by Catte Black
For nearly two years now we have been following the dedicated work of Robert Stuart in exposing the possible fabrications behind the infamous BBC Panorama documentary “Saving Syria’s Children.” On June 11 he gave a public presentation summarising his work to date, which is also available as a PDF. As an overview of the evidence in the case, it is well worth reading. You can download it HERE. And below are some of the highlights.
First a brief reminder of the back story:
On August 29 2013, as the UK Parliament was about to vote on possible military action against the Assad government in Syria, the BBC’s 10 o’clock news aired a segment titled Syria crisis: Incendiary bomb victims ‘like the walking dead’ in which it was claimed a Syrian fighter jet had dropped an incendiary bomb containing a “napalm-type” substance on the playground of the Urm al-Kubra school near Aleppo. The BBC claimed its own team “inside Syria filming for [the documentary series] Panorama” had been witnesses to the victims arriving at the Atareb hospital, and it aired a segment of footage showing incoming casualties.This footage later formed the basis for the documentary “Saving Syria’s Children.”
The discrepancies and other problems surrounding this footage and the BBC documentary are legion. We have documented some of them here and here and here, and Robert Stuart’s blog offers a detailed database that puts it beyond doubt the BBC has not been entirely honest about the origins of and motives behind this film.
Stuart’s PDF highlights some additional areas of interest:
The reality of the alleged injuries
The injuries visible in the BBC footage have been questioned by medical professionals:
Can our readers see any sign of injury on this – thankfully – healthy-seeming little baby, let alone ’80% burns”?
Number and identity of victims
In a real event the number of victims, their names, backgrounds and photos should be reasonably consistent. Wide disparities would be hard to reconcile with something happening in the real world. Especially so in this case, given the people giving us the figures were allegedly there on the scene either treating the victims hands-on or filming it being done. You’d expect a pretty clear and definite report on the numbers treated in the quite small Atareb hospital. But this doesn’t seem to be the case:
How is it that Dr Ahsan, who was right on scene, first claimed there were “25” victims, but in a later interview almost doubled the number to “40”, while Ian Pannell claimed there were “30” victims treated at Atareb that day, and Rola Hallam’s Hand in Hand For Syria website trumped them all, claiming “50” of the victims were brought to Atareb?
Did neither Dr Ahsan nor Ian Pannell, nor the Hand In Hand for Syria website make any effort to obtain a definitive account of the numbers they treated? Were they just grabbing figures at random?
It ought to be possible, in today’s interconnected age, to determine when an event occurred with a maximum disparity of – say – one or two hours if the event occurred in a remote rural location and much less if it was in an urban setting with numerous witnesses. Of course some variation in the accounts of those present is to be expected, because humans are fallible and the events themselves are traumatic and confusing. But even so there is a minimal standard of consistency we need to demand.
Yet look at the huge disparity of timings offered up about this event:
The fact that different sources can place the alleged attack on the Urm al-Kubra school as much as six hours apart is very hard to reconcile with any form of veridical reality.
Let’s remember there was a BBC camera crew right there to record these events. Even allowing for shock and confusion, we might expect Ian Pannell, the reporter, and his award-winning cameraman, Darren Conway to pin down the timing pretty firmly. But Pannell says the events happened at “around 5:30”. Conway says “I don’t know, it was somewhere between 3 and 5.”
“I don’t know”?
“It was somewhere between...”?
This isn’t quite the stringent attention to detail we might expect from professionals in a war zone. Surely they can pin it down a bit closer than that? How come Pannell has ended up thinking it was at least two and a half hours later than the earliest time given by Conway? Didn’t they discuss the timing with one another after the event? Don’t they have phones or watches? Doesn’t any of their footage have a time code?
Dr Saleyha Ahsan
Dr Saleyah Ahsan, one of the two British medical personnel to appear in the Panorama documentary, and filmed attending to the alleged victims, is a former British Army captain, trained at the elite Sandhurst military academy, who served in Bosnia and went out to Libya to “support the revolution”, before staying on to give medical service to the “fighters” (presumably the NATO-backed “rebels”).
