RT claims BBC stages Syria chemical attack to propagate war. [BBC Responds]

[screamingwelp]

[Original video removed, alternate copy used here:]

 

[Pete Tar]

(Posting a transcript or the main claims from the video would be better to include as well.)

Transcript from the RT website.

Sunday March 23 at 0445, 0845, 1245, 1645, 2045 GMT.
Monday March 24 at 0045 GMT.

For more information, please visit rt.com/schedule/


This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

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.

UK Member of Parliament George Galloway joins us, thank you very much for coming on. Why do we get almost identical claims before each war, which then prove lies?

George Galloway, UK Member of Parliament: Well, the Bush and Blair Corporation, as it became in the run-up to the Iraq war, has almost entirely lost its reputation for journalistic integrity.

A full inquiry must be launched into why the BBC used a piece of material which was not just wrong but was falsified, and falsified with the purpose of propelling our country into war. That’s not what the British public pays its BBC licence fee for, so that it can be tricked into a war.

RT: In a statement, the British Broadcasting Corporation says it stands by its report. The Syrian opposition denies the allegations. Investigators such as Robert Stuart note their many questions sent officially to the corporation remain unanswered. There are also numerous such precedents both in this war and previous invasions.

“Brilliant” is how a top Western official called tricking the public through routine faking of atrocities and commonly aired on mainstream bulletins. Nightly News show just a few cases of what happened next after mainstream cameras ended their reports.
Nightly News: It shows people putting on fake wounds, it shows some guys there, look there's their head wounds “Peace everybody!You know we’re doing the right thing, we’re creating fake propaganda!” I mean it’s not even real atrocities.So there they're lined up. There’s another video that shows some guy kicking his leg, with a fake blood wound.

Here’s a guy who wakes up from his funeral! Watch this. Oh, wait there, he’s awake, he’s not even really dead! So I mean this is just crazy what goes on. There was another video that was shot of a supposed massacre and you don’t see the whole thing.When you go to the Al Jazeera footage it shows real quick clips of a guy kicking his leg and he’s got blood coming out. It turned out to be fake blood.

RT: The so-called “activists” behind the fakes are by far the most popular source, despite them never being verified, and regularly disproved as fabrications to justify more NATO arms. The term “activist” may sound like a well-meaning Western campaigner or charity, but the Foreign Policy Journal notes it's just Newspeak for “insurgents”.

The “official” source on Syria casualties, or what mainstream claims is “official”, is impressive-sounding organization The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Reuters exposed the fact three years ago it was not an organization at all, or even working in Syria. It's a single pro-insurgent supporter living in Coventry - England.

Here pictured at the Foreign Office, after instructions from Britain's Foreign Minister himself.

In leaked footage, ordinary Syrians told the BBC they're tired of its lies and the insurgents they're cheerleading are a tiny minority led by foreign gangs.

BBC reporter: You don’t like the BBC?

Syrian citizen: BBC? No. Tell her. Tell her.
BBC reporter:Huh? Why?

Syrian: Because you’re talking very bad about Syria. Everybody when they hear BBC Arabic they can hear the lies about Syria - also Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya.

BBC: But what? But maybe Syria is like any country, some people support and some people don’t support?

Syrian: No-no, everybody support.

BBC reporter: So Syria is different?

Syrian: Very little people, maybe 10,000 like that but most people, 22 million, 23 million, support Bashar al-Assad. And we have not “demonstrations” - we have armed gangs.

RT: Pro-war media's forced to resort to colossal lies since intelligence chiefs revealed to America's top investigative reporter Sy Hersh that“Obama's cronies are making it up”. All the evidence actually points to the jihadis staging the chemical attacks.

Sy Hersh, author, Whose Sarin?: The attack 'was not the result of the current regime', the high-level intelligence officer wrote in an email to a colleague. ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?’, said a former senior intelligence official. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
...
(continues onto the other subjects)
http://rt.com/shows/the-truthseeker/media-staged-chem-attack-645/

Content from external source

 

[screamingwelp]

Thanks for that.

