Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zondag 15 november 2020

CIA LABELED HUNTER BIDEN EMAILS ‘RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION’

 

BIDEN, MEDIA AND CIA LABELED HUNTER BIDEN EMAILS ‘RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION’

 
EDUCATE!

Above photo: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-WA), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Oct. 16, 2020.

There Is Still No Evidence.

The same factions that constantly claim to abhor Fake News and disinformation continue to be the most aggressive and shameless propagators of it — especially the media.

Congressman Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and, not coincidentally, the single most shameless pathological liar in the U.S. Congress by a good margin, appeared on CNN with Wolf Blitzer on October 16 to discuss The New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s emails. The CNN host asked him a rhetorical question embedded with baseless assumptions: “does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign?”

Schiff stated definitively that it is: “we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin,” adding: “clearly, the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin, and the President is only too happy to have Kremlin help in amplifying it.” Referencing Trump’s promotion of The New York Post reporting while at his White House desk, Schiff said: “there it is in the Oval Office: another wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin, seeing the President of the United States holding up a newspaper promoting Kremlin propaganda.”

Schiff, as he usually does when he moves his mouth, was lying: exploiting CNN’s notorious willingness to allow Democratic officials to spread disinformation over its airwaves without the slightest challenge. Schiff claimed certainty about something for which there was and still is no evidence: that the Russians played a role in the procurement and publication of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop.

As he also usually does when he publicly lies, Schiff was merely echoing the propaganda of current and former operatives of the CIA and other arms of the intelligence community who abuse their power to interfere in U.S. domestic politics: the very factions over which the Intelligence Committee run by Schiff is supposed to exercise oversight supervision, not serve as their parrot. During the same week as Schiff’s CNN appearance, as Politico reported, “more than 50 former senior intelligence officials signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’”

In that letter from intelligence operatives about The New York Post story — signed by Obama’s former CIA chief John Brennan now of MSNBC (repeatedly caught lying), Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper now of CNN (who got caught lying to the Senate about NSA domestic spying), Bush’s former NSA and CIA chief Micheal Hayden now of CNN (who served during 9/11 and the Iraq War), and dozens of other similar professional disinformation agents — the intelligence operatives announced “our view that the Russians are involved in the Hunter Biden email issue,” adding “that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.”

With these ex-CIA officials and their servant Adam Schiff disseminating this narrative into U.S. public, both the Biden campaign and their captive media outlets began asserting this rank speculation as truth. They did so despite the fact that even the intelligence officials were cautious enough to acknowledge: “We want to emphasize that … we do not have evidence of Russian involvement” — a rather crucial fact that numerous outlets omitted when laundering this CIA propaganda and which the Biden campaign and Adam Schiff completely ignored when treating the claims as proven truth.

Letter from 50 former intelligence officials about The New York Post reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, Oct. 19, 2020.

The Biden campaign immediately embraced this evidence-free claim about Russia from Schiff and the intelligence community to justify its refusal to answer questions about the revelations from this reporting. “I think we need to be very, very clear that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian misinformation,” said Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the possibility that Trump would cite the Hunter emails at the last presidential debate. Biden’s senior advisor Symone Sanders similarly warned on MSNBC: “if the president decides to amplify these latest smears against the vice president and his only living son, that is Russian disinformation.”

Far worse were the numerous media outlets that spread this evidence-free claim of Kremlin involvement in lieu of reporting on the contents of the emails. Just watch how CBS Evening News with Norah O’Donnell purported to “report” on this story — an emphasis on the Russian origins of the materials, featuring a former “FBI operative” who admitted he had no evidence for the speculation CBS nonetheless aired, all with no mention of the serious questions raised by the revelations themselves:

As I noted when I announced my resignation from The Intercept, a major reason I harbored so much cynicism and scorn for their claim that my story on the Hunter Biden emails had failed to meet their high-minded, rigorous editorial and fact-checking scrutiny was because that same publication was just was one of the many anti-Trump news outlets which, in the name of manipulating the outcome of the election on behalf of the Democratic Party, had mindlessly laundered the CIA/Schiff narrative without the slightest adversarial skepticism or, worse, without a whiff of evidence.

