October ’16 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking

There are about 300 blogs on the list, although I am weeding out those which are no longer active or have removed public access to sitemeters. (Let me know if I weed out yours by mistake or get your stats wrong).

Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters. Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for October 2016. Ranking is by visit numbers. I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers. Meanwhile, I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.

You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email Find out how to get Subscription & email updates Continue reading

White Helmets dupes New Zealand government?

real-syrian-civil-defence

The real Syrian Civil Defence – and not a White Helmet in sight. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

Apparently, the White Helmets have duped the New Zealand Ministry’s of Foreign Affairs and Internal Affairs into coughing up about $100,000 – and tarnishing the country’s reputation in the process.

Foreign Affairs Minister, Murray McCully, and Internal Affairs Minister, Peter Dunne, announced the funding last Wednesday (see NZ training support for White Helmets in Syria). It is to be used to provide four-month training support by the NZ Fire Service to the White Helmets.

On the surface, this looks like a poorly considered knee-jerk response to a White Helmets request for funds. But the Ministers cannot have properly vetted the White Helmet organisation or its claims. Peter Dunne naively describes it as a “volunteer organisation which is doing remarkable work in badly damaged cities like Aleppo.” The ministers also seemed to have uncritically accepted claims made by the White Helmets that they have helped thousands of Syrians. They ignored completely information showing this is a partisan organisation, operating only in areas held by “terrorists”/”rebels,” often seen to be involved in “terrorist”/”rebel” celebrations (sometimes carrying Al Nusra flags) and with members who carry arms and have been identified as also belonging to militant armed groups.

[Note: Al Nusra is the Syrian franchise for Al Qaeda and is classified as a terrorist organisation by the UN. I am using the term “rebel”/”terrorist” to avoid the problems of differentiating between so-called “moderate rebels” and terrorists – hell, even the USA has been able to differentiate them. Currently, groups that have been called “moderate rebels” are fighting in the Army of Conquest – a coalition led by Al Nusra.]

The Ministers seem to have been taken in by the slick propaganda claims of this organisation. They have ignored the fact that White Helmet propaganda is always directed against the legitimate government of Syria and its allies, and it often used by mainstream media to give a distorted picture of this conflict.

Who are the White Helmets?

Well, first, they are not the legitimate Syrian Civil Defence organisation – as Mr Dunne seems to believe in his claim this funding is not a sign New Zealand was taking a side in the conflict. He said.

“We don’t have a view about whether they are politically aligned or not – they are the Syrian Civil Defence Association.”

Is he not aware that the White Helmets have simply dishonestly usurped that name?

The White helmets are not affiliated to, or recognised by, the International Civil Defence Association (ICDA),  nor is it connected to the Syrian Civil Defence Forces (the legitimate Syrian Civil Defence organisation) which have been a member of the ICDA since 1972.

As independent report Vanessa Beeley points out in her article The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters:”

For the REAL Syria Civil Defence you call 113 inside Syria.  There is no public number for the White Helmets.  Why not? Why does this multi-million dollar US & NATO state-funded first responder ‘NGO,’ with state of the art equipment supplied by the US and the EU via Turkey, have no central number for civilians to call when the “bombs fall”?”

syria-civil-defence

West Aleppo REAL Syria Civil Defence unit (Photo: Vanessa Beeley August 15, 2016)

It’s worth reading Vanessa Beely’s reports and watching her interviews. She has visited Syria and talked with people from the real Syrian Civil Defence. And she explains why the White Helmets are usurpers and not a legitimate Syrian first responder organisation.

I have written about the White Helmets before – see Anti-Syrian propaganda and the White Helmets and provided a general overview. This video also provides an overview:

In summary, the White Helmets is not a Syrian organisation, it is an overseas NGO funded by governments like the UK and the USA. It operates only in areas held by the “rebels”/”terrorists”  and issues anti-government propaganda – often calling for the US to attack Syrian government forces. Uniformed White Helmets members have been seen in “rebel”/”terrorist” demonstrations, holding Al Nusra flags and participating in Jihadist chants. They run a slick propaganda department – rescues seem only to involve young children and camera teams are always there to record the “rescues.” Professional rescue people have commented that they seem to never use real rescue equipment such as spine splints. Some commentators have even suggested that some of the White Helmet propaganda videos are staged. Rescues are certainly managed with an eye to the camera.

