by Home home
maybe napalm, something like that…”
However, in the September documentary the identical 'on the
scene' dialogue had seemingly become:
“It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here…
umm… we’ve had a massive influx of what
look like serious burns… Er… it seems like it
must be some sort of chemical weapon, I’m
not really sure…”
Posing the question, which was 'real' and why did the BBC
need to alter any of it?
When the researcher, Robert Stuart,[31] asked the BBC
these questions they replied to him saying the original was of
the doctor claiming the use of a 'chemical weapon.' An
editorial decision was made to remove this from the footage
aired on the BBC news in August. The BBC stated:
“… The phrase “chemical weapon” was
taken out of the news piece because by the
time it was broadcast it was known that this
was an incendiary bomb that had been
69
A Dangerous Ideology
used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this
on two occasions in his script prior to the clip
of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation
that this could have been a “chemical
weapon” ran a considerable risk of being
incredibly misleading and confusing to the
audience, not least because the incident
happened within days of an alleged
chemical attack in Damascus….”
The BBC clearly acknowledged that claiming the attack came
from a chemical weapon would have been “incredibly
misleading.” Yet that is precisely what they broadcast in
their later documentary. Misleading the public incredibly.
Furthermore, medical evidence shows the physical behaviour
of the supposed victims was entirely inconsistent with those
of genuine burn victims. They were seen writhing in
apparent agony, on cue in some instances. Medical experts
have attested that severe burn victims do not behave this
way.
A commander in the Free Syrian Army (FSA,) who fought
against the Assad government, stated that he was willing to
testify in court and provide a signed statement to the BBC
(on condition of protected anonymity) as follows:
“ We the fighters of the Free Syrian Army in
the North West areas of the City of Aleppo
we declare that we were present in this
region in August 2013 and we did not meet
any air strike with the substance of Napalm
on Urum al Kubra or on any other region in
the North West Aleppo countryside and we
deny the cheap fabrication of the BBC and
of the stations that imitate her because it
undermines the credibility of the Free Syrian
Army. Saying this we do not hesitate to
criminalize the criminal acts of the Assad
regime and its murderous extermination of
its people. And we have done a field
investigation with the help of the delegate of
the Free Syrian Red Crescent and this has
conducted us to confirm what we are saying
70
A Dangerous Ideology
: no victims, no traces and no memory with
anybody of the alleged air strikes with the
substance of Napalm.”
The BBC have not taken him up on his offer.
The evidence that a significant proportion of the 'news'
footage within the BBC's 'Saving Syria's Children'
documentary was hoaxed, is overwhelming. There is no
evidence the supposed attack upon Urum al Kubra ever
occurred. Given they have themselves admitted to faking the
dialogue, coupled with the other evidence, I am persuaded it
was a hoax. It didn't happen but was reported to the British
people as if it were a real attack.
Please don't take my word for it. It is just my opinion and I
recommend you do your own research before formulating
yours.
In this case, it appears the BBC were using a hoax for
propaganda purposes, possibly in support of a government
policy objective to launch a bombing campaign in Syria. The
loss of the vote, by the Conservative Prime Minister David
Cameron in 2013, seemingly contributed to the Conservative
Prime Minister Theresa May's decision, in 2018, to bomb
Syria without bothering to seek parliamentary approval.
Whilst the BBC's apparently deceitful warmongering was
unsuccessful in 2013, hoaxes have been used with far more
devastating effect in the past.
On August 2nd 1964 the U.S. destroyer, U.S.S. Maddox,
engaged three North Vietnamese Navy (NVN) P4 motor
torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin, in the South China Sea.
The Maddox fired warning shots as the three NVN P4's
approached. Apparently the P4's fired their torpedoes
without effect. Shots were exchanged and an air assault was
launched against the three P4's, killing four NVN sailors and
wounding more.
The Vietnamese torpedo boats were forced to limp back to
port having sustained damage. No U.S. personnel were
injured, though the Maddox and one of the attack aircraft
were damaged slightly.[32] Amidst rising tensions in the
71
A Dangerous Ideology
region, two days later, on the 4th, The Maddox and her
escort, the U.S.S. Turner Joy, were apparently attacked
again. Instruments indicated they were being fired upon.
Both ships returned fire and jets were again dispatched to
respond.
Three days later, in response to these 'unprovoked attacks,'
the U.S. Congress passed the 'Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.'
