Were the Skripals ‘Buzzed’, ‘Novi-shocked’ Or Neither? – May Has Some ‘Splaining’ To Do
Moon of Alabama, Apr 15 2018
Sergei Lavrov threw a bombshell at the British assertions that the collapse of the Skripals on Mar 4 in Salisbury was caused by a ‘Novichok’ nerve agent ‘of a type developed by Russia.’
- The Skripal poisoning happened on Mar 4.
- Eye witnesses described the Skripals as disoriented and probably hallucinating. The emergency personal suspected fentanyl influence.
- A few days later the British government claimed that the Skripals had been infected by a chemical agent from the ‘Novichok’ series which they attributed to Russia. It insinuated that the Skripals might die soon.
- A doctor of the emergency center at the Salisbury District Hospital publicly asserted that none of its patients was victim of a ‘nerve agent.’
- On Mar 14, after much pressure from Russia, Britain finally invited the OPCW to analyze the blood of the victims and to take environmental samples.
- The OPCW arrived on Mar 19 and took specimen on the following days. It also received a share of the samples taken earlier by DSTL Porton Down, which is only some 10 miles away from Salisbury.
- The OPCW split the various samples it had in a certified laboratory in the Netherlands and then distributed them to several other certified laboratories for analysis.
- One of those laboratories was the highly regarded Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland which is part of the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and fully certified.
- On Apr 12, the OPCW published a public version of the result of the analyses it had received from its laboratories.
- A more extensive confidential version was given to the state members that make up the OPCW.
During a public speech yesterday Lavrov stated of the OPCW report:
[A] detailed and fairly substantial confidential version was distributed to the OPCW members only. In that report, in accordance with the OPCW way of conduct, the chemical composition of the agent presented by the British was confirmed, and the analysis of samples, as the report states, was taken by the OPCW experts themselves. It contains no names, Novichok or any other. The report only gives the chemical formula which, according to our experts, points to an agent that had been developed in many countries and does not present any particular secret.
After receiving that report Russia was tipped off by the Spiez Laboratory or someone else that the OPCW report did not include the full results of its analysis. According to Lavrov, this is what the Spiez Laboratory originally sent to the OPCW:
Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursor which are Category 2 CW. BZ is a nerve toxic agent, which temporarily disables a person. The psychotoxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in the armies of Pindostan. Britain and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state and also products of its degradation.
The “presence of type A-234 nerve agent,” an agent of the so called ‘Novichok’ series, in its “virgin state,” or as the OPCW stated in “high purity,” points to later addition to the sample. The ‘Novichok’ agents are not stable. They tend to fall rapidly apart. Their presence in “virgin state” in a sample which was taken 15 days after the Skripal incident happened is inexplicable. A scientist of the former Russian CW program who worked with similar agents, Leonid Rink, says that if the Skripals had really been exposed to such high purity A-234 nerve agent, they would be dead. (Rink is the fraud whpo says Novchoks were really created by Mirzayanov, the other fraud, who wrote the bestseller – RB) The whole case, the symptoms shown by the Skripals and their recuperation, makes way more sense if they were ‘buzzed,’ ie poisoned with the BZ hallucinogenic agent, than if they were ‘novi-shocked’ with a highly toxic nerve agent. The Spiez Laboratory responded by not denying Lavrov’s claims:
Science Direct has several excerpts of reports about BZ. The basics:
Agent 15 is also called compound 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate, BZ, or “Buzz.” It is a powerful chemical warfare agent. As one of the most potent psychoactive chemical agents, only a small amount of BZ is needed to produce complete incapacitation. When used as an aerosol, BZ is absorbed through the respiratory system (it has no odor). It can also be absorbed through the skin or the digestive system. It takes approximately 1 h for BZ to take effect, and the symptoms of exposure include confusion, tremors, stupor, hallucinations, and coma that can last for more than 2 days.