 

[Pete Tar]

No worries.
And a much shorter and concise article about it by Craig Murray, perhaps a less sensational source than RT. ( I know nothing about him but he seems relatively level-headed)

by craig on October 7, 2013 11:35 am in Uncategorized

Irrefutable evidence of a stunning bit of fakery by the BBC:

In this version the medic being interviewed says about the 2 minute mark:

“..It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here, erm we’ve had a massive influx of
what looks like serious burns, er seems like it must be some sort of chemical
weapon, I’m not really sure..”

In this version she says – it is at about 2 mins 20 seconds in this edit:

“..It’s just absolute chaos and carnage here, erm we’ve had a massive influx of
what looks like serious burns, er seems like it must be some sort of, I’m not
really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that..”

The disturbing thing is the footage of the doctor talking is precisely the same each time. It is edited so as to give the impression the medic is talking in real time in her natural voice – there are none of the accepted devices used to indicate a voiceover translation. But it must be true that in at least one, and possibly both, the clips she is not talking in real time in her own voice. It is very hard to judge as her mouth and lips are fully covered throughout. Perhaps neither of the above is what she actually said.

Terrible things are happening all the time in Syria’s civil war, between Assad’s disparate forces and still more disparate opposition forces, and innocent people are suffering. There are dreadful crimes against civilians on all sides. I have no desire at all to downplay or mitigate that. But once you realise the indisputable fact of the fake interview the BBC has put out, some of the images in this video begin to be less than convincing on close inspection too.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/10/fake-bbc-video/

Content from external source

 

[Pete Tar]

I found the BBC's explanation posted on media lens forum.

Reply from BBC re Syria news/Panorama edit issue
Posted by John Hilley on October 18, 2013, 12:52 pm

In response to my short email requesting clarification.

--------------

Dear Mr Hilley

Reference CAS-2351887-VL3538

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News broadcast on 29th August.

I understand you felt comments made by Dr Rola Hallam were altered during the report on Syria.

Please be assured we raised your concerns with the relevant editorial staff at BBC News, and with the team who filmed the piece in question.

Firstly, we believe it is important to clarify the text of what Dr. Rola Hallam said at the time:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon, I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

In this instance, in the news report from August 29th, the audio of Dr Rola was edited for exactly these reasons. This is what was used:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of [EDIT] I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.

The other issues the team had to consider were the physical structure of the news piece (starting in the school, explaining what happened and then moving on to the hospital where we see the aftermath – i.e. moving from cause to effect) and the time constraints in a news piece that necessitate a more direct approach.

Normally with editing of this kind, a cutaway shot - such as a "noddy" of the interviewer - might be used, but as she was wearing a mask this was not considered necessary. No extra words were inserted, nor was the meaning changed. Dr Rola states clearly that she is not sure what has happened and that is fairly reflected in all instances.

In Panorama on September 30th, the team chose to use a short section of Dr Rola's footage unedited, with her saying:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon.”

On this occasion the team ended her clip in vision at this point. Her remark is then followed up, explained and elaborated upon effectively in Ian Pannell’s commentary; that the initial fear at the hospital was of a chemical attack (coming days after the Damascus incident), that it later became clear that a napalm-type substance had been used. As the structure of the Panorama piece was different and the time to explain events and the context more generous, it allowed the team to present this argument and then fully expand upon it.

In both cases, it is clear that at the time of the incident, Dr Rola was expressing her uncertainty about what had caused the injuries. Her charity, Hand in Hand for Syria, also confirm that both reports were authentic, fair, and absolutely accurate.

However, let me assure you that I’ve registered your complaint on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards
Neil Salt

BBC Complaints
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Content from external source

That's a plausible reason. Much has been made of it , I wonder about RT's motivation for bringing it up again several months later. The news segment (The Truthseeker) is definitely a bit over the top.