Just one week before they refused to publish my own article, they published this remarkable disinformation, featuring an utterly reckless paragraph that was nothing more than stenographic servitude to the intelligence community and Adam Schiff. Just marvel at what was approved by the fastidious editorial and fact-checking machinery of that “adversarial” publication concerning claims by ex-CIA operatives:

Their latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani. The New York Post story was so rancid that at least one reporter refused to put his byline on it. The U.S. intelligence community had previously warned the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about the Biden laptop is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic trademarks of Russian disinformation.

Numerous other media outlets disseminated the same CIA propaganda — including The Economist (“Marc Polymeropoulos, the CIA’s former acting chief of operations for the Europe and Eurasia Mission Centre…notes that ‘the use of actual material is a hallmark of Russian disinformation campaigns’”) and (needless to say) MSNBC’s Joy Reid program (“Hunter Biden story an ‘obvious Russian plot’ McFaul believes”).

Now that this disinformation campaign has done its job — allowing Biden to get past the election without having to answer any real questions about those emails and his family’s work in Ukraine and China — the truth has emerged that there is not, and never was, any evidence for the disinformation that these materials came from the Kremlin. Some media outlets, though not all, have at least had the integrity to admit this, now that it no longer matters.

“Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Monday that recently published emails purporting to document the business dealings of Hunter Biden are not connected to a Russian disinformation effort,” USA Today acknowledged. “Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” Ratcliffe added.

On October 20, the FBI sent a letter to Sen. Ron Johnson — in response to his request for any information showing Kremlin involvement in the New York Post story — in which they, too, made clear they were not aware of any such evidence:

The FBI is the primary investigative agency responsible for the integrity and security of the 2020 election, and as such, we are focused on an array of threats, including the threat of malign foreign influence operations. Regarding the subject of your letter, we have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence. If actionable intelligence is developed, the FBI in consultation with the Intelligence Community will evaluate the need to provide defensive briefings to you and the Committee pursuant to the established notification framework.

Numerous outlets which had originally noted suspicions of Kremlin involvement and and an FBI investigation to determine possible Russian responsibility ultimately updated their stories or published new articles noting the FBI’s admission (though The Intercept never did: its story about Kremlin involvement stands).

In The Washington Post, Thomas Rid wrote this Hall of Fame sentence: “We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.” As The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat summarized: “At this point we can posit with some certainty that The Post’s story was not some sort of sweeping Russian disinformation plot but a more normal example of late-dropping opposition research, filtered through a partisan lens and a tabloid sensibility, weaving genuine facts into contestable conclusions.”

The pronouncements of DNI Ratcliffe and the FBI should no more be treated as gospel than the accusations of Kremlin involvement by Adam Schiff, John Brennan and their CIA friends. But that is exactly what the bulk of the U.S. media did with the obvious goal of shielding Joe Biden from questions about the revelations in the emails of his son: they deceived Americans into believing that the whole story was a Kremlin “disinformation” plot and therefore should be ignored.

Whatever else is true about this whole sordid affair, no evidence has emerged — none — that the Russians have played any role in any of this. It is of course possible that one day such evidence may be found of involvement by the Russians — or the Chinese, or the Iranians, or the Venezuelans, or the Saudis, or any other state or non-state actor your imagination might conjure. One cannot prove the negative that this did not happen.

But journalism, in its minimally healthy form, requires evidence before spreading inflammatory accusations about a nuclear-armed power and, even more so, speculation designed to discredit evidence of possible misconduct by the front-running candidate for the U.S. presidency. But here we have yet another case where purported news outlets — knowing that there is no price to pay professionally or reputationally for publishing evidence-free intelligence agency propaganda as long as it benefits the Party and advances the ideology which they all embrace — casually spread disinformation without the slightest evidentiary basis.

Yet again we find that the most prolific propagators of Fake News and disinformation are not the enemies of the mainstream U.S. media. It is the mainstream U.S. media itself that deceives, propagandizes and spreads disinformation on behalf of the coalition of the intelligence community and the Democratic Party far more than any other faction or entity.

