Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.

29 March, 2018

Weapons of mass disinformation

As London-Moscow relations are driven to the abyss, on the occasion of the Russian double spy Sergei Skripal poisoning, there is a man that could figure out what really happened. The only problem is that he was found dead, near his home, fifteen years ago. He made the mistake to reveal that the British government was lying about the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


Fifteen years passed since a case that would make John le Carré's most fascinating spy novels look like boring, official reports from a low-ranking diplomat. In July 2003, British scientist and defense ministry adviser, David Kelly, was found dead in Oxfordshire, England.

The police announced that his wrist was engraved and next to his body there was a box of Co-proxamol painkillers. The file closes with the note "suicide," while prosecutors initially decide to deny access to data for 70 years - a move that spilled more oil in the fire of conspiracy theories according to which the British secret services were involved in the death of the scientist.

A few weeks earlier, David Kelly, speaking to a BBC reporter, had questioned the evidence for Saddam Hussein's supposed weapons of mass destruction, with which the governments of George Bush and Tony Blair went to invade and occupy Iraq.

Although his colleagues considered him to be "hawkish" and he did not hide his hatred for Saddam Hussein's regime, it seems that he didn't bear to reproduce Tony Blair's provocation - as almost the entire state apparatus did.

What very few knew, even then, is that David Kelly had set up his career (and his collaboration with the British intelligence) on monitoring the Russian biological and chemical war programs.

In 1989, the MI6 intelligence service will approach him to assign him one of the most important missions of his career: the questioning of the Russian scientist Vladimir Pasechnik who had defected to the West.

Pasechnik supposedly revealed the existence of a former USSR secret biological war program, and as Kelly earned the credit of British and US intelligence services, he was getting prepared for his next top-secret mission: along with US and British scientists, he visits former Soviet laboratories in Siberia, where smallpox virus experiments were reportedly conducted.

Today, as the domino that began with the Iraq war has turned entire parts of the Middle East into heaps of ruins, Britain is starting a new cold war with Russia in the field where David Kelly excelled.

Yet, according to several analysts, such as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, and the famous documentary filmmaker John Pilger, the data file for the poisoning of the Russian double agent is equally unreliable with the file for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.



Furthermore, a year ago, Britain's Head of the Detection Laboratory at the UK's chemical weapons facility, Robin Black, argued that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of Novichok, which is believed to have been used for Skripal's poisoning. Robin Black was a close associate of David Kelly and perhaps (if the latter was still alive), they would investigate the case together.

But times have changed. The BBC, which dared to oppose the British government in 2003 for the death of David Kelly, today mocks those who question London's official position concerning Skripal's poisoning.

When Labor Party leader, Jeremy Corbin, dared to suggest that the Prime Minister was obliged to provide enough evidence for Russia's involvement before torpedoing diplomatic relations with Moscow, the BBC wore him a Russian hat and placed him in a giant monitor with the Kremlin and the Saint Basil's Cathedral in the background.




BBC is not too far now from calling Corbyn a "Russian agent", as Britain's yellow press had done a few days earlier.

Governments and their secret services in East and West continue to use the same Machiavellian practices that have been implemented for centuries. The question for us is whether the chances of learning what really happens are rising or falling over time.

Info from article by Aris Chatzistefanou, translated from the original source:

No comments:

Post a Comment