The Truthseeker laces hard-hitting reporting with humor, featuring exclusive interviews and investigations. Hard-nosed anchor Daniel Bushell exposes the BIG STORIES Mainstream Media dare not touch and 'SEEKS TRUTH FROM FACTS' on Sunday fortnights.

Content from external source

 

[screamingwelp]

Very quick response as well, good work Peter.

 

[Pete Tar]

Ah, just got lucky in google.

There is a BBC follow-up story probably worth including here too.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-24288698
Footage of a napalm-like attack on a school in Syria filmed by a team working for Panorama shocked the world. Now the BBC has returned to find out what happened to the children who suffered horrific burns.
...
There were no shrapnel injuries or loss of blood typical of most aerial bombs.

We did not know for sure what the device contained but it caused appalling burns consistent with an incendiary device, containing a substance like napalm or thermite.

The pressure group Human Rights Watch has documented the use of similar bombs elsewhere in Syria.

Content from external source

 

[MikeC]

So to summarise my understanding, RT is simply lying - "napalm" was not changed to "chemical", and indeed "chemical weapon" was actually removed from the report?

As an aside - How the truth is made at RT might be useful.

 

[Gary Cook]

I am a bit confused by this thread. Was the video debunked? I just found a mirror and thought it was new info.

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

Content from external source

That is hardly a good excuse. Why not just translate what she actually said?

They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting. That is for the people forced to pay television licenses to decide.

To be fair, it is a shame we are having to convince people that there was wrong doing. If people cant admit there is something wrong with going in to a foreign country with an army to supposedly stop violence then nothing will convince them anyway.

 

[deirdre]

I am a bit confused by this thread. Was the video debunked? I just found a mirror and thought it was new info.

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

Content from external source

That is hardly a good excuse. Why not just translate what she actually said?

They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting. That is for the people forced to pay television licenses to decide.

it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.
They explained why they didn't translate what she actually said.

 

[Gary Cook]

Th

it would be nice if the claim was stated in the OP.
They explained why they didn't translate what she actually said.

How do we know if that was the real reason or if it was just an excuse?

As MikeC has rightly pointed out to me on another thread, RT is also state propaganda - but there is more than one claim in this video.

Maybe I should make a new thread. Although I dont have enough info about what seems to be fake acting, at least yet.

 

[deirdre]

Th


How do we know if that was the real reason or if it was just an excuse?

I'm not sure it makes a difference. they made a decision. which I for one happen to agree with.

 

[Gary Cook]

I'm not sure it makes a difference. they made a decision. which I for one happen to agree with.

Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.

It would be nice to here what she said in her language so I can ask somebody to translate it.

 

[Landru]

Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.

It would be nice to here what she said in her language so I can ask somebody to translate it.

Be sure to read the PGs. Improper threads end up in Rambles which limits its visibility on search sites.

 

[Balance]

Why not just translate what she actually said?
They are reporting supposedly rather than interpreting

I admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.

 

[David Fraser]

Just my pennys worth. The first video is the 29th August and the second is 30th September. RT is claiming the second video is to stir public opionion for military action. Given that military action was ruled out in a parliamentary vote on the 30th August why would the BBC alter footage a month later to garner sympathy for a decision already made?

 

[Gary Cook]

Just my pennys worth. The first video is the 29th August and the second is 30th September. RT is claiming the second video is to stir public opionion for military action. Given that military action was ruled out in a parliamentary vote on the 30th August why would the BBC alter footage a month later to garner sympathy for a decision already made?

Just because they had to rule it out because of the public protested doesnt mean they would not try and effect public opinion so they could push for invasion again. True?

 

[Gary Cook]

Be sure to read the PGs. Improper threads end up in Rambles which limits its visibility on search sites.

The OP was improperly posted by the rules. It makes it hard to be objective about it.

 

[David Fraser]

Just because they had to rule it out because of the public protested doesnt mean they would not try and effect public opinion so they could push for invasion again. True?

Under what parliamentary mechanism will that work?