I’m sure we can all agree this is definitely not the profile of someone in Military Intelligence.
Interestingly, her ex-CO now runs medical simulation training exercises, as Saleyah herself revealed in passing when she was sent to cover the exercises by BBC Newsnight
The below images are of FAKE INJURIES provided by a professional medical simulation firm. You might argue they look more convincing than anything seen on the BBC Panorama program.
Dr Rola Hallam & her shadowy dad
Saleyah’s connections are as curious as those of the other British doctor present during the filming of alleged casualties at the Atareb hospital, Dr Rola Hallam, executive on the board of the Hand in Hand For Syria charity, and whose father Dr Mousa al-Kurdi, may or may not be connected with the self-styled “Syrian National Council”, a supporter of the terrorists/“rebels” and a barely-concealed front for western-backed interests in Syria. He certainly seems to be no friend of the current Syrian president.
We say “may or may not be connected with the SNC”, because Rola Hallam is on record denying her father is a member of the SNC, while her colleague seems to be of a different opinion:
These women clearly need to work harder at co-ordinating their narrative.
* * *
The evidence for some form of fakery here is now undeniable. Not only are some of the major players shown to be previously involved in pro-western regime change narratives and/or politically active in the bid to unseat Assad, but the footage taken by the BBC itself shows clear signs of being less than real. The alleged injuries look questionable, not simply to lay people but to medical professionals. The narrative is inconsistent, the timing extremely convenient for the pro-west, pro-NATO agenda.
What does this mean in a wider context? If the BBC and elements of the British medical profession have – as seems highly possible – colluded to produce fake news of a fake event, how should we view other such convenient narratives involving alleged loss of life, implicating acknowledged enemies of the West, and seeming to justify more wars of intervention, more surveillance, more curbs on our freedom? What if an event were to happen in future in – say – Berlin, New York, London, Melbourne that has all the same hallmarks of questionable-seeming injuries, vague timelines, vague or poorly sourced victim-lists, and a seemingly pre-prepared perp that plugs right in to the west’s current hate-list or perpetual war agenda?
How parochial or racist is it for us to to assume fakery is a priori impossible when the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages?
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
What a sad bunch of losers.
Sad and bad, given this was about dead kids. Take a good look at yourselves in the mirror.
Dead children is a tragedy. And if children died in this incident that is terrible. But there is no disrespect involved in simply questioning whether this was so. If we decide a tragedy can be huge enough to go unchallenged then we are encouraging the PTB to use such events – real or falsified – to shut down inquiry. And no one will benefit from that.
We encourage you to read Robert Stuart’s site and decide a) who if anyone is being disrespected and b) how certain you can be that anyone actually was injured or died that day.
You take the view that children are not used/never used for propaganda purposes then? So any narrative that involves children is always pristine and must never be questioned?. Remember the ‘incubator babies’ propaganda in the Gulf war delivered by a 15 year old (child) by any chance? Later found to be the daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador to US and delivering a propaganda script, even Amnesty had to issue a correction.
I am afraid that in war propaganda there are no moral or ethical ‘red lines’ and skepticism, especially of our own governments and allies, is essential if we are to get out of the current egregious never ending war situation.
Mainstream Media are corrupt and insane. Just as their owners and backers and hacks filling us with all this bullshit are. The more gets uncovered the more naked and venal and greedy they show themselves to be.
SWEDHR Denouncement of the ‘White Helmets’ fakers, showing macabre manipulation of Dead Children and Staged Chemical Weapons Attacks, has in its account video of a needle driven into the chest of a baby as either straight out murder, or whatever the subset of necromancy describes ‘playacting with needles in the bodies of real babies,’ is.
