The "White Helmets" of Syria

[FAH1223]

The group was created with the help of Purpose Inc, a U.S. company specialized in regime change NGO operations. Purpose Inc is also behind Avaaz which early on peddled fake war on Syria video propaganda. The White Helmets are financed, like all "Free Syrian Army" media propaganda, by USAID with some $23 million and by the UK Foreign Office with a total of some £23 million. The Netherlands and Japan also donated money to the scheme. The group was build up and trained since mid 2013 by a "former" UK military intelligence operator residing in Abu Dhabi. These are propaganda artists camouflaged as humanitarians

The "White Helmets" cooperate closely with al-Qaeda. One of its leaders was recently denied an entry visa to the United States. More details about the group researched by Vanessa Beeley can be found here and here.

The "White Helmets" cooperate closely with al-Qaeda. One of its leaders was recently denied an entry visa to the United States. More details about the group researched by Vanessa Beeley can be found here and here.

Back to the "rescue" videos. That shtick started in late 2013.

• NYT - December 23 2013: After Airstrike, Children Are Rescued From the Rubble
• Independent - January 25 2014: Astonishing video shows moment Syrian toddler pulled alive from rubble after Aleppo bombing This video, like others below, was also published by the New York Daily News, The Guardian, USA Today, Yahoo and many other news outlets.

After that great marketing success the movie script was serialized. Since then a new version of a "child rescued" video appears every other month or so. Here are just a few of these with all of them following the same script.

• BBC - July 12 2014: Baby cries as she is rescued from rubble in Aleppo
• Daily Mail Online - August 11 2014: Dramatic rescue of baby in Syria after his home is hit by air strikes
• Al Jazeera - August 12 2014: Baby freed from rubble after Aleppo airstrike
• USA Today - January 7 2015: Volunteers rescue children from rubble in Syria The video includes an interview with James Le Mesurier, a British “security” specialist and "former" British military intelligence officer who heads the White Helmets operation.
• CNN Newsroom - August 10 2015: Children rescued from the rubble in Syria
• VOA - October 3 2015: Volunteers Brave Bombs to Rescue Airstrike Victims in Syria
• Guardian - December 21 2015: Boy rescued from rubble after airstrikes on Idlib, Syria – video
• Time - April 28 2016: A Toddler’s Dramatic Rescue in Syria
• NBC News - April 28 2016: Young Girl Rescued From Rubble After Airstrike in Aleppo
• The Australian - May 25 2016 - SYRIA Children Rescued From Rubble Following Airstrikes
• MSN - May 31 2016: Child rescued from rubble after Syria air strike
• BBC - June 1 2016: Footage shows child being pulled from Idlib strike rubble

This May 25 video is typical. Someone fiddles with professional rescue air pressure mats to show off but those mats are never put to use. Someone else digs with his hands under or behind a concrete slab which has a rather large opening on the side. A smiling and laughing child, totally unharmed and its favorite pupped in hand, is pulled from under or behind the concrete slab to lots of Allah Akbar shouting by the (always male) bystanders. Not shown: kid gets the promised candies for such great performance.

Other typical features of these movies, see this one, are smoke (grenades) in the streets, dramatic but small open fires nearby, dust or some red color on the children's face or arms. The camera is often used in a hectic, intentionally amateurish first person view, a style extensively developed in the 1999 horror clip Blair Witch Project. Sometimes sounds of additional "bomb impact" bangs or screaming/wailing women are added.

All the above videos are just as (un-)real as the faked "Hero Boy" video showing a "Syrian boy ducking sniper fire to rescue a trapped girl". Fake "opposition" videos have been a major feature of the media war on Syria. These fakes are often easily recognizable as such. We can be sure that the media professionals at the BBC and other outlets know that these are not real rescue scenes. They distribute them nonetheless.

 

[thekingsmen]

Word these people were exposed a long time ago.

 

[Broke Wave]

According to Iran/Russia/Syrian Gov and their allied media, the entire rebel movement was CIA, ISIS is CIA, Assad didn't massacre his civilians that was a hoax, the chem weapons attack was actually the rebels/CIA and so forth. It's as if Assad to them is a flawless figure. I have yet to hear any of them reprimand the Syrian Gov for literally anything. At least those supporting the rebels are critical of them, what criticism can you find from Press TV or RT or any of them about Assad? Even his murderous father?

 

[thekingsmen]

According to Iran/Russia/Syrian Gov and their allied media, the entire rebel movement was CIA, ISIS is CIA, Assad didn't massacre his civilians that was a hoax, the chem weapons attack was actually the rebels/CIA and so forth. It's as if Assad to them is a flawless figure. I have yet to hear any of them reprimand the Syrian Gov for literally anything. At least those supporting the rebels are critical of them, what criticism can you find from Press TV or RT or any of them about Assad? Even his murderous father?

Im none of those but unless you have some proof of any of it, it's just alot of opinions.

 

[Broke Wave]

Im none of those but unless you have some proof of any of it, it's just alot of opinions.

There is plenty of verified evidence of Assad doing horrible things... it just depends on what sources you would consider verified. Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch etc are all internationally recognized as objective and they have a ton of evidence against Assad for massive war crimes.

 

[thekingsmen]

There is plenty of verified evidence of Assad doing horrible things... it just depends on what sources you would consider verified. Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch etc are all internationally recognized as objective and they have a ton of evidence against Assad for massive war crimes.

Then bring it forward. A.I. and HRW are both funded by the U.S. so of course they have to be bias to keep the funding.