 

[Landru]

The OP was improperly posted by the rules. It makes it hard to be objective about it.

By OP do you mean Official Position or Opening Post?

 

[Gary Cook]

I admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.

By OP do you mean Official Position or Opening Post?

Well, original post. Yes.

 

[Landru]

Well, original post. Yes.

I admit not reading every single link and quote but what translation are you meaning? The doctor does speak english, it's not a dubbed in actors voice - or am I missing something? Sorry if I got the wrong impression.

The opening post IMO violates the PGs

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Of course it makes a difference. Something is not debunked if its just a statement rather than a proven fact..

Then again, I dont understand what their excuse was fully so I might be missing something.
.

It's fairly clear. In the first instance words were edited out for clarity because, by the time the piece was broadcast, the nature of the attack was known. In the second broadcast the "Panorama" editor left the original words intact, but the clip ended before she had finished speaking. This was explained in the next part of the programme, which RT chose not to mention. This is RT being mischievous coupled with a feeding frenzy of straw grasping conspiracy theorists. Of course, if we want to play a game of semantics "Napalm" IS a chemical weapon.

 

[Pete Tar]

but there is more than one claim in this video.

Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.
Only the first story was in the title so that was worth concentrating on. It's not really a clean 'debunked' but it is explained reasonably. It's obvious the talk show is really just using it as an excuse to launch a narrative about how the west is pushing for military intervention in Syria, and their motives for that should be questioned, as their message is way more heavy-handed and manipulative than the original BBC piece.

 

[Gary Cook]

Yeah, it's a talk show of people with a heavy conspiracy bent using that 'incident' as a launching pad to make a bunch of claims about political manipulation of reality. It's very much an Alex Jones style show.
Only the first story was in the title so that was worth concentrating on. It's not really a clean 'debunked' but it is explained reasonably. It's obvious the talk show is really just using it as an excuse to launch a narrative about how the west is pushing for military intervention in Syria, and their motives for that should be questioned, as their message is way more heavy-handed and manipulative than the original BBC piece.

Well we cant really bunk it or debunk it as the person who made the thread didnt really make any claims. There is apparent evidence that there was acting. Has that been addressed anywhere on this forum?

 

[Pete Tar]

This one got sent to rambles, I guess because it was too vague or no-one could agree on anything. Might not be what you're referring to though.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bunkam-or-true-cnn-story-on-syria-war-falsified.3107/

and here's another long one. There might be mention of it buried in there somewhere.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/bunkam-or-true-cnn-story-on-syria-war-falsified.3107/

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Well we cant really bunk it or debunk it as the person who made the thread didnt really make any claims. There is apparent evidence that there was acting. Has that been addressed anywhere on this forum?

This was dealt with very quickly by Pete Tar who showed that the RT claim is bunk. Therefore the "acting" nonsense (seems to raise it's head every time these days) is irrelevant.

I recall when the Sandy hook acting accusations first came to the fore. It just seems to be the denizen of, shall we say, the more imaginitive conspiracy theorists. I thought it was ridiculous then and still do now. A bit like nine year old boys had been asked to write a script.......

"I know, they can all be actors"
"Yeah, yeah.....'cept the aliens"
"Ah, yeah....'cept the aliens"
"An' in the end they all wake up an' it was aaaall a dream!"

Actors my arse.

 

[dirk100]

Nothing has been debunked here, guys. I ask you to actually watch the footage. This editing of what was said was not simply cutting out certain words. It was removing a word mid sentence and then pasting in a different one. Changing what the person is saying. This is not narration - this was meant to be footage of a person being interviewed.

But this isn't the first of the dodginess from Ian Pannell's report. If there is to be reasoned debate then don't dismiss everyone as a crazed conspiracy theorist. Yes, there are people who believe that the guy who invented an engine that worked off water was assasinated by the oil industry and they will likely believe a lot of rubbish. But likewise there are some here who are in the same mindset just not believing anything could be wrong. Amusing to see how RT gets jumped on as all manipulation and the BBC gets a free ride as the bastions of truth without an ounce of scrutiny. The BBC explanation for the edit makes no sense at all. Where exactly are you given the right to change what someone being interviewed has said? This is meant to be a documentary - not a Hollywood movie.

