HRW and likeminded quasi-human rights/progressive groups and sources front for wealth, power and privilege. Well-known corporate foundations provide funding.
They include Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Soros, and MacArthur among others. Money they supply is tainted. It's dirty.
Services rendered in return are required. Conflicts of interest are rife. Information provided is cooked to serve them.
Followers are deceived. They're betrayed. NGOs like HRW, Amnesty International, and others like them are imperial agents.
From its 1978 beginnings, HRW delivered pro-Western/anti-Soviet propaganda. It's a reliable Western propaganda instrument.
Executive Director Kenneth Roth is a former federal prosecutor. Former HRW head Aryeh Neier hired him. He left to become president of Soros' Open Society Institute.
Deputy Executive Director for External Relations Carrol Bogert served as Newsweek's editor, correspondent and bureau chief. Other past and present members have ties to sources representing US foreign policy interests.
AI operates the same way. According to Francis Boyle:
"Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."
To be sure, if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources, man and woman power, publicity, you name it. They can throw whatever they want at that."
"But if it's dealing with violations of human rights by the United States, Britain, Israel, then it's like pulling teeth to get them to really do something on the situation."
"They might, very reluctantly and after an enormous amount of internal fightings and battles and pressures, you name it. But you know, it's not like the official enemies list."
AI's commitment to human rights is hollow. It's hypercritical. So is HRW's. Their stock and trade is deception. They're on the wrong side of history. They're well compensated for misreporting.
Despite no evidence linking Syria to chemical weapons use any time throughout months of conflict, HRW headlined "Syria: Government Likely Culprit in Chemical Attack," saying:
"Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013."
"These attacks, which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, appeared to use a weapons-grade nerve agent, most likely Sarin."
HRW published a 22-page report. It's titled "Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons."
It systematically spurns truth and full disclosure. It substitutes managed news misinformation. HRW has lots of explaining to do. Don't expect forthrightly reports to follow.
Independent witnesses unanimously blamed insurgents for attacking Ghouta. HRW chose anti-government ones. It did so to make its case. It did it disreputably.
It relied on fake videos and photos. Emergencies director Peter Bouckaert said:
"Rocket debris and symptoms of the victims from the August 21 attacks on Ghouta provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used."
"This evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning."
So-called evidence lacks credibility. Independently verifiable corroboration contradict's Bouckaert's claim.
He regurgitated official misinformation. He did so disgracefully. It's typical HRW analysis. It's not worth the paper it's written on.
HRW didn't visit Ghouta firsthand. It didn't collect weapon remnants, environmental samples, and physiological samples.
It didn't test for what chemical agent, if any, was used. It chose unreliable technical advice. It did so "from an expert on the detection and effects of chemical warfare agents."
Keith B. Ward was chosen. He's US Department of Homeland Security science advisor and program manager.
He "reviewed accounts from local residents, the clinical signs and symptoms described by doctors, and many of the videos that were taken of the victims of the August 21 attacks."
Three unnamed doctors in Ghouta were cited. Allegedly they treated victims.
They "showed symptoms including suffocation; constricted, irregular, and infrequent breathing; involuntary muscle spasms; nausea; frothing at the mouth; fluid coming out of noses and eyes; convulsing; dizziness; blurred vision; red and irritated eyes and pin-point pupils (myosis)."
"Some young victims exhibited cyaonis, a bluish coloring on the face consistent with suffocation or asphyxiation."
"None of the victims showed traumatic injuries normally associated with attacks using explosive or incendiary weapons."
These type symptoms are consistent with nerve agent exposure. Sarin was used in previous attacks. Evidence proved insurgents used it.
None suggests Syria ever did. HRW lied claiming otherwise. Ghouta's attack was the first major one since Saddam used chemical weapons Halabja. He did so in March 1988.
He reportedly killed thousands of Kurdish civilians. Thousands more were harmed. Many died later from complications. The attack occurred near the end of the Iran/Iraq war. It didn't affect its outcome.
According to Bouckaert:
"The increasingly evident use of chemical weapons in Syria's terrible conflict should refocus the international debate on deterring the use of such weapons and more broadly protecting Syria’s civilian population."
He pointed fingers the wrong way. He left what's most important unsaid. He failed to absolve Syria. He exonerated culpable insurgents.
HRW relied on a virtual Noah's Ark of unreliable sources and scam artists.
GPS data and satellite imagery analysis was used. When reliably done, it maps precise locations.
HRW didn't name its source. Clearly it wasn't independent. It was either Washington, one or more EU nations, or perhaps Israel. It's information was tainted. It's fabricated. It point fingers the wrong way.
So-called arms expert Nic Jenzen-Jones was used. He's a corporate liaison specialist. He works for private security and defense industries. He consults on a freelance basis.
He wasn't enlisted to report accurately on what happened. Nor was Eliot Higgins (aka Brown Moses). He's an unemployed finance/ admin worker.
He blogs on what's ongoing in Syria. He's never been there. He admits no qualifying expertise.
"Before the Arab spring, (he) knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner," he said. He "had no knowledge beyond what (he) learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."
Despite no expert ability to do so, he analyzes Syrian weapons. He does so from the seat of his pants. He monitors fake videos and photos.
He uses other unreliable sources. His reports lack credibility. So does HRW. It chose him and other sources to deceive. According to Bouchaert, "Brown Moses is among the best out there when it comes to weapons monitoring in Syria."
He says what anti-Assad sources want to hear. He's well compensated for doing so. Independent analysts reporting truthfully aren't wanted. Information they put out is suppressed.
HRW's a reliable imperial tool. Wrongfully blaming Assad for insurgents attack on Ghouta shows where it stands. It wasn't HRW's first time on the wrong side of history. It won't be the last.
Independent voices counter anti-Syrian misinformation. Count this writer proudly among them.
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
- Pope Francis arrives in Egypt on historic visit
- Tens of thousands to protest Trump's climate policies
- Palestinian 'day of rage' in support of prisoners
- Trump tells NRA he will never 'infringe' on gun rights
- Hezb-i-Islami's Hekmatyar to Taliban: Lay down arms
- US marines return to Taliban stronghold of Helmand