It goes to show how countries supporting opposing sides in wars create propoganda and counter-propoganda news to protect their own interests while many of us just consume whatever we're offered on tv, social media, etc.
This is also reflected in countries' 'security reports' like CIA/MI6 able to 'discover' alQaeda/ISIS plots which equally powerful Russian or Chinese secret service appear to 'miss'.
RT: “Stunning fakery” in alleged chemical weapons attack according to a former UK ambassador. Coming up… Announcer: The British Broadcasting Corporation is accused of staging chemical weapons attack. The CIA admits planting CNN reporters. And international lawyers call for journalists inciting violence to be expelled.
RT: August 2013 – NATO leaders can’t get the public on side for the imminent bombing of Syria. Suddenly the BBC says it was filming a small rural hospital and a game-changing atrocity happened right there, the moment they were filming.
BBC report: We were filming the doctors working at this hospital when victims of an incendiary bomb attack on a school playground started pouring in. BBC interview: Absolute chaos and carnage here. It must be some sort of napalm.
RT: But a highly sceptical public stayed hostile to military intervention. Exactly one month later the leaders are trying to pin a chemical weapons attack on Syria without success.
The BBC airs exactly the same footage, but digitally alters the word “napalm” for “chemical weapons”, hoping no one will notice. BBC interview: Absolute chaos and carnage here. It must be some sort of chemical weapon.
RT: Not only did folks notice but it unleashed a massive public investigation which made some extremely disturbing findings.
Robert Stuart: This is the total fabrication, from beginning to end, of an atrocity, with BBC “reporter” Ian Pannell standing amidst a tableau of very bad actors. This is completely beyond the pale.
RT: This audio analysis by media investigator Robin Upton shows both versions are identical and from the same speech. The BBC then digitally altered the words from “napalm” to “chemical weapon”, the exact justification NATO was finding difficult to prove.
That game-changing allegation was made by two doctors that had travelled with the BBC, who claimed the number of sudden casualties is “overwhelming”.
What kind of doctor, notes media investigator Robert Stuart, gives interviews when she is surrounded by supposedly seriously burned and dying teenagers? Nurse: Get anyone who isn’t a patient out of here.
RT: When a nurse does finally start to help, her order to “get anyone who isn’t a patient out of here” doesn’t apply to the cameramen. Even worse, notes Stuart, is the bizarre acting, which starts when the man in the centre gives the sign.
RT: Doctor Rola, on whose sole claim the BBC sends the napalm/chemical weapons allegations round the world, is actually the daughter of Syrian rebel Mousa Al-Kurdi.
The parallel to the Gulf War and “Nurse Nayirah” is stunning. Congressmen said the nurse’s tearful testimony that Iraqis were killing children swung their vote in favour of war.
“Nurse Nayirah” testimony: They took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor. (weeps). RT: “Nurse Nayirah” became the mainstream’s darling, but once the vote had safely passed, she admitted inventing the whole thing, and was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington, lying to get the public to back war...