Where is the evidence that Russia was involved in this New York Post story? And how can media outlets who endorsed and spread this and now refuse any self-critique expect anything but distrust and scorn from the public when they do this?

https://popularresistance.org/biden-media-and-cia-labeled-hunter-biden-emails-russian-disinformation/



Kamala Harris: The Truth

 

THE NEXT PRESIDENT

IT’S SIMPLE MATH

WHAT ARE THE ODDS BIDEN WILL LAST 4 YEARS?

It’s simple math…

A 77 year old president who has already had two aneurysms. That’d be Joe Biden.

What are the odds he will last 4 years?

Next in line is a politician who was so appalling she was one of the first to drop out of the primary because on her own she was unelectable.

Three videos about the Kamala Harris track record.

Kamala, the real estate scammers and Steven Mnuchin (2019)

Looking at the 2020 candidates (2019) (anyone but Harris)

A fake progressive and opportunist (2020)

https://www.brasscheck.com/video/the-next-president/?omhide=true




Filmmakers Boycott Israel Fest

 

Filmmakers boycott Israel’s pinkwashing TLVFest

Screen capture of the partners page on festival website

Screenshot of the TLVFest website on 2 November shows Israel’s ministry of strategic affairs listed as a major sponsor of the government-backed Tel Aviv International LGBTQ Film Festival. (Screenshot via PACBI)

More than a dozen filmmakers have heeded the Palestinian call to boycott TLVFest, the government-backed Tel Aviv International LGBTQ Film Festival.

Six of the filmmakers also joined 170 other artists from around the globe who signed a pledge launched earlier this year to boycott the festival.

TLVFest, taking place this month, has tightened its embrace of the far-right Israeli government this year, specifically the ministry of strategic affairs.

The ministry is the lead agency in Israel’s global effort to smear and sabotage the Palestinian rights movement around the world.

TLVFest is a cornerstone of Israel’s propaganda strategy known as pinkwashing.

This deploys Israel’s supposed enlightenment toward LGBTQ issues to deflect criticism from its human rights abuses and war crimes against Palestinians.

Pinkwashing also aims to falsely present Tel Aviv as a safe place for Palestinians who seek same-sex relationships, while exaggerating or lying about dangers they face in their own society.

The strategy is typically aimed at Western liberal audiences.

Ministry sponsorship

The multi-million-dollar strategic affairs ministry is one of the festival’s main sponsors.

Staffed by officers from Israel’s spy agencies, it wages a global war against BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

As the first filmmakers started to withdraw, TLVFest tried to hide its partnership with the ministry by obscuring its logo on the festival website.

“It first replaced the English version of the ministry’s logo with a Hebrew version, then removed it altogether only to replace it again with a non-branded logo,” the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) said.

But the ministry’s support for the festival is ongoing, despite the effort to conceal it.

The ministry is, for example, still uploading video teasers of the festival on its YouTube channel.

Partnerships

Several European governments are also sponsoring the festival.

European embassies often participate in Israel’s other major pinkwashing event, Tel Aviv’s annual pride parade.

TLVFest also partners with Creative Community for Peace, a front group for the far-right Israel lobby organization StandWithUs.

Its aim is to undermine Palestinian civil society’s call for BDS, especially among those who identify as LGBTQ.

In an email seen by The Electronic Intifada, Creative Community for Peace thanks filmmakers who remained in the festival.

The group’s director, Ari Ingel, alleges that the BDS movement is “spreading lies about us.”

“I can assure you we are not aligned with any of those organizations they mention,” Ingel added, without naming the organizations he was referring to.

“We are more than happy to chat and answer any questions you may have,” Ingel told the artists.

That friendly attitude is not being shown to artists who withdrew from the festival, however.

TLVFest organizers have refused to honor the requests of seven filmmakers who asked to have their films withdrawn.

Ingel’s email mentions that one film the festival is screening is The Polygraph, made by Samira Saraya, a Palestinian citizen of Israel.

This is not Saraya’s first time participating in TLVFest and other Israeli film festivals.

Saraya describes herself as “a Palestinian-Israeli who lives in a place that denies my existence, and an Arab lesbian woman in a conservative, homophobic society.”