What vetting did the NZ government carry out?

OK, its only about $100,000 dollars – small bickies. But in terms of New Zealand’s reputation and providing support for anti-government forces this is a huge problem. We will now be publicly aligned with the “rebel”/”terrorist’ side in the Syrian conflict. And this despite giving support to UN Security Council resolutions on Syria which always start with the clause:

“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, . . . “

Yet the White Helmets in their propaganda, calls for attacks on Syrian government forces and restriction of its work to “rebel”/”terrorist’ areas is obviously working against “the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Has the NZ government decided to align itself more publicly with the “rebel”/”terrorist” forces in Syria, or at least align itself more publicly against “the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic?”

Or is it just a matter of the government being duped by a slick propaganda campaign and possibly pressure from governments which are financing this anti-Syria organisation?

I sincerely hope that it is the later. But then that raises questions about the vetting procedure use by these ministries. Surely government ministries should carry out some sort of investigation before committing money and national reputation in such a controversial area.

What exactly was done to check out the White Helmets before this decision was made?

Perhaps it’s time for an Official information request?

Similar articles

 

Voluntary media censorship is ethically wrong

Reporting the Syrian war has become very partisan. Some established media simply do not cover aspects of the war or limit their coverage to one side. The concerned person cannot, and should not, rely on a single media source to get reliable information.

I am not asserting there is organisational censorship – far from it. Just that censorship often operates by omission. For example, Al Jazeera never covers the facts of civilian deaths in western Aleppo because they have no reporters in that city. Whereas they closely cover (alleged) civilian deaths in the eastern part of the city held by “rebels”/”terrorists.” They seem to have reporters embedded in the “rebel”/”terrorist” militia – or simply uncritically pass on the information provided to them by “activists” involved in the fighting. Almost every night they seem to pass on video and reports from the “White Helmets” – a very suspect organisation with links to Al Qaeda.

But the video above provides another example of how voluntary media self-censorship works in the war.

The speaker is the Syrian Ambassador to the UN, Dr Bashar al-Ja’afari. I have written before about him, saying that he:

“impresses me with the clear and concise arguments he makes. It is a pity  he is not given the coverage on our mainstream media that his position should demand. He makes a lot more sense than the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.”

Now, I think I know why he gets no coverage. The media self-censors when it comes to his press conferences.

If you do not have time to watch the whole video fast forward to about 49 minutes and 30 secs. Here he describes what happens when he gives press conferences alongside Security Council meetings. Such press conferences are commonly given by the ambassadors to update media on the views and stance of government’s.

Bashar describes how  when his turn comes to speak to the accredited reporters – an audience of about 50 – 100 who have the opportunity to put questions to the speaker – 50% of the reporters get up and leave! I was aware that ambassadors from unfriendly countries (like USA, France, and the UK) do this – leave the security council meetings – when the Syrian Ambassador speaks. But the media!

As Dr al-Ja’afari says,  these reporters not only self-censor by omission when they leave – they cannot report the information they do not receive – they also self-censor by removing the obligation to report from such press conferences.

I think that is morally wrong and violates any reasonable concept of reporting ethics.

The speech is well worth watching through to the end. It is very informative and interesting. He explains the background the 9/11, describes the nature if secularism in Syria, and exposes some of the underhand methods used in the UN to cover up the UN commission’s report of the claims of weapons if mass destruction in Iraq. He also relates the story of how the issue of chemical weapons and their use in Syria was mishandled.

Similar articles

 

 

Fluoridation not associated with hip fracture, heart attacks of osteosarcoma – new study

sweden

A new Swedish study confirms fluoride does not increase risks of hip fracture, myocardial infarction, or osteosarcoma.

Community water fluoridation appears to have no association with increased risk of hip fracture, myocardial infarction or osteosarcoma.

That’s the conclusion from a new Swedish study. And these conclusions agree with most findings from earlier studies.

Peggy Näsman describes this new study in her PhD thesis:

Näsman, P. (2016). Epidemiological studies of fluoride exposure and hip fracture , myocardial infarction and osteosarcoma.

She used Swedish nationwide population-based registers for her investigations.

Sweden does not use community water fluoridation but its drinking water contains fluoride at various levels, including optimum or even higher concentrations. So Swedish population data are ideal for looking at possible links between the level of fluoride intake and specific health effects.