This empowered President Lyndon Johnson to take all
measures he deemed necessary to repel aggression. This
allowed the Johnson administration to escalate military
action, leading to Operation Thunder[33] and the start of a
full scale war that killed more than three million people.
When asked how many NVN attackers he saw, the pilot of
one of the Crusader Jets, who responded to the attack on the
4th, James. D. Stockdale, said:
“Not a one. No boats, no wakes, no ricochets
off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo
wakes–nothing but black sea and American
firepower.”
The second attack on the Maddox and Turner Joy didn't
happen. Captain Herrick, of the Maddox, questioned the
attack within 24hrs. He was not sure his instrument
readings were correct.[34] He sent a cable stating:
“Review of action makes many reported
contacts and torpedoes fired appear
doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar
and overeager sonarmen may have
accounted for many reports. No actual visual
sightings by Maddox. Suggest complete
evaluation before any further action
taken.” [35]
Captain Herrick made the mistake abundantly clear to his
superiors straight away. There was no evidence the sonar
readings were falsified, it seems the misinterpretation was
simply the result of human error, under difficult
circumstances, in very heavy sea
s.
However, from that point forward the entire story was pure
72
A Dangerous Ideology
fabrication. What is known is that his communications were
deliberately ignored and mythical 'intelligence' reports were
created to falsely claim the attack had occurred. The
Vietnam War started with a hoax.
The National Security Agency (NSA) released documents in
2005 which revealed the extent of the deception.[36] The
signal intelligence (SIGINT) recording of intercepted
Vietnamese communications was 'doctored' to substantiate
the attack. Firstly, approximately 90% of the relevant SIGINT
was withheld. Had it not, it would have been evident that the
only activity the NVN were engaged in, on the evening of the
4th, was the recovery of their vessels, damaged two days
earlier.
Unrelated SIGINT reports were next inserted into the NSA
summary of 'the Tonkin incident' to support the assertion
that an attack occurred. Vital communication intercepts
were deliberately mistranslated and other NVN
communications were taken out of context, then edited and
spliced together, before being reinserted into the report to
create the hoaxed 'evidence.'[37]
Nor was the attack on the 2nd unprovoked, as claimed by
then U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. In 1954 the
CIA had launched a series of covert operations (codenamed
'Nautilus') against the Vietnamese, which included illegal
commando raids. Control of these operations was transferred
from the CIA to the Department of Defense under the
codename OPLAN 34A in early 1964.
Operations were run out of the Da Nang U.S. Navy base
where numerous U.S. Special Forces units were stationed.
The day before the first attack, OPLAN commandos raided an
offshore North Vietnamese radio transmitter station. It
appears the failed NVN attack on the 2nd was either a
defensive or forlorn retaliatory action.[38]
'False flag' attacks, unlike hoaxed events, are absolutely real.
People die and suffer life changing injuries. They are
designed to cause devastation that can then be blamed upon
a chosen enemy. The purpose is invariably to achieve a
geopolitical, policy or military objectives. Commonly they are
73
A Dangerous Ideology
undertaken to illicit support for further military action
against the 'aggressor' who supposedly committed the
atrocity. 9/11 and 7/7 are alleged prime examples.
The origin of the term 'false flag' (or 'false colours') stems
from the 18th century privateer naval warfare practice of
flying 'friendly' flags in order to approach an unsuspecting
target vessel. Once within range, the 'false flag' would be
lowered and the unprepared enemy attacked under the
aggressors 'true colours.'[39] Since then, the term has come
to mean the strategic manipulation of an event to provide
justification for further action.
During the 1780s King Gustav III of Sweden was looking for
a way to unite his kingdom and thought war with Russia
would be the way to do it. So he employed tailors from the
Swedish Opera House to make some Russian uniforms,
dressed his troops up and launched an attack against
Sweden's own border post at Puumala. Thereby creating the
political will to launch the Swedish-Russian War (1788-
1790.)
The Mukden Incident[40] in 1931 occurred when Japanese
soldier Lt. Suemori Kawamoto planted a bomb along Japans
South Manchurian Railway. The explosion was blamed upon
Chinese dissidents and Japan used it as a pretext to invade
the north-eastern Chinese province of Manchuria.