Saraya contributes to Israel’s false narrative that Palestinian society is uniquely intolerant of LGBTQ or same-sex relations in a way that Israeli society is not.

Outside supposedly liberal Tel Aviv, much of Israeli Jewish society considers homosexuality taboo. It is also condemned by senior Israeli rabbis.

Israel’s LGBTQ community has also been a target of violent attacks.

In 2014, reservists from Israel’s notorious surveillance military Unit 8200 admitted to using the most intimate private data of Palestinians, including information on their sexual activities, to blackmail them into becoming informers on acquaintances and family members Israel is after.

It is also notable that the vast majority of Palestinians and Arabs who engage in same-sex relations do not identify according to the Euro-American homosexual-heterosexual binary, as Columbia University professor Joseph Massad has extensively written.

In addition, same-sex sexual relations are not illegal under Palestinian law.

Zoom Censors

 

Zoom censors events about Zoom censorship 

Facilitating the agendas of Israel lobby groups, videoconferencing platform Zoom once again censored events in the US and UK featuring the Palestinian resistance icon Leila Khaled.

This week, the president of New York University acceded to Zoom’s actions by smearing one of the panels, organized by NYU faculty and students and featuring an address by Khaled, as “terrorist violence” that conflicts with academic freedom.

But academics, students and civil rights defenders are fighting back.

Broaching irony, the events that Zoom censored on 23 October were organized to discuss the company’s censorship, in September, of an event at San Francisco State University which featured Khaled and other anti-apartheid activists.

The Israeli government and anti-Palestinian groups – including the Anti-Defamation League, StandWithUs and the Lawfare Project – had pressured the company for weeks over that event.

They claimed that hosting Khaled would constitute “material support” to US-designated “terrorists,” even though she was not being compensated for her involvement in the webinar and has not been involved in any armed resistance activities in decades.

After Zoom canceled the September event, and Facebook blocked it, it went ahead via YouTube. But shortly after it began, the company cut off the video stream, replacing it with a notice that said “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

In protest at these cancellations, the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) called on universities and academic groups to hold Zoom-hosted webinars on 23 October – exactly a month later – as a day of action “against the criminalization and censorship of campus speech.”

The events would include a pre-recorded message from Leila Khaled.

Most of the events went forward as planned. But webinars planned at the University of Hawai’i Manoa, New York University and the University of Leeds in the UK were shut down by the private tech giant.

Another event, at Western University in Ontario, Canada, was censored by Facebook.

Palestine Legal, along with ten other legal organizations, warned Zoom on 23 October that the company’s actions “are a dangerous attack on free speech and academic freedom, and an abuse of your contract with public university systems.”

Its status as an essential public service, they add, “does not give you veto power over the content of the nation’s classrooms and public events.”

“No basis in law or fact”

At the University of Hawai’i Manoa (UHM), Zoom shut down an event sponsored by the UHM department of ethnic studies, anti-militarism group KOA Futures, Hawai’i Peace and Justice and the campus chapter of Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine.

On 20 October, Zoom informed the webinar’s organizer, Cynthia Franklin, a USACBI member and UHM professor, that the event would not be permitted to go forward. Zoom claimed that a scheduled appearance by Khaled would violate its terms of service (ToS).

As a private company, Zoom sets its own ToS and can decide what it will allow on its platform.

StandWithUs had already begun a campaign to push Zoom to cancel the UHM webinar, alleging that Khaled’s presence was a violation of the ToS.

According to a letter by Palestine Legal and ten other civil rights defense groups, Zoom told UHM that it would cancel the webinar due to Khaled’s “recently reported glorification of violence” during the San Francisco State University event.

However, as the groups note, Khaled never spoke at the event because Zoom canceled it and YouTube shut it down before she could speak.

Zoom also claimed that the 23 October event would violate the law because of Khaled’s “affiliation or membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.”

The legal groups countered this claim, explaining that it “has no basis in law or fact.”

Khaled did not plan to represent the PFLP at either event, the legal groups stated.

Fundamentally, they added, “the exchange of ideas in a university setting is constitutionally protected free speech.”

