canada in 1775 and during the War of 1812 but were defeated. Relations got testy during the American Civil War as well, and even afterwards the US was wary of a proposed united “Kingdom of Canada,” hence the choice of the name “Dominion” in 1967. If today’s Canadians think we-all down here don’t know whom they’ve mostly had in mind to “stand on guard” against all this time, they’d better think again.

Maybe it’s past time for Canadians to get serious again about their independence – eh?

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

Videos

Trending