How Breitbart Got Conservatives to Forget Morality and Embrace Pedophilia

February 23, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Breitbart News is what many on the right side of America's controlled political paradigm consider "real news" versus the "liberal media's" "fake news." However, in reality, Breitbart is a textbook case of what is called "cognitive infiltration." It is the establishment's attempt to reassert itself, its narratives, influence, and agenda amid an information space increasingly decentralized and controlled by genuine alternative media.

In order to do this, Breitbart poses as "alternative media" itself, taking on a "conservative" identity to draw in many on the right of American politics. Cognitive infiltrators also target left-leaning Americans. And it has worked masterfully.

It is an amazing feat by the establishment to have first - under the administration of US President Barack Obama - gotten liberals to embrace endless wars of aggression, and now to convince conservatives to defend advocates of child rape and the act of child rape itself. 

The basic facts of what Breitbart really is, versus what it claims to be, expose this clearly. While it poses as anti-establishment "alternative media," it peddles wars and other aspects of the establishment's agenda. It is also working diligently to divide and distract their audience, pitting them against other Americans rather than exposing and targeting the special interests who dominate over them all.

Agents of Division and Conquest

Enter Milo Yiannopoulos, who just recently resigned as a Breitbart News senior editor. He was an obvious provocateur, aiming clearly at dividing and distracting Americans from real issues. He made provocative comments targeting various groups in his and Breitbart's efforts to further polarize the American people and lend greater leverage and control to the corporate-financier interests that truly dominate American politics.

In his bid to further polarize the American people between "left" and "right," he characterized the left as condoning and defending pedophilia. In a 2016 article written by Yiannopoulos and published by Breitbart titled, "Here's Why the Progressive Left Keeps Sticking up for Pedophiles," he argues:

Today, Salon gave a platform to a self-confessed pedophile to explain his urges in sympathetic terms. �I�m a Pedophile, But Not A Monster� reads the headline. It�s a long, self-pitying screed that ends with a call to be �understanding and supportive� of adults who crave sexual intimacy with children.

Forgive me if I�m not first to start the standing ovation. In fact I�m pretty sure most people will find the existence on Salon�s website of this post both shocking and distasteful.

Yiannopoulos continues by saying: 

...progressives who got fired up about whether green and purple was a �rapey� colour scheme were suddenly fine with discussion of incestuous pedophilia from a 22-year-old in a chat room full of teenagers. It has been a somewhat grotesque spectacle to watch.

He concludes by claiming:

 Radical leftists may be planning to make pedophilia another front in their civil rights battles, but it won�t happen without a fight. Nor should it.

In the minds of many reading Breitbart News, they envision the American left as advocates of predators who seek to sexually abuse their children. And in many cases, the establishment "left" are just that. But as it turns out, so is the establishment "right."

Yiannopoulos Himself Advocated Sex with Children 

Clearly the act Yiannopoulos put on during his role as agitator at Breitbart diverges significantly from who he really is and what he really stands for. In an interview with Yiannopoulos on the "Drunken Peasants Podcast posted on January 4, 2016, he unequivocally defends grown men having sex with children as young as 13 and claims that pedophilia is only a sexual attraction to a child who has not reached puberty yet. However, regardless of Yiannopoulos' opinions on the matter, adults having sex with 13 year old children is most certainly pedophilia.

Clearly, the real Yiannopoulos has nothing to do with the values many who call themselves conservatives, or "right" of the American political spectrum identity with. Clearly, upon watching Yiannopoulos' full interview, no "conservative" or "right-wing" American could support or agree with Yiannopoulos or find him anything less than precisely what they allegedly stand against.

Yet here is where the system's cognitive infiltration has worked so masterfully.


Because of the media circus on both the left and right of American politics surrounding Yiannopoulos and his provocations preceding these revelations and the amount of investment those on the right put in to defending him, they are incapable of now divesting even as their "hero" is revealed as absolutely everything they stand against.


