The white helmets are part of the terrorists

The 'White Helmets' are not the impartial relief organisation Right Livelihood and alternative media sites like CodePink take them to be. Rather they are instruments in the information war which is being waged against the Syrian government.
Manipulation of public perception has risen to a new level with the emergence of powerful social media.



Facebook, Twitter and Google are multibillion dollar corporate giants hugely influencing public understanding. Social media campaigns include paid ‘boosting’ of Facebook posts, paid promotion of Tweets, and biased results from search engines.

Marketing and advertising companies use social media to promote their clients. U.S. foreign policy managers hire these companies to influence public perception to support U.S. foreign policy goals.

For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made sure that Twitter was primed for street protests in Iran following the 2009 election. She insured that Twitter was ready to spread and manage news of protests following the election and strange killing of a young woman. (p 423, Hard Choices hardback).

The results of media manipulation can be seen in the widespread misunderstanding of the conflict in Syria.

One element of propaganda around Syria is the demonisation of the Syrian government and leadership. Influenced by the mainstream and much alternative media, most in the West do not know that Bashar al Assad is popular with most Syrians.

There were three contestants in the Syrian presidential election of June 2014. Turnout was 73% of the registered voters, with 88% voting for Assad. In Beirut, the streets were clogged with tens of thousands of Syrian refugees marching through the city to vote at the Syrian Embassy. Hundreds of Syrian citizens from the USA and other Western countries flew to Syria to vote because Syrian Embassies in Washington and other western capitals were shut down.

While John Kerry was condemning the Syrian election as a “farce” before it had even happened, a marketing company known as The Syria Campaign waged a campaign to block knowledge of the Syrian election. Along with demonising President Assad, they launched a campaign which led to Facebook censoring information about the Syrian election.

The Syria Campaign was created by a larger company named “Purpose”. According to their own website they “incubated” The Syria Campaign.

The major achievement of The Syria Campaign has been the branding and promotion of the “White Helmets”.

The “White Helmets”, also known as “Syria Civil Defence”, began with a British military contractor, James LeMesurier, giving some rescue training to Syrians in Turkey. Funding was provided by the US and UK. They appropriated the name from a real Syria Civil Defence.

The “White Helmets” are marketed in the West as civilian volunteers doing rescue work. On 22 September 2016 it was announced that the Right Livelihood Award , the so called “Alternative Nobel Prize”, is being given to the US/UK created White Helmets “for their outstanding bravery, compassion and humanitarian engagement in rescuing civilians from the destruction of the Syrian civil war.”

The Right Livelihood organisers may come to regret their selection of the White Helmets because the group is not who they claim to be. In fact, the White Helmets are largely a propaganda tool promoting western intervention against Syria.

Unlike a legitimate rescue organisation such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, the “White Helmets” only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition. As shown in this video, the White Helmets pick up the bodies of individuals executed by the terrorists, they claim to be unarmed but are not, and they falsely claim to be neutral.

Many of the videos from Al-Qaeda/terrorist dominated areas of Syria have the “White Helmets” logo because the White Helmets work in alliance with them.

This is primarily a media marketing tool to raise public support for continuing the support to the armed opposition as well as the demonisation of the Syrian government.

The Rights Livelihood press release says the White Helmets “remain outspoken in calling for an end to hostilities in the country.” That is false. The White Helmets actively call for US/NATO intervention through a “No Fly Zone” which would begin with attacks and destruction of anti-aircraft positions. Taking over the skies above another country is an act of war as confirmed by US General Dempsey.

The White Helmets have never criticised or called for the end of funding to extremist organisations including Nusra/Al-Qaeda. On the contrary, White Helmets are generally embedded with this organisation, which is defined as “terrorist” by even the USA. That is likely why the head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, was denied entry to the USA.

The foreign and marketing company origins of the White Helmets was exposed over one and a half years ago. Since then, Vanessa Beeley has revealed the organisation in more in depth articles such as Who Are the White Helmets? and War by Way of Deception.

Despite these exposes, understanding of the White Helmets is limited. Many liberal and progressive people have uncritically accepted the propaganda and misinformation around Syria. Much of the progressive media has effectively blocked or censored critical examinations amid a flood of propaganda about “barrel bombs” dropped by the ‘brutal dictator” and his “regime”.