Näsman found no association between fluoride exposure level and risk of hip fracture using a  cohort of 452,824 eligible people with an exposure to the same drinking water source from birth. The drinking water fluoride levels  ranged between <0.1 and 2.7 mg/L . Similarly, she found no association between fluoride level and the risk of osteoporotic (low-trauma) hip fracture.

However, stratified analyses suggested that fluoride exposure in people younger than 80 years of age was, in fact, associated with a decreased risk for hip fracture.

There was also no association between fluoride exposure level and risk of myocardial infarction using a cohort of 455,619 eligible people with an  exposure to the same drinking water source from birth.  The drinking water fluoride levels  ranged between <0.1 and 2.7 mg/L . There was also no association with fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction.

Finally, Näsman found no association between drinking water fluoride exposure and risk of osteosarcoma using a case-control study consisting of 363 eligible osteosarcoma cases identified in the Swedish Cancer Register, and 1,815 control subjects randomly selected from the Total Population Register. Here the drinking water fluoride levels ranged between 0.03 and 2.75 mg/L.

Anti-fluoridation campaigners often cite cherry-picked studies based on unreliable work or small numbers of subjects to argue that community water fluoridation is harmful. They have specifically claimed fluoridation causes increased risks of hip fracture,myocardial infarction, and osteosarcoma. However, the bulk of the scientific literature does not support these claims and this study once again confirms that.

Näsman is publishing her findings in three scientific publications:

Näsman P, Ekstrand J, Granath F, Ekbom A, Fored CM. Estimated drinking water fluoride exposure and risk of hip fracture: a cohort study. J Dent Res. 2013 92(11):1029-34.

Näsman P, Granath F, Ekstrand J, Ekbom A, Sandborgh-Englund G, Fored CM. Natural fluoride in drinking water and myocardial infarction: a cohort study in Sweden. Science of the Total Environment. 2016 562:305-11.

Näsman P, Granath F, Ekstrand J, Ekbom A, Sandborgh Englund G, Naimi- Akbar A, Fored CM. Natural fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma: a case-control study in Sweden. [Submitted]

Similar articles

Anti-fluoridation activist Paul Connett has a senior moment about our debate

Paul Connett, from  the US anti-fluoride group, the Fluoride Action network, was interviewed today on the Radio new Zealand’s Jesse Mulligan programme. You can listen to the interview at Complaints against anti-fluoride ads not upheld.

jesse

Jesse Mulligan interviewed Paul Connett about his anti-fluoride views

Unsurprisingly, Paul presented the same  tired old arguments against community water fluoridation. And I can understand why he should once again promote his own anti-fluoride book. After all, it has 80 pages of references (most of them broken links to Fluoride Action Network web pages)! And it is surely natural for an author to be proud of their book.

But he seems to suffer from senior moments, or at least memory blocks, when he claims that the arguments in his book have never been confronted. That people refuse to debate with him about these arguments.

Has he really managed to eradicate all memory of our rather long on-line debate about those very arguments? He specifically required that our debate have the format of him advancing arguments from his book and that I would respond to them.

The full debate is available here (see Fluoride Debate) or it can be downloaded as a pdf document (see The fluoride debate). It’s a useful document – about 212 pages long – fully referenced and Paul’s arguments are presented completely unedited – just as he presented them.

I know Paul was unhappy at how the debate went. Since then he has asked me never to contact him again and I was immediately banned from commenting on all the local anti-fluoride websites and Facebook pages. I have also been blocked from commenting on the US Fluoride Action Network’s Facebook page.

OK, I can understand Paul may have felt disappointed with his response to my debunking of his claims – but to pretend the debate never happened?

Interestingly, this is not an isolated behaviour by anti-fluoride activists. Local anti-fluoride people have also made similar claims that no one will debate with them. However, they seem to run quickly in the opposite direction when they do get a response to their offer to debate. Stan Litras is one example where time and time again I have critiqued his anti-fluoride claims and offered him a right of reply. He always refuses but still publicly claims that no one will debate with him.

Paul lost it a bit in his interview today when Jesse mentioned the NZ fluoridation review carried out by the Royal Society of NZ and the office of the Prime mInister’s Chief Science Advisor. He made a few ill-advised disparaging comments which came across as shrill when compared with the explanations from Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor, who was given the opportunity to respond to Paul’s criticisms.