Watch the video and if you still don't believe those are staged 'victims' then get back to me. This is with a backdrop of numerous fakery by the Syrian opposition. They have been caught out time after time.


Thanks

 

[Pete Tar]

So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?

This explains it, what's your problem with it?

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

Content from external source

 

[Oxymoron]

So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?

This explains it, what's your problem with it?

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

Content from external source

It appears in the original airing as an 'incendiary device' and a month later, in another airing, it is changed to 'chemical weapons'.

I do not believe it coincidental that it should be thus referred to at exactly the time when 'chemical weapons use' was the 'justification for attacking Syria'.

I note someone comments above that 'well napalm is a chemical weapon', (and I agree), but the U.S and Israel deny this as they have been by far and away the most extensive users of it. By that standard they would need to punish themselves by bombing their citizenry to deter themselves from using it again. Strange that!

There are a number of accusations in the video, including the use of actors; (fake blood/wounds/waking up from the dead).

There is the issue of

the much quoted by western media, “official” source on Syria casualties, or what mainstream claims is “official”, The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which Reuters exposed the fact three years ago it was not an organization at all, or even working in Syria. It's a single pro-insurgent supporter living in Coventry - England.

Content from external source

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is an information office opposed to the Government of Syria. There was conflict between Rami Abdulrahman,[1] a Syrian expatriate, and Mousab Azzawi about who rightfully ran the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.[2][3] Abdulrahman's UK based SOHR has been cited by virtually every western news outlet since the beginning of the uprising.[1][3]

The United Kingdom-based SOHR is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one person, Rami Abdulrahman,[4] a Syrian Sunni Muslim who also runs a clothes shop. After three spells in prison in Syria, Abdulrahman came to Britain in 2000 fearing a longer, fourth jail term.[1]

In a December 2011 interview with Reuters, Abdulrahman said the observatory has a network of 200 people and that six of his sources had been killed. Abdulrahman reports on events in the Syrian uprising, including the deaths of civilians, rebels and army defectors (which he calls "martyrs")[5] and government soldiers.[6] SOHR's methodology for counting civilian victims has been questioned,[7] as the organisation includes opposition combatants among the number of civilian casualties, as long as these are not former members of the military.[8]

Content from external source

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: 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.

Content from external source

That game-changing allegation was made by two doctors that had travelled with the BBC, who claimed the number of sudden casualties is “overwhelming”.

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.

Content from external source

A parallel to another proven faked atrocity is remembered.

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.

Content from external source

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[dirk100]

So now the claim is the actual people in the hospital are actors? Not just the BBC edited the words to closer reflect the reality of what was known about the attack in a video summary some time after the original?[/EX]

No, there are two claims, which I've clearly stated. And they have a bearing on each other. I mentioned the acting because someone also tried to dismiss this.

This explains it, what's your problem with it?


It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

Content from external source

It doesn't explain anything at all. What pauses, what digression? The word 'napalm' was pasted over with 'chemical weapon' in a sentence. This was not narration but altering the words of someone being interviewed in a supposed documetary. Where exactly is this common in broadcasting?

 

[Pete Tar]

The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.

Content from external source

It appears in the original airing as an 'incendiary device' and a month later, in another airing, it is changed to 'chemical weapons'.

 

[Oxymoron]

The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.

Content from external source

So are you saying RT, are lying about when each version was aired?

RT say the first airing claimed 'incendiary/napalm' and the one a month later (by panorama), used "chemical weapons".

Which is it?