In the last week, Netflix started showing a 40 minute documentary movie about the “White Helmets”. It is actually a promotion video. A substantial portion of it takes place in Turkey, where we see trainees in hotel rooms making impassioned phone calls to inquire about their family in Syria.

The “family values” theme is evident throughout. It’s a good marketing angle, especially effective with women.

The political message of the video is also clear: after a bombing attack “It’s the Russians …. they say they are fighting ISIS but they are targeting civilians”.

The movie includes video previously promoted by the White Helmets such as the “Miracle Baby” rescue. It’s debatable whether this incident is real or staged. The video includes self promoting proclamations such as “You are real heroes”. While no doubt there are some real rescues in the midst of war, many of the videos purporting to show the heroes at work have an unrealistic and contrived look to them as revealed here.

“Alternative media” in the West has sadly echoed mainstream media regarding the Syria conflict. The result is that many progressive individuals and groups are confused or worse. For example the activist group CodePink recently issued a media release promoting the Netflix White Helmets propaganda video.

The White Helmets video is produced by Grain Media and Violet Films/Ultra-Violet Consulting. The latter advertises itself as a marketing corporation specialising in social media management, grant writing, crowd building and campaign implementation. The only question is who paid them to produce this video?

There is growing resistance to this manipulation and deception. In response to a petition to give the Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets, there is a counter petition at Change.org. The Right Livelihood Awards have just been announced and there will soon be a petition demanding retraction of the award to the White Helmets.

The story of the White Helmets is principally a “feel good” hoax to manipulate public perception about the conflict in Syria and continue the drive for “regime change”. That’s why big money was paid to “Purpose” to “incubate” The Syria Campaign to brand and promote the White Helmets using Facebook, Twitter, etc.. That’s why big money was paid to create a self-promotional documentary.

The judges at Rights Livelihood were probably influenced by the documentary since critical examination of facts around Syria is so rare. It’s a sad commentary on the media. As Stephen Kinzer recently said,

“Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”


http://theduran.com/information-war-syria-white-helmets-hoax/

Alex Christoforou
Writer and director forThe Duran - Living the dream in Moscow.

http://theduran.com/author/alex/

https://www.facebook.com/alex.christoforou




Do Putin's work for him why don't you.


You are truly disgusting, every one of The White Helmets has more courage in their toenail than you will ever possess.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The 'White Helmets' are not the impartial relief organisation Right Livelihood and alternative media sites like CodePink take them to be. Rather they are instruments in the information war which is being waged against the Syrian government.
Manipulation of public perception has risen to a new level with the emergence of powerful social media.



http://theduran.com/information-war-syria-white-helmets-hoax/

I would take anything that comes from russian sources with a pinch of salt.

Well it is clear the Americans are backing and supplying terrorists...

https://southfront.org/double-life-of-white-helmets-volunteers-by-day-terrorists-by-night-photos/

Tommy Monk wrote:Well it is clear the Americans are backing and supplying terrorists...

they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Well it is clear the Americans are backing and supplying terrorists...

they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

BLAMING  Obama and Cameron for the problems created by the Bush/Blair/Howard troika...

Typical Deano obfuscations and revisionist history-making efforts..

Then again,  Dean also considers Thatcher to have been an economic genius and a truely compassionate and caring person, doesn't he ?        

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Well it is clear the Americans are backing and supplying terrorists...

they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

False, the withdrawal from Iraq was a treaty (with the force of law in the U.S.) signed by Bush. Obama had nothing to do with it. Besides, the last thing America wanted at that time or at the present is another Middle Eastern war.

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

False, the withdrawal from Iraq was a treaty (with the force of law in the U.S.) signed by Bush. Obama had nothing to do with it. Besides, the last thing America wanted at that time or at the present is another Middle Eastern war.

yes which is why syria is in the state it is in. Obama desperately wanted the 2nd term and the people of syri could go hang

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

you are not very good with people who actually have an opinion and just not parrot what the bigger boys say. It must be a bit deflating to be an endless follower

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

I haven't even commented on this thread and you just can't leave me out if it, can you. I wondered how long it would take for you to include me in your puerile rants. Go and have a wank or something...