The Interview and Sir Peter’s response is worth listening to. You can download it or listen to it at Jesse Mulligan, 1–4pm.

Similar articles

 

“Humanitarian” intervention and war crimes

As far as I am concerned the people in the US can have their elections – I just wish weren’t being bombarded with the inane comments coming from the two main candidates.

I have absolutely no irons in that fire but must admit that every time I see the video clip above it gets up my nose. Clinton glorifying and making fun of a shocking incident in the Libyan war – the lynching of the president by rebel forces.

Now, Luis Moreno Ocampo, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court has said there are ‘serious suspicions’ that the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was a war crime (see Gaddafi death ‘may be a war crime’, says chief prosecutor at The Hague). He has written to the interim Libyan government on the issue and has said any involvement by the ICC will depend on their reaction. The ICC only steps in if national authorities are unwilling or unable to act.

What a pathetic choice facing US voters – either a buffoon or someone who glorifies war crimes.

But, more importantly, shouldn’t we have learned by now the anti-human consequences of “humanitarian” intervention – regime change – by the US and NATO?

Yet we seem to have governments – and US Presidential candidates – who seem willing to repeat the fiasco again in Syria.

Similar articles

Crocodile tears over Syria at UN security council

croc-tears

This cartoon may seem harsh but it represents completely my feelings after watching the proceedings of the UN Security Council this morning.

The council “put to rest” two draft resolutions on the Syrian conflict. I can only describe it that way because the proceedings did not involve any proper consideration or discussion. Instead, representatives used the draft resolutions as a platform to make political statements and promote their own attitudes towards the Syrian conflict and the Syrian government.

In particular, supporters of the French/Spanish draft resolution advanced their arguments for “regime change.”

I couldn’t agree more with the current President of the Council, Ambassador Churkin, who described the fiasco as a complete waste of time. To present revolutions knowing they would not be accepted (even if only because of the veto power of the permanent members) is just political grandstanding. A complete diversion from what should be the council’s real work – attempting to reintroduce a cessation of hostilities and kick-start a political settlement. And that requires negotiation and compromise, not grandstanding.

Mind you, perhaps I should be patriotic and admit I saw something positive in the role of the New Zealand delegation. Although the New Zealand ambassador’s speech was nothing to be proud of I was pleased with the Council president’s comment that behind the scenes New Zealand had attempted to hammer out a compromise between the two resolutions which, if accepted, may have won approval.

It is hard to feel anything positive about the UN after watching this cynical political grandstanding. But the behind-the-scenes diplomacy, like that of New Zealand, attempting to drag a compromise resolution out of the geopolitical stands does hold out the possibility that the UN could play a more positive diplomatic role now that the US has postponed involvement in joint US-Russian negations for a ceasefire.

What were the draft resolutions about?

I have not seen the texts but news media have described the central feature of the French-Spanish draft as a ban on all flights over Aleppo. In effect, a unilateral ceasefire by the Syrians and Russians as there was no obligation the “rebels”/”terrorist’ to stop any activities.

The Russian draft basically supported the offer of the UN Syrian Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, to personally escort al-Qaeda-linked fighters out of Aleppo. This would have removed any need for aerial bombing of the area. Unfortunately, the “rebel”/”terrorists” would have seen this as a unilateral ceasefire on their part – although the plan involved them keeping their own personal weapons and moving to another part of Syria (or Turkey).

Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham (formerly Al-Nusra Front) have formally rejected de Mistura’s offer. Presumably, they still do not yet see their situation as desperate enough for this – despite a string of defeats as the Syrian armed forces and their allies move into “rebel”/”terrorist”-held areas of Aleppo. (ironically, Ait activity by the Syrians and Russians has all but stopped at the moment as they put their efforts into the ground fighting.

aleppo-rejection

Al Nusra’s formal reject of UN offer to allow evacuation of their fighters from east Aleppo. Image Credit: Jihadist rebels reject UN offer of safe pass from east Aleppo

So, the UN Security Council seems incapable of doing much on Syria at the moment. But it’s President denied that this means all diplomatic efforts have stopped. He said:

“No, no, it is just the end of another very strange UN Security Council meeting. No, this is not the end of diplomacy.”

I guess the ball is back in the court of bilateral negotiations between the Russians and US. Let’s hope the damage done by recent bruising exchanges at the UN and elsewhere do not prevent such negotiation recommencing.