 

[Broke Wave]

Then bring it forward. A.I. and HRW are both funded by the U.S. so of course they have to be bias to keep the funding.

If we have no agreed upon objective sources of information, how can we ever discuss the established facts? That's the problem we're going to have. If you and I both agree that A.I. and HRW are right about Israel's war crimes in Gaza, why are they suddenly wrong in other cases? I understand your perspective but we need to think of some objective sources before we can go in depth.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

If we have no agreed upon objective sources of information, how can we ever discuss the established facts? That's the problem we're going to have. If you and I both agree that A.I. and HRW are right about Israel's war crimes in Gaza, why are they suddenly wrong in other cases? I understand your perspective but we need to think of some objective sources before we can go in depth.

They are wrong suddenly in other cases because it is convenient to the argument. Why are you bothering?

 

[Broke Wave]

They are wrong suddenly in other cases because it is convenient to the argument. Why are you bothering?

Well that argument isn't totally irrational because the NYT has good reporting sometimes, and other times it's complicit in the Iraq war and accusing wikileaks/snowden of being Russian defectors.

It's just that when there are no objective sources at all in an argument... how can the argument be valid? Is there a single source that is presumably objective that acquits Assad of war crimes? If the objective sources and American supported ones say he's a war criminal, and only Russian/Iranian ones say otherwise, that's 2-1.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

Well that argument isn't totally irrational because the NYT has good reporting sometimes, and other times it's complicit in the Iraq war and accusing wikileaks/snowden of being Russian defectors.

It's just that when there are no objective sources at all in an argument... how can the argument be valid? Is there a single source that is presumably objective that acquits Assad of war crimes? If the objective sources and American supported ones say he's a war criminal, and only Russian/Iranian ones say otherwise, that's 2-1.

My point isn't that the quality of reporting is being scrutinized, just that sources and stories are generally cherry-picked by the majority of the intellectually lazy (and that is the vast majority of people overall) to make an argument.

Both sides are war criminals. Anyone else making any other statement has an agenda.

 

[Broke Wave]

My point isn't that the quality of reporting is being scrutinized, just that sources and stories are generally cherry-picked by the majority of the intellectually lazy (and that is the vast majority of people overall) to make an argument.

Both sides are war criminals. Anyone else making any other statement has an agenda.

I think that's clear referring to your last sentence, but it is to me clear that one side is more guilty than the other. It's impossible that the rebels carried out the magnitude of crimes that Assad has, and that includes even the most extreme rebels sans ISIS, who are fighting the rebels.

 

[Futuristic Eskimo]

I think that's clear referring to your last sentence, but it is to me clear that one side is more guilty than the other. It's impossible that the rebels carried out the magnitude of crimes that Assad has, and that includes even the most extreme rebels sans ISIS, who are fighting the rebels.

Even if I was to assume that to be the case (not disputing one way or the other), to me, the only difference is capability. A dictator with a professional army and the backing of strong, regional powers is easily capable of creating more chaos than a group of uncoordinated rebel factions, funded and supplied by the US or not. If the only distinction is capability to kill and not willingness to commit war crimes, there is no real side to back if one were to dictate policy in a moral way. As a citizen, you're really only arbitrarily picking what side you support based on your world view. If you're a nation-state, you support who advances your interests.

This is why I don't get the back on forth on this constantly. Perhaps I am oversimplifying this a bit, though

 

[Broke Wave]

Even if I was to assume that to be the case (not disputing one way or the other), to me, the only difference is capability. A dictator with a professional army and the backing of strong, regional powers is easily capable of creating more chaos than a group of uncoordinated rebel factions, funded and supplied by the US or not. If the only distinction is capability to kill and not willingness to commit war crimes, there is no real side to back if one were to dictate policy in a moral way. As a citizen, you're really only arbitrarily picking what side you support based on your world view. If you're a nation-state, you support who advances your interests.

This is why I don't get the back on forth on this constantly. Perhaps I am oversimplifying this a bit, though

The rebels have not only less capabilities, they are objectively more humane, as the millions and millions of Syrian refugees pass through rebel held territory. If they wanted to damage their own people, they could easily kill them en masse, but they neglect to do that. The regime however previous to the war already showed a contempt for human life with their support for militias and torture prisons. They drop barrel bombs indiscriminately and have the Russian airforce bombing civilian heavy areas in Aleppo. That being said both sides are overtly violent, but there is more of a difference than just capability in my opinion.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

According to Iran/Russia/Syrian Gov and their allied media, the entire rebel movement was CIA, ISIS is CIA, Assad didn't massacre his civilians that was a hoax, the chem weapons attack was actually the rebels/CIA and so forth. It's as if Assad to them is a flawless figure. I have yet to hear any of them reprimand the Syrian Gov for literally anything. At least those supporting the rebels are critical of them, what criticism can you find from Press TV or RT or any of them about Assad? Even his murderous father?

Nobody claims Assad is a wonderful leader but its hard to criticize the steps he took to put down an armed rebellion led by questionable foreigners.Especially given how Libya and Iraq are looking right now.

 

[Broke Wave]

Nobody claims Assad is a wonderful leader but its hard to criticize the steps he took to put down an armed rebellion led by questionable foreigners.Especially given how Libya and Iraq are looking right now.

But the rebellion is largely Syrian nationals... that's an objective fact from wikipedia. There are thousands of questionable foreigners, most of them are ISIS now. But for someone whose so critical of governments in general, how can you side with an oppressive government that dropped barrel bombs on civilians on video?