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Well it is clear the Americans are backing and supplying terrorists...

they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

You can be forgiven for lack of knowledge of American politics.  Allow me to correct your statement.  Congress, not the president, has exclusive power to declare war and approve such things as sanctions.  In 2008, following Obama's successful election the first time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner formulated the McConnel-Boehner Doctrine, which promised that Republicans would do everything in their power to assure that America fails domestically as well as internationally while a black man sits in the White House.

In keeping with this promise, Republicans have thrice failed to pass a budget, and twice failed to raise the debt limit even though it threatens the US credit rating.  The negotiated deal to pull troops out of Iraq is the doing of the George W. Bush administration; the most that Republicans can meekly say today is, Obama should have tried harder to renegotiate.  However, the answer was no, and it came directly from Tehran.  

More importantly, Obama sent to the Hill a bill that would authorize war powers against Syria...that bill still languishes on the desk of Republican leaders of Congress.  They refuse to sign it, some Republicans candidly saying, We don't want to make a hero of a black president!  Without Republican Congressional authorization, there will be no war, and has been no war against Syria.  Frankly, in my considered legal opinion, even the bombing of Aleppo done by the US today is illegal.

Obama is considered the best and most successful president at the close of his term, not merely because of his many achievements, but because his achievements were done in the face of obstinate Republican refusal to govern (and provide legislative authority for the needs of America).  This includes, inter alia, war powers, although American liberals see no need to be half-a-world away killing babies.  In this regard, Dr. Obama has quite brilliantly snookered Republicans.

Be mindful of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine anytime you plan to criticize Dr. Obama for alleged inaction of the American government.  The Supreme law says, Congress must act first.  Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

I didn't even log on till an hour and a half after you posted this tonight....you blithering idiot.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

I didn't even log on till an hour and a half after you posted this tonight....you blithering idiot.

Blithering idiot! I haven't heard that in ages.

Suits him though.

Original Quill wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
they may well be now as the entire west turned its back on syria when this all started off 5 years or so ago. Had they imposed meaningful sanctions on assad when he first started murdering his citizens then perhaps syria would not have descended into the chaos it is today. And had there not been an unnecessary rush to get out of iraq before the job was complete then that country may not have been mired in what has happened. Obama bears the blame for that and to some extent cameron as well, although without america there was little britain could have done alone in iraq or afghanistan.

You can be forgiven for lack of knowledge of American politics.  Allow me to correct your statement.  Congress, not the president, has exclusive power to declare war and approve such things as sanctions.  In 2008, following Obama's successful election the first time, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner formulated the McConnel-Boehner Doctrine, which promised that Republicans would do everything in their power to assure that America fails domestically as well as internationally while a black man sits in the White House.

In keeping with this promise, Republicans have thrice failed to pass a budget, and twice failed to raise the debt limit even though it threatens the US credit rating.  The negotiated deal to pull troops out of Iraq is the doing of the George W. Bush administration; the most that Republicans can meekly say today is, Obama should have tried harder to renegotiate.  However, the answer was no, and it came directly from Tehran.  

More importantly, Obama sent to the Hill a bill that would authorize war powers against Syria...that bill still languishes on the desk of Republican leaders of Congress.  They refuse to sign it, some Republicans candidly saying, We don't want to make a hero of a black president!  Without Republican Congressional authorization, there will be no war, and has been no war against Syria.  Frankly, in my considered legal opinion, even the bombing of Aleppo done by the US today is illegal.

Obama is considered the best and most successful president at the close of his term, not merely because of his many achievements, but because his achievements were done in the face of obstinate Republican refusal to govern (and provide legislative authority for the needs of America).  This includes, inter alia, war powers, although American liberals see no need to be half-a-world away killing babies.  In this regard, Dr. Obama has quite brilliantly snookered Republicans.