BZ is a psycho agent 25 times stronger than LSD. It was developed by the Pentagon as an incapacitating agent. At least 50 tons were produced and filled into weapon delivery systems. It was allegedly tested on U.S. soldiers in Vietnam:
Working with the CIA, the DoD gave hallucinogenic drugs to thousands of “volunteer” soldiers in the 1950s and 1960s. In addition to LSD, the Army also tested quinuclidinyl benzilate, a hallucinogen codenamed BZ. Many of these tests were conducted under the so-called MK ULTRA program, established to counter perceived Soviet and Chinese advances in brainwashing techniques. Between 1953 and 1964, the program consisted of 149 projects involving drug testing and other studies on unwitting human subjects. Although many human subjects were not informed or protected, Dr Gottlieb defended those actions by stating: “Harsh as it may seem in retrospect, it was felt that in an issue where national survival might be concerned, such a procedure and such a risk was a reasonable one to take.”
This is what the military tried to achieve with BZ and other psycho agents. BZ (and LSD) turned to be impractical as battlefield weapons. According to British parliament records BZ was also produced and tested, allegedly on unknowing civilians, by Porton Down. The Russian Foreign Minister asserts that the OPCW suppressed the details of the Spiez Laboratory report:
Nothing is said whatsoever about a BZ agent in the final report that the OPCW experts presented to its Executive Council. In this connection we address the OPCW a question about why the information, that I have just read out loud and which reflects the findings of the specialists from the city of Spiez, was withheld altogether in the final document. If the OPCW would reject and deny the very fact that the Spiez laboratory was engaged, it will be very interesting to listen to their explanations.
The current Director-General of the OPCW is the Turkish carrier diplomat Ahmed Üzümcu who earlier served as the Turkish Permanent Representative to NATO. I have no theory how the BZ or the A-234 made it into the OPCW samples or if the Skripals were really influenced by either of these poisons or are victims of simple shellfish poisoning. Your guess is a good as mine. But the story the British government has so far told is full of holes and discrepancies and makes absolutely no sense at all. The suppression of the Spiez Laboratory report by the OPCW is a serious breach of its procedures. The British Prime Minister Theresa May, and the OPCW, have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address at the 26th Assembly
Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, Apr 14 2018
As you know, in the Skripal case the British specially invited a group of OCSW experts. It was done exclusively in a bilateral manner. It was announced that the others would be informed about the conclusions reached by the group. The report of this group of experts was initially distributed as a summary for public consumption and following that, a detailed and fairly substantial confidential version was distributed to the OPCW members only. In that report, in accordance with the OPCW way of conduct, the chemical composition of the agent presented by the British was confirmed, and the analysis of samples, as the report states, was taken by the OPCW experts themselves. It contains no names, Novichok or any other. The report only gives the chemical formula, which, according to our experts, points to an agent that had been developed in many countries and does not present any particular secret. Our colleagues tell us that they have secret data that they cannot share. I have already given examples as I described previous situations. As you understand, we also have the capacity to obtain confidential information. Since this information concerns issues that are literally connected to death and life, we are not going to keep anything secret. We became aware of this from the Swiss Federal Institute for CBRN Protection in Spiez. The information was obtained on conditions of confidentiality. On Mar 27, experts of the Institute completed their study of the samples collected on the site of the incident in Salisbury, in line with OPCW, and sent to them by the OPCW. This laboratory in Spiez, where, I am sure, professional scientists who value their reputation are employed, came to the following conclusions. I will now be quoting what they sent to the OPCW in their report. You understand that this is a translation from a foreign language but I will read it in Russian, quote:
Following our analysis, the samples indicate traces of the toxic chemical BZ and its precursor, which are Category 2 CW. BZ is a nerve toxic agent which temporarily disables a person. The psychotoxic effect is achieved within 30 to 60 minutes after its use and lasts for up to four days. This composition was in operational service in the armies of Pindostan, Britain and other NATO countries. The Soviet Union and Russia neither designed nor stored such chemical agents. Also, the samples indicate the presence of type A-234 nerve agent in its virgin state, and also products of its degradation.
End of quote. According to the specialists’ estimates, the significant concentration of A-234 discovered would have inevitably been lethal, and taking into account its high volatility, the fact that the specialists in the city of Spiez found it in its virgin state and also with high purity and in high concentration, appears to be utterly suspicious, because the period which elapsed between the poisoning and sampling was fairly long. I think, over two weeks. Taking into account that Yulia Skripal and the policeman have already been released from hospital, whereas Sergei Skripal is still recovering, as the British claim without letting us see either Yulia or Sergei, the clinical pattern corresponds more to the use of a BZ agent. Nothing is said whatsoever about a BZ agent in the final report that the OPCW experts presented to its Executive Council. In this connection we address the OPCW a question about why the information that I have just read out loud, and which reflects the findings of the specialists from the city of Spiez, was withheld altogether in the final document. If the OPCW would reject and deny the very fact that the Spiez laboratory was engaged, it will be very interesting to listen to their explanations.