Similar articles

Anti-Syrian propaganda and the White Helmets

Victim of “rebel”/”terrorist” attack on government-controlled Aleppo. Our media rarely covers these and there are no White Helmets in sight. Source: Dr Tim Anderson

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, recently met with people from Syrian opposition groups – including the “first responders” – the White Helmets. Somebody recorded the discussion and it has now been leaked (see Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors).

The discussion is quite revealing, for a number of reasons, including divisions within the US ruling political circles and Syrian opposition beliefs that the US is not doing enough for their cause. But here I will just concentrate on aspects relevant to the anti-Syrian propaganda our news media seems to be saturated with.

The propaganda

I think this is important because there is a section of the US political system lobbying for military intervention, such as attacking Syrian armed forces or  attempting to enforce a no-fly-zone. Kerry, who originally supported military intervention, pointed out that the US people did not have an appetite for this. However, as we saw with Libya, such an appetite can be promoted by carefully playing the card of suffering civilians (and especially children) and arguing for “humanitarian intervention.”

That is certainly happening at the moment. One could be excused for believing that the Syrian war is all about the government and their allies, the horrible “Russkies,” purposely attacking civilians, destroying civilian buildings and, particularly, burying young children in rubble.

This image is typical of what we are exposed to – and news services like Al-Jazeera seem to present variants of this image almost every day.

syriacampaignfbphoto1

Typical media photo of White Helmet “first responders” rescuing children in a ‘rebel”/”terrorist” held area of Syria.

Of course, if this was the true intention of Syria and its allies the war would be over by now. But in fact, the Syrians and their allies are fighting armed “rebels”/”terrorists,” very many of them from outside the country. Armed and financed by external powers directly or indirectly. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, USA, UK and other NATO countries.

Civilian casualties, including children. may, at times, be an accidental by-product of this sort of war (what the US calls “collateral damage”) and can be caused by either side. But it is disingenuous to portray this as the intention of Syria and their allies. On the other hand, let’s not forget that terrorists very often deliberately target civilians, including children.

Aleppo has become the Middle Eastern Stalingrad. I sometimes wonder what sort of propaganda the German citizens at home were served with during the Stalingrad battle in World War II. Did they get images of children being pulled out of the rubble and hysterical complaints about those horrible Russians bombing and shelling the city indiscriminately – perhaps purposely bombing hospitals, schools and civilians? That sort of propaganda seem ludicrous to us now – but how different is it to what we are currently fed by most of our media?

And how often does our media cover the civilian casualties caused by “rebel”/”terrorist” attacks on areas under government control? Very rarely – and when they do we are often still left with the impression that the guilty parties are Syrians and Russians and not the terrorists. A recent classic example was UK newspaper, The Independent, report of the death of  a Syrian Olympic swimmer  and her brother in Aleppo (See Syrian swimmer and her 12-year-old brother killed by shelling in Aleppo). These deaths were originally reported as a result of Russian and Syrian bombing – but many readers protested because the swimmer was killed in the government-held part of Aleppo during a terrorist missile attack. The Independent backed away (slightly), adding this sentence:

“A number of commentators claimed the deaths were a result of a rebel-led attack, although those claims could not be verified.”

But their report still claimed the deaths occurred “amid a sustained assault on the city by pro-Assad forces backed by Russian warplanes.”

Images and videos  like those produced by the White Helmets are very effective. News readers are inclined to weep and it is hard not to empathise. After all, these are children. And the “first responders” rescuing them, the White Helmets, must be angels. Hell, they have even been recommended for the Noble Peace Prize and who would deny them that?

Well, I would – but more of that below.

Kerry’s concern about this propaganda

The Syrian opposition people referred Kerry to images videos like this as reasons for the US to become more involved – to impose a fly-free-zone in Syria. But  the US officials present pointed out that these images and videos were of no use to them. If these opposition people have video cameras around to film such events they should be filming the attack itself. Providing evidence that it is specifically the Syrians or Russians who are attacking civilians. These officials believed such information would be more useful to their cause.

The US officials also directed this critique at the White Helmet coverage of the attack on the humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo province. A White Helmets’ spokesperson fronted images of burning trucks, claiming the attack was by Syrian helicopters, barrel bombs, and Russian bombers (he didn’t seem to want to miss anything out). But the officials’ response was that coverage was not useful – they need images of the attackers themselves. They need evidence of the munitions used.