In many instances, hardcore conservatives can now be seen attempting to downplay Yiannopoulos' comments, accuse others of taking his comments "out of context" despite them being easily accessed in the above full video of the interview, or even attempting to downplay the significance of adults consorting sexually with 13 year olds.

It is an amazing feat by the establishment to have first - under the administration of US President Barack Obama - gotten liberals to embrace endless wars of aggression, and now to convince conservatives to defend advocates of child rape and the act of child rape itself.

What cognitive infiltration is accomplishing is not only the reasserting of the establishment's agenda over genuine alternative media, but also a consolidation and unification of that agenda under alternative left and right cover.

What Breitbart Was, Is, and Always Will Be 

Yiannopoulos is nothing more than a hired agitator - an actor who is using politically conservative memes to psychologically manipulate a segment of the population while his colleagues elsewhere target and manipulate liberals. He has no real affinity for conservative values no more so than those do who peddle absurd "social justice" agendas. He has piecemeal revealed his true "values" or lack thereof in various interviews, advocating everything from decriminalizing sexual assault against women, to child rape.

Breitbart itself, has been under the control of Steve Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs banker and now a member of US President Donald Trump's administration alongside other Goldman Sachs alumni, collaborators of convicted financial criminal George Soros, and representatives of America's immense arms industry.

Breitbart too has no real affinity for conservative values, and only uses them as a vector to gain trust and reassert establishment influence over segments of the population being lured away by genuine alternative media.

What is most ironic about the rise and current influence of Breitbart News, and its so far-crowning achievement in convincing conservatives to defend an advocate of child rape, is that its function as a cognitive infiltrator was laid out by a decidedly "liberal" villain - Cass Sunstein - under the Obama administration.

In Sunstein's 2008 paper titled, "Conspiracy Theories," he stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

Government can partially circumvent these problems if it enlists nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts. Although government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes, too close a connection will prove self-defeating if it is exposed -- as witness the humiliating disclosures showing that apparently independent opinions on scientific and regulatory questions were in fact paid for by think-tanks with ties to the Bush administration. Even apart from this tradeoff, conspiracy theorists may still fold independent third-party rebuttals into their theory by making conspiratorial claims of connection between the third party and the government.

What is Breitbart News and agitators like Yiannopoulos if not faux "independent" third parties advocating government policies and agendas? How exactly is Breitbart News truly "independent" or "anti-establishment" when it peddles the establishment's wars, intentionally divides people against one another making them easier for the establishment to control and manipulate, and attempts - as Yiannopoulos has successfully done - to lure conservatives into hitherto unacceptable ideological territory such as defending child rape?

Fake news is easy to identify. It exists in the establishment right and left, and among the "alternative" right and left. If it is news aimed at advocating or generating support for the government and the special interests that dominate it, or seeks to divide people against each other rather than focusing on uniting people against abusive special interests - it is fake news.

Breitbart is most certainly fake news. Its counterparts on the left are as well. Together, like the lineup at a professional wrestling event, they put on a show with an adversarial narrative. Behind the scenes, they are all working together for a single organizer, profiting from emotions they provoke from the crowds that keep them coming back for more.

As long as suspension of disbelief can be maintained, the organizer continues to profit.

For Americans to believe that after decades of a singular, continuous agenda dominated by special interests, a president surrounded by bankers, warmongers, and supported by pedophiles is going to suddenly shift the paradigm is likely a fatal delusion that will only accelerate and expand this current, decidedly unacceptable paradigm.

For conservatives now finding themselves rushing to the defense of a child rape advocate, they need to take serious stock in what they are doing and why. Is defending a man who advocates sex with 13 year old boys going to make America "great again?" Or simply - and only temporarily - protect their delicate egos and pride? 

Amnesty International Admits Syrian "Saydnaya" Report Fabricated Entirely in UK

February 9, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Amnesty International's 48 page report titled, "Syria: Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison, Syria," boasts bold claims, concluding:

...the Syrian authorities� violations at Saydnaya amount to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International urgently calls for an independent and impartial investigation into crimes committed at Saydnaya.