“To extend counterterrorism laws to pure speech and academic discourse would severely undermine all of our First Amendment rights to speech and association,” the groups warned.

Zoom ultimately blocked the event.

Along with the chairs of the ethnic studies and political science departments, Franklin demanded that the administration provide another platform to host the event, she told The Electronic Intifada.

That demand was backed by another warning from Palestine Legal and the ten other civil rights defense groups.

“If the university is unable to ensure that Zoom will allow the event to go forward, the university must arrange for an adequate alternative venue with the same features, and it must cancel or amend its contract with Zoom to ensure that UHM is able to live up to its constitutional and educational responsibilities,” the legal groups said.

The university acknowledged that it was being pressured by outside groups, Franklin told The Electronic Intifada.

And in a clumsy attempt to distance UHM from the event and capitulate to such pressure, the university spokesperson had falsely claimed that the webinar was being “organized by an independent organization” and that he was “not sure how that organization will address this latest development.”

The spokesperson said he would retract the statement, “but he never did,” Franklin said. She said it was clear that the administration did not want to threaten their contract with Zoom.

Selective censorship

Noting that only a few of the planned webinars on 23 October were censored, Franklin said that Zoom’s current cancellation tactic seems to be selective and dependent on complaints from groups with an anti-Palestinian agenda.

Zoom even acknowledged that it only takes action if it receives reports “about possible violations” of its terms of service.

“It’s significant to have this lockstep censorship by these big tech companies and then see university complicity,” Franklin said.

“Everyone should be chilled.”

She added that she and her colleagues were “disappointed that there hasn’t been more outrage about this, regardless of where people stand on Palestine.”

However, amongst her students at UHM, many of whom are indigenous Hawai’ian and have a growing solidarity with Palestinians, the outrage has been palpable.

UHM’s Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine and allied groups produced a video in which members of faculty read Leila Khaled’s pre-recorded address in their own voices.

As of 10 November, Franklin said that the university administration has yet to issue any response to the legal groups’ warnings, and that it has continued to ignore the faculty’s requests for alternate online meeting platforms and the protection of academic freedom and free speech.

“Act of sick comedy”

At New York University, students, faculty and law experts were preparing for their webinar when Zoom informed them that their event was being shut down as well.

“Our Zoom link was deactivated,” Andrew Ross, an NYU professor and USACBI member told The Electronic Intifada.

Unlike at the University of Hawai’i Manoa, the NYU administration provided the webinar with an alternate platform – Google Meet – but it was technically difficult to manage and became targeted by anti-Palestinian trolls and what looked like automated bots, Ross said.

The fiasco forced the organizers to make it a private event to publish afterwards.

NYU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors said it was “an act of sick comedy to censor an event about censorship” and called on university presidents to break their contracts with Zoom if it continues to silence Palestinians.

“In what world?”

Nearly two weeks after the event was censored by Zoom, NYU president Andrew Hamilton responded to the AAUP and members of NYU faculty.

Saying he has “expressed our consternation to Zoom” about the company’s “intervention” in the event, Hamilton brazenly pivoted to insinuating that the panel was “terrorist violence.”

This, he claimed, “conflicts with academic freedom” and is “at odds with values that universities hold dear: reason, dispassion, freedom of speech and inquiry, respect for individuals and individual liberties.”

Alarmed, the AAUP this week admonished Hamilton’s assertion, reminding the president that the label of “terrorism” is “sometimes casually, and dangerously, applied to entire national or ethnic populations, as it often has been to the Palestinian people, and increasingly now, to Arabs, or Muslims.”

As scholars, the AAUP explained, “it is our job to analyze and interrogate these designations, and not to accept them as given.”

They pointed out that Khaled is not, and never has been, on a US terrorism watch list.

“By way of contrast, Nelson Mandela and the ANC, for whom he served as military commander during its period of armed resistance to apartheid rule in South Africa, were not removed from the terrorism watch list until 2008,” the AAUP stated.

“In what parallel world would an NYU seminar featuring Mandela’s words have been censored?”

“A slap in the face”

Nerdeen Kiswani, a law student at the City University of New York, was among those scheduled to speak during the NYU event.