[a simulated intracardiac-injection maneuver was considered sufficient to raise the hypothesis that the child might have died because of the injection procedure. Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli. https://www.sott.net/article/347762-Caught-in-their-lies-Swedish-NGO-accuses-White-Helmets-of-staging-rescue-efforts-using-dead-children-for-propaganda%5D
The ‘truth’ will forever be out as to the child’s closeness to death at the moment recorded, and whether the needle actually murdered her/him, but; the opinion is, the child would most likely killed by that injection and by the obvious blundering of the actor delivering it, so. A snuff video by any other name ; created by the ape of western Intelligence pretending ‘doctor’ ..playacting hero for the Hollywood swamp and the then Pres. OBAMA – the now Pres. TURNIP – to clap at and give their stupid fucking awards to..#warporn. @warsnuffporn.
Kinda reminds me of the fake injuries I saw from the Boston Marathon. New technology finds its way to the middle east.
I don’t know? I suppose that if the assumption is a priori, it could be racist. It could also be something else and many other things besides, even if on an equally a priori basis.
One might, for example, tend reflexively to assume, without the least twinge of a racist impulse, that where there is noise about a “terror event,” perhaps some people were actually injured, irrespective of whether the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages. After all, “terror events” do happen in which some people do end up injured or dead, leaving many behind deeply and forever traumatized.
On the other hand, how parochial or racist is it for us to assume a priori that whenever the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages, fakery must be the only possible scenario? Whites would never actually kill their own, now would they?
If a racist outlook is sometimes consciously held, sometimes it abides entirely unconsciously, reactively and refracted into any number of contorted psychological formations or complexes.
The question enfolds its answer: we should view such narratives in light of the purposes they serve regardless of whether the alleged terror events were in themselves “real” or “fake.” They are used, when they are so used, to justify more wars and repression, and that is how we should regard them, that is to say, on the bases of how they are used, as tools to justify the barbarities committed in our name.
As to the alleged “reality” of the victims, one can and should hold one’s assumptions about possible injuries in abeyance until such time as “adequate evidence” either grounds our reflexive assumptions or forces us to relinquish them. Surely one can (and should) at least twig to what one doesn’t know for sure.
But perhaps I am an unconscious racist whose racism may be more apparent to others.
I do think, however, that mostly white people with Facebook accounts can be injured or killed in “fake” terror events (i.e. false flags) as well as “real” ones just as easily as anyone else.
I think it’s a good bet that, except in tactical terms, the ruling classes don’t give a fuck about the color or ethnicity of any of their “real” victims, since from their standpoint they, too, the mostly white people with Facebook accounts, are mostly from among the chattel to be exploited.
Of course, I personally find Robert Stuart’s work rather compelling. No doubt it strikes me that way in part because of one or two of my a priori assumptions, conscious or not, racist or otherwise.
Incidentally, Ian Pannell has now left the BBC to take up the post of senior foreign correspondent with ABC News. ABC News chief James Goldston says of Pannell: “He has an uncanny knack of being in the right place at the right time…”
This is an important piece… I hope this one gets more attention and that more, in this direction, follow!
Why not let the Syrian refugees move to the Golan Heights? Nice area, decent weather and plenty of water and fertile ground?
Oh, that’s right, Israel stole that from Syria in 1967 and refuses to give back what they stole, so no Syrian refugees to the ‘Stolen Golan.’
If our like politics, check out my blog at https://BraedenPoliticsLife.com
Reblogged this on Floating-voter.
Reblogged this on Fabrication in BBC Panorama 'Saving Syria’s Children'.
“What does this mean in a wider context? If the BBC and elements of the British medical profession have – as seems highly possible – colluded to produce fake news of a fake event, how should we view other such convenient narratives involving alleged loss of life, implicating acknowledged enemies of the West, and seeming to justify more wars of intervention, more surveillance, more curbs on our freedom? What if an event were to happen in future in – say – Berlin, New York, London, Melbourne that has all the same hallmarks of questionable-seeming injuries, vague timelines, vague or poorly sourced victim-lists, and a seemingly pre-prepared perp that plugs right in to the west’s current hate-list or perpetual war agenda?
How parochial or racist is it for us to to assume fakery is a priori impossible when the victims are mostly white and have Facebook pages?”