Are you also disputing the fake actors and

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

element and the

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.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Dr_Rola

Panorama - 29 August 2013
BBC Panorama footage of the aftermath of alleged Aleppo 'Napalm' attack was shown on Thursday 29 August 2013, included video footage described by the presenter as 'unverified'. In it Ian Pannell, the BBC on-the-spot reporter, described how two British doctors present were working as volunteers for the charity Hand in Hand for Syria. One of them, 'Dr Rola', was interviewed in the aftermath of the alleged attack. In a related Daily Telegraph article she was described as an 'English Doctor working at a London Hospital' and volunteering for relief work in Syria through 'Hand in Hand for Syria' [5].

Newsnight - 30 August 2013
Introduced to BBC Newsnight viewers as "A British Doctor just back from volunteering in Syria who wants to be called 'Dr Rola'" an attractive thirty-something lady described her experience of an alleged napalm attack in Aleppo, Syria as "...one of the most horrific few hours of my life". Speaking in an educated English accent (with just a trace of East Midlands), she gave a bravura, restrained-emotional performance describing the horrors she had witnessed and advocating Western military intervention in support of Syrian anti-government forces. Had this interview been broadcast before the UK House of Commons vote which had declined military action a few hours earlier, the outcome may well have been different.

Politics Programme - Saturday 31 August 2013
During her studio interview for this program, Dr Rola stated that: "The whole world has failed the Syrian nation" and pointedly offered to host a 7 day visit by Ed Miliband and his family to Aleppo "... to see for himself and at my expense"[6]. Opposite her in the studio was Labour MP Dianne Abbott who, in a bizarre contribution and looking very uncomfortable indeed in the face of Dr Rola's scathing attack on her leader for declining military intervention, assured us that "Bombing Syria has probably only been postponed".

Panorama and News - 30 September 2013
In a report headlined BBC Crew returns to Aleppo on 30 September 2013[7], rehashed footage from the original program was aired again. It featured BBC reporter Ian Pannel talking to two Hand in Hand for Syria female doctors. Presented as a heart-rending report of what is undoubtedly grave and genuine humanitarian suffering, it was nonetheless done in such as way as to very effectively demonise of the Syrian government.

Video Fakery


If Dr Rola was as "overwhelmed" as the video claims, why take time off to do multiple almost identical takes of an interview?
There is clear evidence that the Panorama video footage is not, as it appears, a live action shot of casualties being rushed to hospital, and that the audio is not original. These two points alone raise serious doubts as to the authenticity of the whole report, to say nothing of the multiple subsidiary issues with the video.

Multiple Takes

Content from external source

3. Why were so many children allegedly at school during the school holiday period?
The original BBC piece claimed the school attack took place during the last week of August 2013, "at the end of the school day", and killed at least 10 children. However, Syrian school holidays run from 30 June to 1 September[Citation Needed].

4. What is Dr Rola's family background?
Friend and colleague Dr Saleyha Ahsan writes that "her father, also a doctor, helped coordinate medical logistics from inside Syria in the early days of the uprising. He is now involved politically with the Syrian National Council".[18] If Dr Rola's maiden name is al-Kurdi, that would suggest that her father is Dr Mousa Al-Kurdi.[19] Is Dr Rola also related to Malik al-Kurdi, deputy commander of the Free Syrian Army?[20][21]

5. What is Dr Rola's nationality?
Towards the end of her first appearance, Dr Rola opined, in an impeccable estuary English accent: "The whole world has failed our nation". However, 5 days later she stated: "The whole world has failed the Syrian nation".[6] A BBC video posted on 30th September introduces the attack "two British doctors, two thousand miles from home".[2] In a 2013 petition her nationality is listed as "Syria/UK".[22] So, is she Syrian or British or both?

Content from external source

 

[dirk100]

The exact opposite to what you both are claiming happened.

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.

Content from external source

- The edited footage doesn't even retain the same video to the words
- Dr Rola herself claims she is not sure in her sentence so there would be no need to alter her words
- Why would you then even use the footage at all?
- Do you really believe the BBC were concerned about misleading the public over this while ensuring they had this aired as a special report before the Panorama episode and before the vote?
- But they were happy to mislead the public later on by leaving (what they claim) were the original words? Doesn't make an ounce of sense.