Kiswani has been the target of Israel lobby organizations, including the Act.IL app, which is funded by the Israeli government and sends its users on “missions” to smear, harass and threaten supporters of Palestinian rights.

“There is a pattern of Palestinians literally speaking out about being censored, and that’s why we organized these panels,” Kiswani told The Electronic Intifada.

Seeing Zoom silence the NYU event was “a slap in the face to Palestinians and to Palestine [rights] organizers,” she said.

It was a message “that what we say can’t be heard or isn’t important enough to be heard,” Kiswani added.

Such censorship, she said, shows that activists “can’t solely organize on private property” – corporate-owned media platforms that regularly censor Palestinians and advocates for human rights.

“You don’t have to be Leila Khaled to face this kind of censorship, but if Palestinians fighting for Palestine can’t speak for themselves, then who’s really going to be left to speak?” she asked.

Violent extremists take credit

An event planned by student groups at the University of Leeds in the UK was also censored by Zoom.

USACBI stated that the company shut down the event as well as the personal account of its organizer, but the event was moved to another Zoom account and the full recording has been posted to Facebook.

The university had previously denied permission for the event, and said it would be “investigating” the matter.

And in Ontario, Canada, students at Western University originally planned to use Facebook to host their event, but it was shut down. Members of the Jewish Defense League, a violent extremist group, took credit for the cancellation.

The event reportedly moved forward without incident on Zoom, and the recording was eventually posted to Facebook.

“Terrifying” power of private company

As students and members of faculty demand that their universities stand up to Zoom, civil rights experts are worried that the relationship between universities and the corporation has already created a dangerous culture of self-censorship.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which guards internet privacy and freedom of speech, admonished the technology giant over its censorship of the Leila Khaled events.

EFF’s Corynne McSherry said that as universities have had to enter into contracts with Zoom in order to conduct classes online, they have little leverage over the company if it threatens to cancel contracts over events that it labels as “prohibited” content – an entirely subjective classification.

Furthermore, Zoom – which is an infrastructure layer of internet-based speech, much like an internet service provider – is choosing to “take on the moderation role” that is more commonly reserved for user-based social media companies.

“In a moment when people around the world are depending on Zoom to learn, work and organize, that should be terrifying,” she says.

McSherry warned that if Zoom’s users – including universities – “have to worry about satisfying not only their host’s terms and conditions but also those of every service in the chain from speaker to audience,” even if the speaker is not aware of these terms, this could lead to self-censorship.

By unilaterally declaring themselves arbiters of speech, Zoom and social media companies are becoming government censors, “taking action without legal process.”

NYU’s Andrew Ross said there is a clear need for universities to develop or help support an open-source platform.

“But in the short term, it has provided an opportunity for advocates of Palestinian rights to train academic attention on our issues,” Ross told The Electronic Intifada.

Watch NYU’s entire event, including the address from Leila Khaled, above.

Nora Barrows-Friedman is an associate editor of The Electronic Intifada.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/zoom-censors-events-about-zoom-censorship/31696?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=82502d3326-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e802a7602d-82502d3326-287031681


REMEMBER: NRC'S NEPNIEUWS

 

Bron: Handsoffvenezuela-Nederland,
12 december 2019 ~~~ 

In het korte artikel in de NRC van 27 november, categorie “Diplomatie”, van Merijn de Waal, staan vijf beweringen, die alle vijf fout of misleidend zijn. De vermelde informatiebron is het Amerikaanse persbureau AP. De journalist en de eindreactie van de NRC, hadden de informatie moeten controleren.

In de titel “Nieuwe regering in Bolivia plaatst weer ambassadeur in VS” wordt weggelaten dat deze zgn. interim regering in feite een militaire junta-regering is, die zichzelf na een staatsgreep, zonder goedkeuring van de senaat en de zittende president aangesteld heeft, en die derhalve niet legitiem is.

Het korte artikel bevat 5 zinnen, waarvan er 3 grove fouten bevatten:

2e zin: “Het land had geen ambassadeur in Washington meer sinds een diplomatieke rel tussen de vorige, linkse president Evo Morales en de toenmalige regering-Bush, in 2008.” 

