EXPOSED: HOW THE QATARI REPORT ON SYRIA WAS WRITTEN TO TRY AND PROVIDE LEGAL COVER FOR...CORPORATE MEDIA PROPAGANDA. (23.01.2014).
The tectonic plates over who the public see as reliable and credible, information providers, are dramatically shifting.
ROBERT FISK: DISCREDITED.
The Qatari report on Syria released through British "lawyers" has only served to further discredit the...British mainstream media (and their lawyers), in the eyes of increasing numbers of people, around the world, in more ways than expected.
THE QATARI REPORT.
People saw with their own eyes and media comments columns were filled with, the fact that the Qatari report was not of itself...evidence...of anything.
The Universal Lie: "....Clear evidence"
Yet the pre-planned mantra of both media and government agreed and relied upon that one key word...evidence.
The Fraudsters: Amanpour, Da Silva, Nice & Hamilton.
Of course there is no way the mainstream media could stand up in a court of law before a jury using the defence that they “reasonably believed” that the Qatari report was of itself...evidence of anything.
Their own comments columns show that.
Quite what the disreputable law firm "Carter Ruck" were thinking, beyond their bank balances, remains a mystery.
Far more than twelve people noticed that the Qatari report on Syria was not of itself, "evidence" of anything.
Any Judge would have more than a few difficulties with the published report, being submitted as evidence.
However, what is really interesting about how the the Qatari report really came about, is this.
The Qatari report actually reveals that the mainstream media and their lawyers did get together in advance of the report (showing malicious intent & complicity etc) to:
a) agree what the propaganda would be
b) to try to provide legal cover to the media for the media to put out propaganda, where people are...dying.
The propaganda and the legal cover both sought to rely on one word.
In addition, both the Qatari report and the subsequent media reporting very clearly prove that the media planned to avoid any role in...questioning...the report.
People do expect the media to question the information they are spoon fed.
Of course relying on another word...”expert” would also not provide the media with any defence, in a court. The word "expert" has very clearly been included as part of a deliberate effort to give an impression there is legal cover over what is clearly a purposefully manufactured...script.
No doubt there are some very uncomfortable media lawyers skulking in the background of numerous media outlets.
The involvement in manufacturing this latest dodgy dossier goes way beyond the 45 minute lies of the security services sitting on a sofa in Downing Street with Alistair Campbell & Co.
The very fact that the British media and government were obviously so very... desperate to play such a filthy, dirty propaganda hand, too far, over human life, in Syria, is both shocking, but also very revealing.
As people the world over consistently keep commenting, it remains that the U.K state have long been running from justice over their own...continuing war crimes.
The days of big business hiding behind media and politicians look increasingly numbered.
No doubt that is why "strategy" is being reviewed (see below).
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE CLAIMS FOREIGNERS MAKE U.K "WAR WEARY".
by Patrick Wintour ("Political" Editor)
The Guardian, Thursday 23 January 2014
"A growing reluctance in an increasingly multicultural Britain to see UK troops deployed on the ground in future operations abroad is influencing the next two strategic defence reviews, according to senior figures at the Ministry of Defence.
As well as a general feeling of war weariness, sources say they have sensed a resistance in an increasingly diverse nation to see British troops deployed in countries from which UK citizens, or their families, once came.
There is also concern that British troops have been seen taking action mainly in Muslim societies.
The MoD is still taking stock of the surprise decision of the House of Commons last summer to reject military intervention to punish President Assad of Syria for the use of chemical weapons against rebel forces.
Senior figures believe the rejection of that action was not just the by-product of a political battle between Labour and the government, but revealed deeper-seated long-term trends in British society.
One of the issues raised is improving the recruitment of British officers from minority ethnic communities.
Sources stress that they do not believe that a change in attitudes rules out overseas British intervention, but more will have to be planned on the basis of air and naval activity, rather than large-scale use of troops on the ground.
Future configurations would make the recent intervention in Libya possible, or the kind of relatively small-scale operations recently being undertaken by the French military in Africa last year, but not a repeat of Afghanistan or Iraq.
The sources cite a long-term weariness in the British population and the widespread perception that both Iraq and Afghanistan have not been worthwhile.
David Cameron has said British troops can return from Afghanistan with their heads held high at the end of this year, but polls suggest the war has become increasingly unpopular.
Ministers maintain that this high-level analysis about the decline of British militarism does not mean the army should be reduced further than the cuts due to be announced by the army on Thursday, when 1,400 more troops are expected to lose their jobs.
Ministers are also bracing themselves for strong criticism, probably this summer, by the marathon inquiry conducted by Sir John Chilcott over the UK's conduct in the run- up to the Iraq war in 2003.
Tony Blair has admitted to political allies that he expects it to be revealed that he gave George W Bush strong unequivocal support at a private summit in Texas in April 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, but will point to the fact that he was given an opportunity to draw back from the invasion.
The eventual budgetary health of the MoD may depend on whether the prime minister decides in the next parliament that the budget for health, schools and overseas aid should remain protected, so putting additional pressure on the Whitehall departments that are not protected – notably defence.
The defence secretary, Phillip Hammond, made efforts before the last spending review to blend some of his budget with that of overseas aid, but was repulsed by the very tight international definitions of overseas aid set by agencies such as the OECD.
It is likely that Hammond will press for the definitions to be re-examined or for the Conservative party to lift the ringfence on aid in its manifesto for the 2015 general election.
Speaking on Wednesday, the head of the British army, General Sir Peter Wall, expressed hope that the latest round of redundancies in the military to be announced in the Commons on Thursday today would be the last.
Hammond is expected to disclose that a further 1,400 army jobs are to go, including about 350 Gurkhas. Although the total is about half of what had been widely predicted, it will be the fourth round of redundancies. The army has borne the brunt of them. The navy and air force are expected to escape relatively unscathed, with the RAF losing about 70.
Wall, chief of the general staff, speaking before the latest figures were published, told journalists he did not anticipate any further job losses after Thursday today. "This draws a line under the forced exodus of people from the army," he said.
But Wall's view may not be shared by the Treasury, which could see the military post-Afghanistan as an easy way to make budget cuts and come back for more after next year's general election.
The redundancies put the army well on course to meet its target of cutting its force from 102,000 to 82,500 by 2010.
Wall said: "This redundancy tranche marks the final leg of our reduction of the army from its former strength to 82,500. It is the end of a period of particular uncertainty."
British forces are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of the year, leaving only a few hundred behind to help with training and advice, assuming an agreement is reached with the Afghanistan government on retaining troops beyond 2014.
Much of the reduction of the force to 82,500 will the achieved through natural wastage. The army is struggling to recruit regulars and reservists in the face of falling unemployment and, with the end of involvement in Afghanistan, no immediate prospect of combat.
About 70% of the redundancies could be voluntary. The army is engaged in a marketing drive to try to secure more recruits. To try to fill gaps left by the cuts to the regular forces, it wants to increase the size of the reserves and to integrate them more into the regular force."
While over at the Telegraph, there was "Dan Hodges", a holier than thou Blair apologist, furiously wailing away... in the familiar "tongue" of...you guessed it...Tony Blair. Mr Hodges who is the Labour MP, Glenda Jackson's quite irrational, or is that opportunistic son, left the Labour Party in disgust...when they voted against overt intervention in Syria.
GENEVA PEACE TALKS (21.01.2014).