However, even at a cursory glance, before even reading the full body of the report, under a section  titled, "Methodology," Amnesty International admits it has no physical evidence whatsoever to substantiate what are admittedly only the testimony of alleged inmates and former workers at the prison, as well as figures within Syria's opposition.

Image: What you are looking at is a 3D model fabricated entirely in the United Kingdom, based solely on satellite pictures and hearsay. Passed off as evidence this technique of "forensic architecture" may soon become a new tool in the dissemination of war propaganda if it is not exposed. 

Within the section titled, "Methodology," the report admits:

Despite repeated requests by Amnesty International for access to Syria, and specifically for access to detention facilities operated by the Syrian authorities, Amnesty International has been barred by the Syrian authorities from carrying out research in the country and consequently has not had access to areas controlled by the Syrian government since the crisis began in 2011. Other independent human rights monitoring groups have faced similar obstacles.

In other words, Amnesty International had no access whatsoever to the prison, nor did any of the witnesses it allegedly interview provide relevant evidence taken from or near the prison.

The only photographs of the prison are taken from outer space via satellite imagery. The only other photos included in the report are of three men who allege they lost weight while imprisoned and a photo of one of eight alleged death certificates provided to family members of detainees who died at Saydnaya.

The alleged certificates admittedly reveal nothing regarding allegations of torture or execution.

Articles like, "Hearsay Extrapolated - Amnesty Claims Mass Executions In Syria, Provides Zero Proof," provide a detailed examination of Amnesty's "statistics," while articles like, "Amnesty International �Human Slaughterhouse� Report Lacks Evidence, Credibility, Reeks Of State Department Propaganda," cover the politically-motivated nature of both Amnesty International and the timing of the report's promotion across the Western media.

However, there is another aspect of the report that remains unexplored - the fact that Amnesty International itself has openly admitted that the summation of the report was fabricated in the United Kingdom at Amnesty International's office, using a process they call "forensic architecture," in which the lack of actual, physical, photographic, and video evidence, is replaced by 3D animations and sound effects created by designers hired by Amnesty International.

Amnesty Hired Special Effects Experts to Fabricate "Evidence" 

In a video produced by Amnesty International accompanying their report, titled, "Inside Saydnaya: Syria's Torture Prison," the narrator admits in its opening seconds that Amnesty International possesses no actual evidence regarding the prison.

The video admits:

There are almost no pictures of its exterior [except satellite images] and none from inside. And what happens within its walls is cloaked in secrecy, until now. 

Viewers are initially led to believe evidence has emerged, exposing what took place within the prison's walls, but the narrator continues by explaining:

 We've devised a unique way of revealing what life is like inside a torture prison. And we've done it by talking to people who were there and have survived its horrors...

...and using their recollections and the testimony of others, we've build an interactive 3D model which can take you for the first time inside Saydnaya. 

The narrator then explains:

In a unique collaboration, Amnesty International has teamed up with "Forensic Architecture" of Goldsmiths, University of London, to reconstruct both the sound and architecture of Saydnaya prison, and to do it using cutting-edge digital technology to create a model. 

In other words, the summation of Amnesty International's presentation was not accumulated from facts and evidence collected in Syria, but instead fabricated entirely in London using 3D models, animations, and audio software, based on the admittedly baseless accounts of alleged witnesses who claim to have been in or otherwise associated with the prison.



Eyal Weizman, director of "Forensic Architecture," would admit that "memory" alone was the basis of both his collaboration with Amnesty International, and thus, the basis for Amnesty's 48 page report:

Memory is the only resource within which we can start [to] reconstruct what has taken place. What does it feel like to be a prisoner in Saydnaya? 

Weizman's organization, "Forensic Architecture," on its own website, describes its activities:

Forensic Architecture is a research agency based at Goldsmiths, University of London. It includes a team of architects, scholars, filmmakers, designers, lawyers and scientists to undertake research that gathers and presents spatial analysis in legal and political forums. 