In 2008 gaf Amerikaans Ambassadeur Philip Goldberg steun aan een staatsgreepppoging, die begon als een afscheidingsbeweging in witte regio’s, m.n. Santa Cruz. Ook had de ambassade een politiedienst omgekocht, en was betrokken bij illegaal afluisteren. Het is op zijn minst verwarrend om hier van een ‘diplomatieke rel’ te spreken

3e zin: De anti-Amerikaans ingestelde Morales trad eerder deze maand af temidden van volksprotesten over zijn omstreden herverkiezing.

De term “anti-Amerikaans” refereert aan de uitspraak van George W. Bush: “either you’re with us, or you are against us” (2001), en geeft het verkeerde beeld, dat president Morales een bedreiging voor America zou zijn. Het omgekeerde is echter waar: America heeft de soevereiniteit en stabiliteit van Bolivia veelvuldig bedreigd, en heeft ook samengespannen met de militairen en fascistenleiders die op 10 november een staatsgreep uitvoerden. Een president die voor zijn volk kiest , tegen de wil van de VS en een witte Boliviaanse elite, volgt een onafhankelijke koers. Het label ‘Pro-Boliviaans’ past hier beter dan ‘anti-Amerikaans’ 

Morales is niet afgetreden vanwege ‘volksprotesten’. Bolivia werd voor en direct na de verkiezingen geteisterd door de gewelddadige sabotage van  fascistische groeperingen zoals het ‘Santa Cruz Civic Committee’ o.l.v. Luis Fernando Camacho. 
Morales heeft op correcte wijze leiding gegeven aan het handhaven van de orde, ondanks de valse veroordelingen van de OAS, Amnesty International en de VN, en alle negatieve berichtgeving in de gevestigde media in binnen en buitenland. 

De rapporten van de OAS over verkiezingfraude en van Amnesty International over disproportioneel geweld waren verzonnen en op geen enkel feit gebaseerd. De rol van de OAS is reeds lang bekend, o.a. vanwege haar goedkeuring aan voorgaande staatsgrepen: Het is een regime-change instrument van de VS, dat diens inbreuk op het souvereiniteitsprincipe van onafhankelijke staten verhullen moet. 

Ook Amnesty International speelt een rol in de Amerikaanse agressie tegen soevereine staten. Hun rapporten moeten de militaire interventies een humanitair karakter geven. Amnesty International heeft vergelijkbare mensenrechtenschendingen ‘geconstateerd’ in de aanloop van regime-change operaties zoals in Irak, Iran, Yugoslavie, Oekraïne, Libië, Syrië, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela en nu dus Bolivia. Al haar bronnen en getuigen zijn volledig anoniem, waardoor enige controle van de beweringen in de rapporten onmogelijk is. Het is de kwalijke geheime agenda van deze door de VS opgerichte en gecontroleerde ‘NGO’. Helaas wordt Amnesty International door de wereldpers en de VN nog steeds als een betrouwbare autoriteit gezien en haar rapporten klakkeloos overgenomen, met tal van nationale en internationale instituten in haar kielzog volgend.

4e zin: Hij vluchtte naar Mexico en in het machtsvacuüm dat hij achterliet greep de rechtse senator Áñez de macht.

Er is een staatsgreep uitgevoerd, waarbij de met 47% van de stemmen herkozen president en zijn ministers moesten vluchten voor hun leven. Om dan te spreken van ‘een machtvaccuum dat hij achterliet’ is een uiterst cynische verdraaiing van feiten. Ook de vermelding “greep de rechtse senator Áñez de macht” geeft een verkeerd beeld van de werkelijkheid. De ultra-religieuze fascist Anez werd door de legertop in de positie van interim president geplaatst. Zij is niet meer dan een marionet van de door de VS gesteunde Militaire Junta.

Van een dagblad dat zich richt op kritische lezers, zou je een correctere berichtgeving mogen verwachten. We zullen een evt reactie van de NRC op deze kritiek onderaan dit artikel bijplaatsen.


The elimination of the war crimes court is near-complete

  With Karim Khan's dismissal, the elimination of the war crimes court is near-complete Millions of people around the world will now fin...