Anybody who excepts any report at face value now for a very long time, and most especially when they are so inclined to believe it, are now just part of a brainwashed cult paid for by the rich men of the earth, spouting propaganda to make us all slaves more so or dead.
Reblogged this on Worldtruth.
What if awakening in truth is a state in which no one else can hear you?
The mind that is made for the purpose of hiding feared truth cannot altogether succeed in … contd on
(I posted the whole but it did not show up)
While I accept that the alleged injuries may have been faked and that the people you have identified probably faked them, we should not leap to a conclusion that BBC staff were complicit in the fakery.
They may well be well-meaning, well-intentioned individuals whose emotions have been appealed to.
Being shown pictures of babies and children with apparently hideous injuries may trigger an emotional response.
Even someone as experienced as Jo Cox was taken-in by the so-called White Helmets mythology.
If it can happen to her, it can probably happen to anyone.
Regrettably, there still remain a lot of highly gullible people out there.
They have the best of intentions but are simply not equipped to divine the truth.
Steal the kingdom and they call you ‘king’.
So when Rockefeller and Carnegie captured the key medical institutions for their own monopolistic cartel racket – they diverted the key institutions with wealth and persistent intent over time – to redefine medicine in their image – the pharmaceutical corporations. Ever since then so many have witnessed the lies and deceits that cost true help met – but not a lot changes. Because the frequency domain of the fear that buys into the power and protection racket is unable to imagine or perceive its own predicament.
So of course the doctors, professors and nurses and caregivers – not to mention voluntary campaigners of public support are not all knowingly complicit. But very many are somewhat knowing but unable to speak, or perhaps articulate a felt dissonance that they may find easier NOT to address. “Don’t go there!” is an intuitive unwillingness to open or look at what is felt dangerous or terrible to look upon.
The ‘Inquisitor’ mentality seeks out and sniffs for signs of non-compliance in its ranks.
Good intentions pave the way to hell – because hell cannot be truly escaped by setting and asserting good intentions over the top of a conflicted foundation. But of course we try anything to hand when our reactions frame us unable and unwilling to look at what we are running from. Better to look away and point the finger There! – There’s the one who is to blame! False flag is built into the personality structure.
So I join with you in NOT vilifying persons – so much as addressing the systemic or institutional corruptions of which they are symptomatic. A lot of the Net comments is a hate-fest of private stress release aired in public.
But the true of you is where your recognition of the true of anything resonates – and no one is without the true of them – no matter how covered over and indeed usurped.
Steal a mind and they don’t even know their thoughts are not their own…
That links to my understanding of sweeping out the interlopers from the Template. Which is perhaps the opposite of how many interpret Jesus and the moneylenders – but I feel the use of anger or rage to clear out and align in self-honesty is a result of being sickened by self-betrayal. No place for a parasitic lie to find nurture within active willingness for true presence.
John, how is it that Darren Conway nor Ian Pannell can put a time figure on the event. When the whole program revolves around this one event. Every time the BBC is asked questions they skirt around it. That isn’t someone taken in. This is someone not giving a care as long as they get their pay cheque and work their way up the career ladder with OBEs thrown in.
Then Darren Conway stops the Frontline Club from releasing the video of his talk. Why? Because he got caught out.
John – the key thing to note is that the footage was shot by the BBC themselves rather than received from a third party. From watching this clip ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jch0qsHRqRE ) it’s quite apparent that the people in it are under direction and springing into action as they come into view on the camera. It’s just not credible that the BBC reporters were well-meaning and naively duped
As flem points out, this risible scene was filmed by BBC cameraman Darren Conway:
See also this chap, who is doing his best to make sure Conway captures an emotive scene: https://bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/saving-syrias-children-the-directors-cut/
It is not possible that Pannell and Conway were unaware that they were working amid a fabrication. Some of their previous work on Syria was highly dubious – I’ll post in a separate comment – but Saving Syria’s Children was their acme.
Remember the name of the journalist and cameraman: Ian Pannell and Darren Conway.
And try not to believe anything they say or do again.
Be interesting to see if they have been regulars already.
Only slightly more subtle than WOMDs ,. . .