We provide evidence for international prosecution teams, political organisations, NGOs, and the United Nations in various processes worldwide. Additionally, the agency undertakes historical and theoretical examinations of the history and present status of forensic practices in articulating notions of public truth.

In other words, special effects experts and their tools - usually employed in the creation of fictional movies for the entertainment industry or for architectural firms to propose yet-to-exist projects - are now being employed to fabricate evidence in a political context when none in reality exists.

While the work of "Forensic Architecture" may be of interest to developing theories, it is by no means useful in providing actual evidence - evidence being understood as an actual available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid - not a fabricated body of supposed facts or information.

Image: Technology used for creating Hollywood dinosaurs and aliens, or an architectural proposal for a vacant lot, is now being used to fabricate evidence for politically motivated reports when no actual evidence exists.

The work of "Forensic Architecture" and the witness accounts gathered by Amnesty International - all of which were admittedly gathered outside of Syria - would form the basis of an initial inquiry, not a final report nor the basis of a conclusion that human rights violations not only took place, but that they constituted crimes against humanity and demanded immediate international recourse.

Amnesty International's report lacked any actual evidence, with its presentation consisting instead of admittedly fabricated images, sounds, maps, and diagrams. Amnesty - lacking actual evidence - instead abused its reputation and the techniques of classical deception to target and manipulate audiences emotionally. What Amnesty International is engaged in is not "human rights advocacy," but rather politically-motivated war propaganda simply hiding behind such advocacy.

Exposing this technique of openly and shamelessly fabricating the summation of an internationally released report - promoted unquestioningly by prominent Western papers and media platforms, including the BBC, CNN, the Independent, and others - prevents Amnesty and other organizations like it from continuing to use the trappings of science and engineering as cover to deliver monstrous lies to the public.

Manning's Overdue Freedom Granted Amid Shameless Political Stunt

January 18, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Headlines are announcing the early release of US Army whistle-blower Private Manning from a jail sentence that began in 2013 and was to last 35 years. Manning is accused of passing US government documents to information clearing house Wikileaks before being arrested and charged for "espionage" in 2010.

Manning's release indicates an admission by the US of unjust imprisonment. However, the US has so far failed to acknowledge this fact publicly, assign blame, or hold responsible those who played a direct role in Manning's arrest, trial, conviction, and now over 6 year imprisonment.

Manning's release, however, was a carefully timed, politically-motivated stunt, devoid of moral convictions, principles, or mercy - as the stunt is designed to appear. At any time during the administration of Barack Obama, Manning's sentence could have been both vigorously opposed and commuted. However it was not. Manning was left to languish in prison, unjustly confined, so an exiting US president could perform a spectacle, adding to the illusion of both his own legacy, and to that of the office itself.

It is fitting that the United States, at this juncture in its history, cannot even exhibit positive qualities without polluting them with self-serving, political, and manipulative agendas.

Regardless of the depravity that defined both Manning's imprisonment and release, it should be remembered by all that despite Obama's "pardon," for each day Manning was imprisoned unjustly - or anyone for that matter - a crime is being committed against us all.    

Meanwhile, there are vast number of other political prisoners languishing either in American prisons or defacto in legal limbo under threat of arrest or assassination, including NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, Wikileaks' Julian Assange. and lesser known prisoners including Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht.

Gizmodo Joins Fake News Bandwagon

Unless you consider posing as an objective tech magazine while lobbying for tech-corporations "fake news," then Gizmodo has been on that bandwagon for years. 

January 13, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Gizmodo in their headline, "Russian Propaganda Channel RT Mysteriously Cut Into C-SPAN's Web Feed [Updated]," would attempt to add to the hysteria circulating among pro-Western audiences regarding alleged Russian "hacking" by portraying a C-SPAN control room error as a case of possible "Russian hacking."