Be mindful of the McConnell-Boehner doctrine anytime you plan to criticize Dr. Obama for alleged inaction of the American government.  The Supreme law says, Congress must act first.  Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

sorry, america as the only superpower at that time could have ended the syrian conflict before it started. It chose not to, to enable the first black president (his only claim to fame) to get a 2nd term because he didnt want to embroil america in another middle eastern war. so he threw the syrians to the wolves to ensure he became president again.
what the syrian conflict has shown is that america is now no longer a superpower and russia is on the ascendancy with all the dangers that will bring with it.
It wasn't turning their back that brought down the USSR it was the strength and resolve of america, the uk and the west.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Dean, Tommy, Major, Horatio and Syl are truly on a roll tonight...

Rolling out their endless right wing, sexist, bigotted and/or plain silly nonsense across the forum..
Must be a slow day in the salt mines for our fascist contingent on here ?          

I didn't even log on till an hour and a half after you posted this tonight....you blithering idiot.

he probably didn't notice as his nose was rammed so far up ben's arse.

nicko wrote:Suits him though.

bit of an insult to blithering idiots in my view

Tommy Monk wrote:

Did anyone watch this...?

Dean wrote:sorry, america as the only superpower at that time could have ended the syrian conflict before it started. It chose not to, to enable the first black president (his only claim to fame) to get a 2nd term because he didnt want to embroil america in another middle eastern war. so he threw the syrians to the wolves to ensure he became president again.

You're wrong, Dean.  Moreover, you arguments are an exercise in anti-reason.  Dr. Obama's reelection was not a factor, as the McConnell-Boehner doctrine was already in place, four years prior.  The principle of logical uniformity demands that cause precede, and not follow effect.

Dean wrote:what the syrian conflict has shown is that america is now no longer a superpower and russia is on the ascendancy with all the dangers that will bring with it.

Russia is a gnat on our windshield.  When and if Russia becomes a nuisance to the US, we will dispense with them as we did the island nation of Grenada.

The truth is, Russia is Europe’s problem, and you obviously make your plea with the hope that America will step in like a big brother and sort your world for you.  But we really don’t care about Europe’s problems and you are going to have to learn to fend for yourselves.  This is no longer the post-Churchill world of anti-communism and a prolonged Cold War to suit Western Europe’s greedy frame of mind.  This is where America parts ways and shows y’all that we are back in our new world groove—with the likes of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Latin America--while y’all are still teetering in the third feudal age.

Dean wrote:It wasn't turning their back that brought down the USSR it was the strength and resolve of america, the uk and the west.

Frankly, all arguments to the contrary, it was ignoring the USSR that led to their demise.  We had only to let our economic being overwhelm them, to defeat them.  

Churchill had whipped the world into such a frenzy about communism that it determined the course of the world for the next half-century, and a superior, but leaderless America tagged along.  For fifty years, when we should have been ignoring the Soviets, we were preoccupied with the USSR.  In the aftermath of the fall, it took the leadership and eloquence of Dr. Obama to reawaken America and put it back on the independent path.  With Dr. Obama as the Gandhi, Ms. Clinton becomes the Nehru of the movement, and we intend to do just that.

Europe is stuck in the feudal age of presumptuous racial superiority, twisting and turning the story to make the Muslim the bad guy, and the white man the noble knight.  It’s a pretty picture, but it’s framed in privilege and subjugation.  We leave it behind…and with it, your petite black knight, Russia.

Never read such bolshie rubbish in my life

nicko wrote:Never read such bolshie rubbish in my life

You don't have to.  We're still not coming over there to save your boney asses.

Who asked you? you'd be no help, being a conscientious objector.

nicko wrote:Who asked you?    you'd be no help, being a conscientious objector.

It's not about me alone. I think you have to elevate your thinking, nicko. Get out of the field and start thinking in geopolitical terms.

Dean was addressing policy. Policy is shaped by political philosophy or thinking. What I'm speaking to is the contemporary political thinking of Americans regarding the problems Europe faces.

You guys got problems with Muslims? Don't expect us to share in your bigotry. We got eleven super carrier task forces and eleven small carrier fleets. We always seem to be there and due to NATO, a lot of Europeans feel that we are going to share your racial sentiments and be there when you start the next one of your wars. Big mistake.

All that's left in America to share your type of nationalist view, is Donald Trump. Bet on him if you think America is going to go in that direction. You'll have the same chances. Those voters are old, graying white males, who move around on walkers. The majority American voter has moved on.