Comments on the findings of the Swiss experts regarding the Salisbury incident
Embassy of Russia, London, Apr 14 2018
Q. Is there any new information regarding the findings of experts from Switzerland in connection with the Salisbury poisoning?
A. According to information from the Swiss Federal Institute for NBC-protection in Spiez, its experts received samples collected in Salisbury by the OPCW specialists and finished testing them on Mar 27. The experts of the Institute discovered traces of toxic chemical called “BZ” and its precursors. It is a Schedule 2 substance under the Chemical Weapons Convention. “BZ” is a chemical agent which is used to temporarily incapacitate people. The desired psychotoxic effect is reached in 30-60 minutes after application of the agent and lasts up to four days. According to the information the Russian Federation possesses, this agent was used in the armed forces of Britain, Pindostan and several other NATO member states. No stocks of such substance ever existed either in the Soviet Union or in the Russian Federation. In addition, the Swiss specialists discovered strong concentration of traces of the nerve agent of A-234 type in its initial states as well as its decomposition products. In view of the experts, such concentration of the A-234 agent would result in inevitable fatal outcome of its administration. Moreover, considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning. It looks highly likely that the “BZ” nerve agent was used in Salisbury. The fact that Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey have already been discharged from hospital, and Sergei Skripal is on his way to recovery, only supports such conclusion. All this information was not mentioned in the final OPCW report at all. Considering the above, we have numerous serious questions to all interested parties, including the OPCW.
The OPCW samples were collected by them from both the Skripals and we assume environmental samples as well. BZ has a very long half life of 4 weeks in UV and high humidity. Nerve agents have short half lives ranging in the neighborhood of 72 hours. At almost 4 weeks after the event there would not be any nerve agent present in the Skripals but BZ would still be there. I tend to believe that it was BZ and not a nerve agent. The OPCW itself has no laboratories and utilizes split samples sent to several laboratories. In this case it went to 4 labs, each receiving identical samples. The Swiss ought to be experts at identifying BZ as it was invented there by Hoffman-La Roche labs back in 1951. The molecular weight and purity are easily assessed by GC-MS. That their findings were not included in the final report is very suspicious. The members of the OPCW can (and will) demand the raw data from all 4 labs for verification of interpretation. This is important as you don’t want outlier findings in a report, as it correctly indicates discrepancies if it wanders from the pre-determined findings. This smacks of collusion and I wonder where the other 3 labs were. I can assume one is at DSTL Porton Down and another the Edgewood Arsenal lab in Maryland. The raw data will indicate exactly what the findings were and are all in digital format and can be used to compare relative performance from each lab. In this we will also see what standards and controls were used and how they looked in the instrumentation of each lab. All labs should be using the same reference standards and controls. You can expect a 5% variation between labs, but misidentifying substances is very difficult and this needs close inspection. Someone is not telling the truth, and clearly OPCW left out important results. This means a political choice was made by the OPCW, but we have seen this before with them, so it is not surprising. However, every member of the OPCW is an equal member and can demand to inspect the findings and raw data. Russia is a member and can do this. It is very suspicious to send samples to labs in any country that might be the perpetrator, which would include Britain & Pindostan. There are excellent labs in the Czech Republic, Germany, France, China, Japan, etc who are also certified by the OPCW to do the work. So there are some interesting choices being made at executive level. It all seems very suspicious to me and I tend to believe Lavrov as he has an excellent history for truth telling and proper behavior. Honor is everything to him. Something distinctly lacking in Teresa May, Donald Trump, and Boris Johnson who all lie ad libitum. Moon of Alabama comments, Old Microbiologist, Apr 15 2018 3:12:20 AM | 176
BZ or A234? A lot of you are missing the point. The Spiez lab identified a strong concentration of very pure A234 (Novichok) in addition to a trace level of BZ. The A234 had not degraded due to time or by interaction with enzymes. The A234 would certainly have been fatal if it was present in the victim’s blood. There is no point in adding an incapacitating agent to a fast acting and lethal nerve agent. The symptoms exhibited by the Skripals is a good fit for what would be expected of BZ but a very poor fit for A234. OPCW claims to have a complete chain of custody of the samples from the 3 victims. Conclusion: the Skripals were subjected to BZ and the traces of that were still in the blood and urine samples. The samples were ‘sexed-up’ with A234 to make the Novachok narrative. OPCW have played along and are complicit! Posted by: AngusOg | Apr 15, 2018 9:31:56 AM | 208