In 1939 Heinrich Himmler masterminded a plan that
involved an attack upon the German radio station, Sender
Gleiwitz. German operatives were dressed in Polish uniforms
and the attack provided a justification for the German
invasion of Poland, which supposedly led to the start of
WWII.[41]
The Lavon Affair (Operation Shoshana),[42] in 1954, involved
Israel's use of Egyptian Jewish 'operatives' to plant bombs in
American and British cinemas, libraries and other civilian
targets. The attacks were then blamed upon the 'Muslim
Brotherhood' with the objective of convincing Western
powers to retain their military presence, in defence of the
Suez canal, and distance the West from Egypt's President
Nasser.
74
A Dangerous Ideology
The tactical use of false flag attacks was discussed at some
length in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff's 1962 document
relating to Operation Northwoods.[43] A variety of options
were advocated. The objective was to launch a false flag
attack against U.S. targets, placing the blame on Cuba, in
order to provide a justification for its invasion.
For example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made the following
recommendations:
“We could blow up a U.S. ship in
Guantanamo Bay and blame it on Cuba.”
“We could create a Communist Cuban terror
campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida
cities and even in Washington”
“We could sink a boatload of Cubans en-
route to Florida (real or simulated)”
“It is possible to create an incident which
will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban
aircraft has attacked and shot down a
chartered civil airliner”
“Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would
cause a helpful wave of national
indignation”
President Kennedy wasn't impressed and rejected the idea a
year before his assassination .
However, the tactical use of false flag attacks aren't merely a
matter of historical record. They continue to this day, as
much more recent events show.
In 2014 the Turkish government banned access to YouTube
in their country. A leaked audio recording of a conversation
between the Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan and
the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu was on the
site. The men were heard to openly discuss a planned false
flag attack. Four men were to be sent from Syria to commit
an attack on Turkish soil to provide the justification for
Turkey to launch a war against Syria. Turkish officials stated
the leaked recording was 'partially manipulated' and called it
75
A Dangerous Ideology
“an attack on Turkish security.” Although it appeared to be a
planned attack on the Turkish people.[44]
In 1999, 293 people were killed in a series of apartment
block bombings in Russia. These were blamed upon
Chechen terrorists. Following public reports of suspicious
activity in a tower block in the city of Ryazan, a huge bomb
made from the military explosive RDX (Hexogen) was
discovered and disarmed.
When the suspected terrorists were apprehended, they
turned out to be FSB agents. Subsequent investigations
showed the bomb they planted was identical to those<
br />
supposedly used by the Chechen terrorists in the other
apartment bombings.
The bombings caused widespread fear and panic amongst
Russian voters. Coincidentally, in the midst of the crisis,
former FSB director Vladimir Putin came to power promising
strong leadership in the fight against Chechen terrorists.[45]
One of the most extensive and long running false flag
operations was NATO's Operation Gladio.
In 1990 Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti officially
disclosed the existence of Gladio to the Italian parliament.
By then Gladio had already been exposed in the courts and
elsewhere, but Andreotti's 'official' revelations revealed the
full extent of the unpalatable reality.
Italian investigations, into the 'Years of Lead',[46] revealed
NATO's hand in a series of false flag terrorist atrocities that
had taken place in Italy (and across Europe) throughout the
1950s to the 1980s. These included bombings,
assassinations, kidnappings and mass shootings by terrorist
organisations. Thousands of civilians were killed across the
continent of Europe during almost 40 years of bloody
carnage wrought by Gladio sponsored terrorist cells.
Often carried out by 'far right' extremists, the attacks were
predominantly blamed upon far left or Middle Eastern
groups. For example leftist Lebanese terrorists were initially
blamed for the 1980 bombing of Bologna Railway Station,
killing 85 people and wounding more than 200. In reality,
76
A Dangerous Ideology
under the command of Gladio operatives, the bombing was
carried out by the far right group the NAR (Nuclei Armati
Rivoluzionari.)
Wikipedia's entry on Gladio largely reveals the official record
of the operation:[47]
“Operating in all of NATO and even in some
neutral countries such as Spain before its
1982 admission to NATO, Gladio was first
coordinated by the Clandestine Committee of
the Western Union (CCWU), founded in
1948. After the creation of NATO in 1949,
the CCWU was integrated into the
'Clandestine Planning Committee' (CPC),
founded in 1951 and overseen by the
S.H.A.P.E (Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe), transferred to Belgium after
France's official withdrawal from the NATO
military organization – but not from NATO –
which was not followed by the dissolution of
the French stay-behind paramilitary
movements.