Gizmodo reported:

This afternoon, online viewers of politics-meets-Ambien channel C-SPAN were treated to a disturbing change in programming: For around 10 minutes, the web stream aired RT (formerly Russia Today) instead.

Gizmodo would add:

It�s a Max Headroom moment of sorts, with authoritarian overtones. After all, last week�s declassified report jointly authored by the CIA, FBI, and NSA stated in no uncertain terms that RT was being used throughout the election as a tool to disseminate propaganda and swing the vote towards Donald Trump.

However, the article was soon updated, revealing Gizmodo - like the rest of the corporate Western media - was participating in propaganda, not RT and certainly not nonexistent "Russian hackers."

An update buried at the bottom of the article finally admitted:

C-SPAN said an initial investigation indicated that the interruption was caused by �an internal routing error� and was not the result of a hack.

Gizmodo, which poses as a tech magazine, spends much of its time lobbying for corporations and tech-related establishment narratives while using its editorial space to pass off advertisements as objective critical reviews. Gizmodo is not alone - other alleged tech magazines ranging from Wired to Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, quite literally have staff who communicate directly with and for various departments of the US government.

Gizmodo, like its bigger brothers and sisters at the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and the BBC, find themselves attempting to stoke hysteria regarding "Russian propaganda" only to expose themselves as being engaged in attempts to intentionally deceive and manipulate their audiences to achieve specific economic and political goals - which is ironically, the very definition of propaganda.

Thailand Pushes Back Against BBC Propaganda

December 8, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Thailand's government has opened an investigation into BBC's "BBC Thai" and its recent activities. It is accused of maliciously slandering Thailand's newly appointed head of state, King Maha Vajiralongkorn in a recent "profile" published in both English and Thai on its website and across social media.

The BBC, known for misleading the public globally, has helped justify devastating wars, political conflict, and the socioeconomic division and destruction of entire nations. While the Western media attempts to portray the BBC's row in Thailand as merely a Thai issue - it is in fact the latest in an extensive global backlash against the monopoly the West has - until now - enjoyed over the media.

The BBC in Thailand 

While the BBC has maintained an office in Thailand for years, "BBC Thai" was created only in 2014, just after the US-backed regime of Thaksin Shinawatra - headed by his own sister Yingluck Shinawatra - was ousted from power amid massive street protests and a subsequent military coup.

Since then, the BBC has worked ceaselessly toward undermining the government, the military, as well as attacking the nation's ancient and revered institutions in an effort to bolster Western-backed opposition fronts.

This includes several notable stunts including the BBC's Jonathan Head visiting the 2015 Bangkok bomb blast scene to tamper with evidence in an effort to undermine the investigation and humiliate investigators as well as the government. Head would confiscate evidence from the scene and carry it to a near by police station - all on camera - in a very public and staged attempt to depict investigators as incompetent. Despite what is a chargeable offense in even the most liberal nations, Thai police attempted to downplay the incident.

During the deluge of leaked documents and emails over the past year, information regarding the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT) of which the BBC's Jonathan Head is a senior figure, revealed ties to convicted financial criminal George Soros and Open Society.

Head would flatly deny the accusations first published by Bangkok-based alternative news site "The New Atlas," before admitting to "a one-off media seminar in Myanmar." However, further investigation revealed that the FCCT included in its Bangkok office, and headed by the FCCT's own president - Dominic Faulder - "The Indochina Media Memorial Foundation" (IMMF) whose actives were indeed funded for years by Open Society.

Disrupting Thailand's Sensitive Transition 

Thailand is currently undertaking a sensitive transition. The universally revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej's passing in October 2016 began a year of mourning as well as the process of his son and successor, King Maha Vajiralongkorn assuming responsibilities as head of state.

King Maha Vajiralongkorn has already appointed a new Privy Council. containing several members from his father's inner circle as well as several new advisers who were central in maintaining national unity and stability amid Thailand's recent political crisis.