Lavrov says Skripals may have been poisoned by substance Russia never made
Reuters, Apr 15 2018
MOSCOW – Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday at an assembly of the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy that the nerve agent used to poison the Skripals in Britain could have been BZ, which was never produced in the Soviet Union or Russia. Lavrov said experts from a laboratory based in the Swiss town of Spiez had analysed a sample of the substance used in the poisoning. Citing a report from the lab dated Mar 27, Lavrov said:
The report mentioned no nerve agents by name such as Novichok, but instead gave a chemical formula, which was that of the BZ substance. This formulation was in the inventory of Pindostan, Britain and other NATO states. The laboratory also identified a high concentration of A-234 agent, known as Novichok. Such a concentration would have quickly resulted in Skripal’s death. Taking into account its high volatility, the issue of identification of this poisoning substance in its initial state and in high concentration by specialists at the Spiez centre seems to be very suspicious. As you can imagine, we have abilities to receive confidential information, and as this information concerns questions of life and death, we won’t keep it secret.
The OPCW concluded on Thursday that the agent was a highly pure type of Novichok nerve agent, backing Britain’s own findings. (No, they didn’t – RB). PM May has said it is highly likely that Moscow was behind the attack. Russia has repeatedly denied any involvement in the poisoning.
Lavrov Bombshell: Swiss Lab confirms “BZ toxin” produced in Pindostan or Britain used in Salisbury poisoning
Alex Christoforou, The Duran, Apr 14 2018
Forget the Novichok-Skripal narrative peddled out by Boris “the buffoon” Johnson, Theresa May and the Deep State mainstream media stenographers. Sergei Lavrov has just dropped a bombshell revelation that blows the Salisbury poisoning hoax apart. A Swiss lab says that BZ toxin was used in Salisbury. The toxin was not produced in Russia, but was in service in Pindostan & Britain, as well as other NATO member states.
Lavrov: Swiss lab says toxin used in Salisbury is BZ, not “Novichok”
RT.com, Apr 14 2018
The substance used on Sergei Skripal was BZ (3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate), according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in Pindostan, Britain and other NATO states. Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Sergei Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the OPCW. The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report, without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report. The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory, controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of CBRN protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW. The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, Britain accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that in fact London did not ask any questions, but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to Britain. Moscow believes that the entire Skripal case lacks transparency and that Britain is in fact not interested in an independent inquiry. Ambassador A Yakovenko said during a press conference on Friday:
We get the impression that the British government is deliberately pursuing the policy of destroying all possible evidence, classifying all remaining materials and making a transparent investigation impossible.
British government’s reputation at stake over Skripal case: Russian envoy
RT.com, Apr 14 2018
The Skripal case has raised a lot of questions, which are posed not only by Moscow, but by the British people, and failure to answer them puts the British government’s reputation on the line. Russian Ambassador to Britain Alexander Yakovenko told RT:
We have the strategic patience and what we’re going to do is to just press the British government, because they have to give a reply not only to us but also to the British people. The British government has started answering some of the questions, but the pace is still very slow and the major ones remain unanswered. The scandal erupted in early March, when former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found in critical condition in the town of Salisbury. Top British boxtops pinned the blame on Moscow, but they are yet to release evidence to back up the accusations. We’re working every day, so we’re asking more and more questions. The government has started answering these questions, but very very, let’s say, in a shrink way, but still we’re trying to involve them in this process. But what seriously matters, is that why the government is doing this? Why are they declining all our requests? Why have they classified all the information?
