by Some guy called Robert Elliott has put out in the Guardian some of the most blatant misinformation I've ever come across. What is so diabolical about the article is that Elliott says he's the CEO of a company that he set up to counter disinformation, especially from Russia.If you read the article you will see that Elliott's company gets some funding from the British government.Elliott says Maduro was behind a coup in Venezuela, but Jimmy Carter observed the elections and said they were the fairest he had ever seen. Also, Europe and America was asked to come and observe the elections too, but they turned it down. Venezuela use some of the best voting machines available so the right can't hack them to fix the elections. Why doesn't Elliott mention any of this in his article if he is trying
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Andreas Cervenka och den svenska bostadsbubblan
Mike Norman writes Trade deficit
Merijn T. Knibbe writes Christmas thoughts about counting the dead in zones of armed conflict.
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Debunking the balanced budget superstition
If you read the article you will see that Elliott's company gets some funding from the British government.
Elliott says Maduro was behind a coup in Venezuela, but Jimmy Carter observed the elections and said they were the fairest he had ever seen. Also, Europe and America was asked to come and observe the elections too, but they turned it down. Venezuela use some of the best voting machines available so the right can't hack them to fix the elections. Why doesn't Elliott mention any of this in his article if he is trying to put out the 'real news'?
Elliot also says RT has spread conspiracy theories about the Skripal poisoning. Well, I never saw any.
A Jewish professor of intelligence recently described how intelegence agencies would carry out such an assassination. In the Skripal case, two agents would have flown from Russia to a neutral country using fake passports, and then they would have flown to Britain using different fake passports. Once in Britain they would stayed overnight in a safe house, and then the next day they would travel to where they are going to do the murder. And only then, would someone hand them the murder weapon. But chances are they would do it the old fashioned way and make it look like a suicide or an accident. Why didn't the Guardian or the BBC report this analysis by a Jewish expert on intelligence operations?
Instead we are told the Russian agents came to Britain using their real passports, went sightseeing for a day (I posted photos here once of them looking into windows of shops), and then tried to do the murder with a chemical 'of a type originally developed in Russia'. Come on! Also, and I don't think the Western media reported this, but they didn't have much money so they had to share a single bed together at the British hotel.
The Guardian