Incidentally, the White Helmet spokesperson in this report leads a double life – see below.

As an aside, this plea for evidence, especially the munitions used, shows how hypocritical is the US claim it was the Russians who were responsible for the  attack on the aid convoy. Unfortunately, such unfounded (or at least evidence-free) claims from John Kerry and other US spokespersons are not new to us. But also, unfortunately, this claim is being used specifically to justify breaking off diplomatic negotiations on Syria and to argue for “Plan B” – the military option of a fly-free-zone or outright attacks on Syrian armed forces.

Who are the white Helmets?

This brief video from The Friends of Syria in Australia provides some information and background on the White Helmets organisation.

If nothing else, the fact that the group operates only in areas held by “rebels”/”terrorists” (despite claiming in its propaganda that it is neutral) is telling. The fact they receive funding from anti-Syrian governments including the US and the UK (despite claiming they don’t) is also telling. Their spokespeople also never seem to miss any chance to attribute all the damage and loss of life to “the regime,” barrel bombs and the Russians – often in hysterical tones.

I referred above to the White Helmet coverage of the humanitarian aid convoy attack. The image on the right is taken from the White Helmet report video. That on the left shows that the same guy is also involved in an armed “rebel”/”terrorist” group.

white-helemets Armed “rebel”/”terrorist” in Aleppo dons white hat and becomes an unarmed member of “aid” group – the White Helmets – reporting the attack on the humanitarian convoy. Image Source Friends of Syria.

Investigators have published on-line a number of similar images portraying White Helmet people in action as “first responders” but also of the same people posing with rifles and along with other “rebels”/”terrorists.”

There are also plenty of images and videos online showing members of the White Helmet group cooperating with “rebels”/”terrorists” in demonstrations They are easily seen in groups where Al Nusra flags are flying. And this video shows a White Helmet member participating in the assault on a prisoner captured by “terrorists.”

And isn’t this revealing, although not surprising considering where the White Helmets are active. A spokesperson for the Al Nusra front (recognised by the UN as a terrorist group) describes the White Helmets as Mujahideens

Another charge sometimes laid against the White Helmets is that some of their videos are staged and involve actors. News media often reenact actions from wars (although they usually acknowledge their video is a reenactment). The report “White Helmet” “Save Aleppo” Protest Proves How Easy it is to Dress Up Actors as “War Victims” shows how easy it is to make such staged videos to promote as news.

save-aleppo-staged

Actors staging a typical White Helmet “rescue” during anti-Syrian protests in Europe.

Of course, that  charge is also easy to make and hard to prove. But there has been at least one official complaint to the BBC about them running videos of staged scenes in their programmes about Syria.

I find it suspicious that the White Helmets always seem to go into action with a sizable camera crew in attendance – or at least with mobile phones recording the events. And there seems to be a common elelementf a guy, wearing a white helmet and White Helmet logos or uniform, carrying a child and urgently rushing forward or away from the camera. I can’t help feeling such videos are contrived.

Contrived or not the White Helmets’ videos are certainly emotively picked. They know what works. And our media goes along with the game – ignoring the children and civilians injured and killed  by “rebel”/”terrorist” missiles in government-held areas.

The above video shows the aftermath of a “rebel”/”terrorist” attack in west Aleppo. Not a single White Helmet in sight!

Conclusion

The video and photographic propaganda promoted by the White Helmets is not “proof” of their claims – but it is very effective in  promoting a narrative. A narrative which can be used  to justify direct military attacks by the US and NATO on the Syrian forces and their allies. (Yes, the US and NATO  already illegally bomb Syria and have armed forces on the ground – but so far these have not intentionally been directed at Syrian forces).

That narrative fits in with the  agenda of a section of the US political establishment promoting “humanitarian intervention” aimed at regime change. It fits in with the often repeated chant of politicians in the US and other NATO countries that “Assad must go!”

We saw what this led to in Libya – it was disastrous. And considering the support Assad has in Syria this regime change, or attempted regime change, would be much worse.

Pentagon: Russia S-300, S-400 Air Defense Deployment Grounded US Jets in Syria

Russia is deploying advanced S-300 and S-400 Air Defense systems in Syria. An attempted Libyan-style “regime change” by the US and NATO would be disastrous.