The Russian position on the case remains unchanged. (Moscow believes that the whole Skripal scandal was a huge false flag operation,) but we have to prove it.” While the British government is likely to have a “political motivation” for blaming Russia, the diplomat said, it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions. For now, finding out the truth behind what really happened is key. The political “motivation” might actually take its roots in Brexit, as Britain seeks “its place under the sun” in the new reality. Yakovenko said:
If you read the national security strategy, you will find that Russia in this strategy, and this is an official document of the British government, Russia is the enemy number one to Britain. So this is written in the paper. Theresa May, in her famous banquet speech, announced that Britain will take a lead in the deterrence of Russia. In order to follow this policy, you have to have the support of the people. That’s why all the media campaigns are basically targeted to the people in order to prove that Russia is an evil and to support the allegations of the British government.
Inconsistencies in the case, the media offensive, and the lack of solid evidence, however, have raised questions among the British people themselves and put the government’s reputation at stake, Yakovenko said. This, in turn, defeats the stated purpose of British becoming the main “deterrent” of Russia. Yakovenko said:
Without the support of the people, it’s very difficult to do that. What we see today, the people don’t believe the government, they put a lot of questions, and if you read the social media they are asking why the government is pursuing such a policy. In order to get the goal, you have to press more and more. That’s why you hear all these stories, all these fake news. I think that at the stake they have their reputation, because the people are asking more and more questions: Who’s running the country? Is Britain committed to international obligations? So the reputation of the country, the reputation of the government is at stake, and I believe this is quite a strong motivation for the British.
Just Who’s Pulling the Strings?
Craig Murray, Apr 14 2018
Mar 4 2018: Sergei and Yulia Skripal are attacked with a nerve agent in Salisbury.
Mar 6 2018: Boris Johnson blames Russia and calls Russia “a malign force.”
Mar 7: Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of the Toads arrives in London for an official visit.
Mar 13 2018: Valeri Gerasimov, Russian Chief of General Staff, states that Russia has intelligence a fake CW attack is planned against civilians in Syria as a pretext for Pindo bombing of Damascus, and that Russia will respond militarily.
Mar 19 2018: Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of the Toads arrives in Faschingstein for an official visit.
Apr 8 2018: Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman of the Toads arrives in Paris for an official visit.
Apr 8 2018: Toad-funded Jihadis Jaysh al-Islam and Tahrir al-Sham and Britain-funded Jihadi “rescue group” The White Helmets claim a CW attack occurred in their enclave of Douma the previous day, just before its agreed handover to the SAA, and blame the Syrian government.
Apr 11 2018: The Toads pledge support for attack on Syria.
Apr 14 2018: Pindo-British-French attack on Syria begins.
I have always denied Britain’s claim that only Russia had a motive to attack the Skripals. To denigrate Russia internationally by a false flag attack pinning the blame on Russia, always seemed to me more likely than for the Russians to do that to themselves. And from the start I pointed to the conflict in Syria as a likely motive. That puts the Toad, their client Jihadis, their close ally Israel, Britain & Pindostan all in the frame in having a powerful motive in inculcating anti-Russian sentiment prior to planned conflict with Russia in Syria. Any of them could have attacked the Skripals. Today, Theresa May is claiming astonishingly that the British attack on Syria is “to deter CW attacks in Syria and British.” I don’t think the motive for a Skripal false flag could be more starkly demonstrated. We do not yet know how many children and other civilians have died so far in what the media always pretend are magically “pinpoint” attacks on Syria. Denying the “collateral damage” is part of the neocon playbook. The danger is that they will not stop but continue to push, testing how far they can go in weakening Syrian government forces to promote their Jihadi allies on the ground, before they spark a real Russian reaction. That way madness lies. It is also worth noting that the most ardent supporters of this military action, outside the Toads and Israel, are the Blairites in Britain and the Clinton Demagogs in Pindostan. The self-described “centrists” are actually the unhinged extremists in today’s politics. This attack on Syria is, beyond doubt, a huge success for the machinations of Mohammed Bin Salman. Please do read my post of Mar 8 (below), which sets out the background to his agenda, which I believe is essential to why we find our nations in military action again today. Despite the fact the vast majority of the people do not want this.
