Did you notice the dismissal of evidence that the “White Helmets” are terrorists as (paraphrasing) “anecdotal”?
There have, however, been isolated rogue actors within the White Helmets who are used to discredit the entire group. One former White Helmet was fired after he was filmed assisting armed militants in disposing of the mutilated corpses of pro-Assad fighters, and others have been photographed with guns despite marketing themselves as unarmed. There is also footage of White Helmets taking a body away from an execution carried out by rebel militants, which critics claim shows they are “assisting” executions.
“These are isolated incidents at the volunteer level — there has never been any kind of incident involving anyone in the leadership,” added al-Saleh, the White Helmets leader, looking down at his phone as he received a breaking news notification about a British politician resigning over sexual harassment allegations. “No one is saying that the government of the UK is a predatory organisation just because of this one incident.” [my bold]
Not only do they engage in ad hominem against everybody who questions their narrative, when there’s evidence they can’t dismiss based on the source, they call it “anecdotal” and dismiss it that way.
The issue of sarin, and who’s responsible, isn’t new. In 2013 Foreign Policy published a hit piece (by Eliot Higgins) titled Sy Hersh’s Chemical Misfire. They didn’t call him a “Russian agent”, perhaps they didn’t have the stones to make such a claim against someone like that.
He also published an article in June, 2017 in a European publication, claiming that Mr. Trump had already “been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.”
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region. [my bold]
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president’s determination to ignore the evidence. “None of this makes any sense,” one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. “We KNOW that there was no chemical attack … the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump.“
This, IMO, is the primary reason for the Guardian hit piece you’re discussing. Again, quoting from it:
It was the White Helmets’ footage that documented the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun in April, which killed at least 83 people, a third of them children. UN war crimes investigators later concluded the attack was carried out by the Syrian regime against its own people. Russian state media and a network of supportive alternative news sites continue to cast doubt on investigators’ findings, describing it as “illogical” and “deliberately staged” by militants. The alt-right site Infowars repeated the conspiracy theory, describing the attack as staged by the White Helmets, who were described as an “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. The White Helmets have never received funding from George Soros or any of his foundations.
We see, then, that the “evidence” that the Syrian government was responsible for a “sarin attack” rests primarily on the “White Helmets”, who have been accused of being terrorists in disguise. Given the spreading evidence that the attack was a “false flag”, including the Hersh Piece linked and excerpted above, it’s hardly surprising that an establishment mouthpiece like the Guardian would publish this article.
I should also point out that the “alt-right site Infowars” has itself been accused of being a “deep state” false flag, although I must admit skepticism regarding the source I just linked to.
An interesting quote from another page of that source:
Later that year, in November 2006, the first ISGP article in quite some time was refused publication by Alex Jones’ Infowars. This was quite a shock, because it was the best-documented and most unique article I had written until that point. Looking back, the censorship is easy to understand. Instead of touching on the liberal Eastern Establishment, I wrote about Le Cercle, part of the ultraconservative Pentagon (CIA swings both ways) network that is protected by Alex Jones. The American Security Council, the World Anti-Communist League, the Council for National Policy, the John Birch Society — they are all part of this same network. [my bold]
For all these years I have primarily worked on bringing new information to the world, ignoring the censorship of key conspiracy programs as Coast to Coast AM and the Alex Jones Show. But at this point I think the first and most important thing people new to conspiracy and spiritual issues need to understand is the extent to which the alternative narrative is controlled by the national security state. In order to make this effort successful, especially in the age of the internet, it has been sponsoring hundreds of authors, backed by a network of publishers, websites, forum posters, Youtube channels, podcast and radio shows. Coast to Coast AM is a pretty crucial ingredient for any author on spirituality or the UFO and alien subject to produce a New York Times best-seller. What other major radio or television shows are going to pick up such an author? Probably none. For conspiracy Alex Jones is crucial. Again, what other major show is going to pick up a conspiracy author? Oprah? The Late Night Show? CNN? Unlikely. Shows as Coast to Coast AM, the Alex Jones Show, and the pro-Nazi Rense website truly are the gatekeepers of the conspiracy community. They need to approve of your work in order for it to spread to a large audience. [my bold]
I find it interesting how Alex Jones often manages to take a plausible “conspiracy theory” and turn it into unbelievable nonsense with his additions, such as “al-Qaida affiliated group funded by George Soros”. Given how many oil-wealthy Middle-Eastern Muslims donate to “charities” that are Islamist fronts, it’s hard to believe such groups would need, or even accept, money from the likes of Soros.