 

[dirk100]

And to see the dodgy acting watch here 2:55 onwards being the worst

See Robert Stuart's stuff here

More here

 

[Pete Tar]

Sorry, I was wrong. The first piece aired was edited to remove the chemical weapon phrase as it was known by then it was an incendiary and would have led to confusion. The second piece just used the unedited version because it was a longer piece and was able to further elaborate, it clarified that at the time it was feared chemical weapons, but it was definitely a napalm like attack.
If this is not clear from the following explanation, I really can't help you any further.

Firstly, we believe it is important to clarify the text of what Dr. Rola Hallam said at the time:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon, I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

It is common in broadcasting to edit spoken contributions to ensure maximum clarity, especially where there might be pauses or digression. This is also a practice in print, although in all cases, accuracy and meaning should be retained, as it was on this occasion. In both the News report and the Panorama a month later, it was made clear that this was an attack using an incendiary device, rather than a chemical weapon.

In this instance, in the news report from August 29th, the audio of Dr Rola was edited for exactly these reasons. This is what was used:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of [EDIT] I’m not really sure, maybe napalm, something similar to that.”

The phrase “chemical weapon” was taken out of the news piece because by the time it was broadcast it was known that this was an incendiary bomb that had been used in the attack. Ian Pannell mentions this on two occasions in his script prior to the clip of Dr. Rola. To have included her speculation that this could have been a "chemical weapon" ran a considerable risk of being incredibly misleading and confusing to the audience, not least because the incident happened within days of an alleged chemical attack in Damascus.
...

In Panorama on September 30th, the team chose to use a short section of Dr Rola's footage unedited, with her saying:

“I need a pause because it is just absolute chaos and carnage here... Umm, we have had a massive influx of what look like serious burns, it seems like it must be some sort of chemical weapon.”

On this occasion the team ended her clip in vision at this point. Her remark is then followed up, explained and elaborated upon effectively in Ian Pannell’s commentary; that the initial fear at the hospital was of a chemical attack (coming days after the Damascus incident), that it later became clear that a napalm-type substance had been used. As the structure of the Panorama piece was different and the time to explain events and the context more generous, it allowed the team to present this argument and then fully expand upon it.

Content from external source

So yes RT is lying.

As for claims about dodgy acting and the doctor's nationality, I really couldn't give a crap, that kind of analysis is contemptible to me.

 

[dirk100]

As for claims about dodgy acting and the doctor's nationality, I really couldn't give a crap, that kind of analysis is contemptible to me.

So this is the extent of the debunking on this site - total arrogance.

 

[MikeC]

Acting and nationality are not debunkable - and raising them as an issue speaks to lack of facts to support a position - the arrogance lies not with the person who points that out.

 

[dirk100]

Acting and nationality are not debunkable - and raising them as an issue speaks to lack of facts to support a position - the arrogance lies not with the person who points that out.

I've not mentioned nationality but I have about acting. And further points above which have not been answered. How exactly is the authenticity of footage not relevant? Especially with a backdrop of fakery that has already been exposed. I've merely asked for people to view it and give their opinion. But to those who would rather deflect they will always pull out the indignation card.

 

[Pete Tar]

So this is the extent of the debunking on this site - total arrogance.

I'm one person, that's my opinion. Someone else may have the stomach to trawl through it, I don't.
A medical person on the site of an incident has her background scrutinised and questioned just so someone can feel clever about themselves 'exposing' something. I just don't find it compelling, sorry.

The initial claim I focused on was the alteration of words in the two BBC broadcasts, which are more than adequately explained by the BBC, but are obviously falsely represented by the RT segment to promote its agenda.
If you want a focus on your acting claims, you can start a thread.
(I suppose it falls under the umbrella of the title, but as the focus has gone to the change in words it would be better for a new thread so it's more direct)