Mohammed Bin Salman: The Truth Behind The Reformist Facade
Craig Murray, Mar 8 2018
There was a revealing coincidence of timing yesterday. Philip Hammond made a speech in which he pleaded with the EU to allow Britain continued free access to their financial services markets, on the basis of mutually recognised standards. At the same time, Theresa May met the Toad Crown Prince in Downing Street and discussed specific legal reductions of those standards in the City of London, to allow for the stock exchange flotation of part of Toad Aramco. It is symbolic because the toxic addiction of the ruling classes to Toad cash has been lowering British standards of basic decency for generations. The most blatant example was when Tony Blair intervened directly in the justice system as PM on grounds of “national security” to prevent the pursuit of corruption charges against the stench-ridden arms dealers of BAE. The myths about the impartiality of British justice have seldom been so comprehensively exposed. Where there is really dirty money, Blair is seldom far away. The use of British-supplied weapons by the Toads to maim and kill children in Yemen on an industrial scale has penetrated public consciousness despite the best efforts of mainstream media to sideline it, and Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right to highlight the involvement not just of arms manufacturers but of the British military. The government and royal fawning has been accompanied by an extraordinary deluge of pro-Toad propaganda from the MSM this last two days for the Toads and its “reforming” Crown Prince. There is no doubt that MbS has shown a ruthless genius in internal power consolidation in Arabia, with rivals arrested, shaken down or dying by accident. That he is seeking to end corruption appears less probable than that he is seeking to monopolise its proceeds and thus concentrate power, but time will give a clearer picture. There is no evidence whatsoever that Arabia is stopping its funding of Wahhabi Jihad across the Middle East and South Asia. Indeed, it has been stepped up by him, as has the bombing of Yemen.
MbS may have a slightly different take on religion to those previously controlling Arabia, but in fact he is a much more dangerous fanatic. He is an extreme Sunni sectarian, driven by a visceral hatred of Shia Muslims. This is expressed in an aggressive foreign policy, causing a further destabilisation of the Middle East which threatens to tip over into catastrophe, as MbS seeks to turn up the heat against Iran in proxy conflict in Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere. That he is doing so in active and functional alliance with Israel is the world’s worst kept diplomatic secret. Toad/Israel cooperation in Lebanon and Syria is to my mind the most dangerous global flashpoint at present. But despite his fawning reception in London, MbS is not having it all his own way. I returned from Doha two weeks ago and in Qatar, MbS has seriously overreached. Angry at Doha’s lack of hostility to Iran, including revenue sharing agreement on cross-border fields, Arabia has blockaded the small Emirate of Qatar for six months now. The excuse given to the West, that Qatar funds Jihadi terrorism, is perhaps the worst example of the pot calling the kettle black in history. But the Toad demands, including the permanent closure of al-Jazeera, expulsion of Arab dissidents and removal of a Turkish military base, reveal an altogether different agenda. Qatar has proved much more resilient than anybody expected. The blockade has caused some economic damage but it has been survivable, and the effect has been entirely counter-productive for Bin Salman. Qatar has become closer economically to Iran and has developed new port facilities which reduce import reliance on Arabia and its satraps. The Toads had massed troops on the border and threatened invasion, but the Qataris vowed to fight.
Then something remarkable happened which the world MSM has almost entirely ignored. Despite Toad-sponsored adverts all over Pindo media portraying named senior Qataris as terrorist sponsors, and despite strong Israeli lobbying for the Toads, Donald Trump suddenly called MbS to heel. With Toad troops massed on the Qatari border, on Jan 30 Pindostan signed an agreement with Qatar “to deter and confront any threat to Qatar’s territorial integrity.” This was a massive slap in the face to MbS from Donald Trump, and a result of Tillerson recognising the real threat to the world from MbS’ extreme ambition. I can only conjecture this received none of the publicity it deserved from the corporate media because it went against the prevailing narrative that Trump can never in any circumstance do anything strikingly good, and because it was a blow to Israel. The uber-hawk Clinton would certainly not have crossed the Toads and Israel in this way. It is an important sign that there is more to Tillerson’s Middle Eastern diplomacy than the stupid decision, motivated by Pindo domestic politics, to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The elite loves Toad money all around the world, but Britain is unique in allowing that to blind them absolutely to human rights abuses, the appalling bombing of Yemen, and the extreme dangers posed by MbS’s hyperactive regional aggression towards Shia Muslims. We should be used to seeing Tories kowtowing to money by now, but this week makes me still more sick than usual.
Niqnaq 