Similar articles

 

Shyness of anti-fluoride election candidates

Why do anti-fluoride candidates standing for District Health Boards (DHBs) shy away from proper discuss of community water fluoridation? After all, they have usually raised the issue themselves – and often claim that those supporting CWF avoid the discussion.

In my article Fluoridation & democracy: Open letter to DHB candidate Andrew Buckley I raised this with Andrew Buckley who is standing for the Waikato DHGB. Despite writing an article on the issue on his webpage he refused to allow any proper discussion of the issue there. He allowed slavishly anti-fluoride comments but nothing from anyone who specifically disagreed with his (often incorrect) claims. My open letter to him  was an attempt to get that discussion going. I even offered him the right of reply and space here – but he refused. He effectively ran away from an issue he had raised himself.

Now this is also happening with Stan Litras, a candidate for Capital and Coast DHB. Stan is a well-known anti-fluoride campaigner – often producing anti-fluoride press releases from his astroturf one-man group “Fluoride Information Network for Dentists” (FIND). He is clearly standing on an anti-fluoride ticket and the discussion on his campaign Facebook page makes that clear.

For example:

stan-1

Notice specifically his claim of knowing the subject and claiming he can “defend” his “opinion.” Also, notice his claim that supporters of CWF “cannot defend their views in an open discussion with any reliable evidence.”

That is completely misleading. I have often critiqued his claims and have particularly taken issue with his misrepresentation and distortion of the science. I have always offered him a right of reply and he has always rejected it. If he can “defend” his “opinion” why does he run away from such discussions?

This post of his is typical of the way he distorts the science:

stan-2

Preventing discussion and banning critics

Far from welcomin g discussion of their claims these candidates actually do everything to prevent proper discussion. Andrew Buckley banned any comments from me (and presumably anyone else critical of his claims) on his page. And now Stan Litras has done the same. He removed some comments taking issue with his claims (one of them was mine) and has presumably banned the commenters. Hehas certainlyy banned me from further comments.

This is how he justifies his actions.

stan-3

So he is backing  away from claims that are still on his page and labelling anyone critical of his misinformation as a “pro-fluoride zealot!”

And isn’t it hypocritical for him to label others as “pseudoscientific” and blame them for the fact that he is standing specifically as an anti-fluoride candidate?

Oh, here are some of my articles on Stan’s misrepresentations and distortions – and I have always offered him the right of reply to these:

Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO
Cherry-picking and misinformation in Stan Litras’s anti-fluoride article
Anti-fluoride campaigners cherry-pick irrelevant overseas research but can’t find relevant New Zealand research
Anti-fluoridation cherry-pickers at it again
Misrepresentation of the new Cochrane fluoridation review
Fluoride Free NZ report disingenuous – conclusion
A challenge to anti-fluoridationers to justify their misrepresentation of New Zealand research
Fluoridation: News media should check press releases from anti-fluoridationists

Have you voted yet?

I know how confusing it is so hope you haven’t been fooled by any of these anti-fluoride candidates.

A Spinoff article Quack hunt: Our vital tool for stopping anti-science crackpots infiltrating your DHB is useful guide to the candidates for DHB positions.

Similar articles

Syria & the fog of war

any-answers

BBC’s Radio 4 has talkback on Syria – the mainstream media message doesn’t fool everyone.

I believe our media is currently feeding us biased propaganda – formulated to tweak our emotions – on the war in Syria. One would think that the Syrian government and the Russian aerospace forces were fighting only civilians, hospitals and, especially, children. There is hardly any mention of jihadist terrorists.

If that scenario were true the war would have been over in days. Instead, Syria and its allies are fighting extremist Islamist jihadists, armed to the teeth and funded by external countries, and using foreign fighters. The emotions raised by videos showing children being pulled out of the rubble (notice how this only happens in areas controlled by terrorists according to our media) is diverting attention away from the real causes of the conflict. And hence we have a “fog of war” which blinds us to the political actions necessary to bring an end to this conflict.

So – I was pleased to hear this discussion on  BBCs Radio 4 programme Any Answers. If only our talkback programmes could be this sane.

Clearly, the contributors were chosen to provide balance – but most of them are rational, thoughtful people. This suggests that many people in the UK are not fooled by this “fog of war” promoted by the media.

It’s worth listening to – for the whole 28 minutes. It’s also worth listening to soon as it is available for only 28 days.

Source: BBC Radio 4 – Any Answers?, Syria

Similar articles