The appointment of this Privy Council reveals that rumors intentionally spread by the Western media - including the BBC - were categorically false in regards to the "turmoil" and even "civil war" they attempted to promote for years before the anticipated transition in an effort to stoke fear and division among the Thai public.

Regardless of the BBC and other names amongst the Western media being involved in serial deception, they continue using their journalistic credentials to shield themselves from both official and public backlash in Thailand - just as they have elsewhere around the world.

Considering the significant human tragedy the BBC has helped precipitate in, targeting nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, Thailand's reaction to the BBC's politically-motivated tactics and overt attempts to agitate under the cover of "journalism" is proportional to the very real, clear, and present danger it poses to national security.

While Thailand has so far been characteristically lenient on the BBC, despite open fraud and even senior staff tampering with crime scenes, the Western media, faux-rights advocacy groups, and even Western governments are attempting to portray Thailand's recent actions as unreasonable and a breach of "freedom of expression." The irony of course is, that as the West accuses Thailand of suppressing "freedom of expression," the West itself is busy attempting to round up and silence its own detractors under the guise of "confronting fake news."

In reality, the BBC could easily be considered among the "original fake news networks." And if "fake news" must be countered, the BBC should be first in line.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine �New Eastern Outlook.� 

Lying About Lying - AP Attempts to Cover Up Blatant "FACT CHECK" Lies

October 11, 2016 (LD) - Journalism 101 - if one makes a mistake in an article, they must make the appropriate changes and note them in an "editor's note" or equivalent. Just like a security guard standing watch and keeping a logbook at a U-Store-It, journalists are writing the world's daily record. Changes must be noted clearly and concisely, otherwise anyone at any time can go back and change the daily record with the world being none the wiser.

For a security guard, this means covering up theft and other forms of impropriety, and likewise, journalists who covertly backtrack make it possible to tell any lie and leave little trace of it in hindsight.

That is why ethical journalism can and will admit mistakes, and note them when they make corrections. The daily record is that important.

If that is what genuine, ethical journalists do, then one can assume those not following this long-established, commonsense standard is not a genuine, ethical journalist.

Associate Press describes itself as:

...one of the largest and most trusted sources of independent newsgathering, supplying a steady stream of news to its members, international subscribers and commercial customers. AP is neither privately owned nor government-funded; instead, as a not-for-profit news cooperative owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members, it can maintain its single-minded focus on newsgathering and its commitment to the highest standards of objective, accurate journalism.

However, it is abundantly clear that AP is not trustworthy nor engaged in "newsgathering."

Their "AP FACT CHECK" not only blatantly lied about the nature of military operations carried out by Syrian and Russian forces in their collective battle against terrorist organizations including the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS), AP directly contradicted its own reporting on the Syrian conflict where they themselves repeatedly over the last year reported on Syrian and Russian forces fighting ISIS.

When caught lying, AP covertly backtracked and edited their "AP FACT CHECK" without including an editor's note or equivalent. In doing so, they are attempting to sidestep responsibility for intentionally misleading their readers - an activity one would not expect from "one of the most trusted sources of independent newsgathering."

Would any nation citing this unethical behavior before stripping AP employees of their journalistic credentials and deporting them be overreacting? The sort of lies AP is attempting to perpetuate are the same lies used to justify US military aggression against Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. It is lies like those told repeatedly by AP and others that have allowed the conflict to rage on for 5 years in Syria.

Mischaracterizing the conflict - and specifically lying about Syria and Russia's role in directly confronting ISIS both in the air and on the ground - has cost the lives of thousands as well as regional security and stability. Such lying also has allowed the US to menace the region with the possibility of directly military intervention based solely on claims that Syria and Russia are killing "civilians" rather than fighting ISIS.

AP's lies have a tangible cost, and revoking their journalistic credentials is a small price to pay to prevent these costs from becoming steeper still. In the aftermath of World War II, German war propagandists faced direct and severe penalties for their role in deceiving the public and creating the pretexts for invasions, occupations, and an array of other atrocities. Why should AP and other media organizations across the West be spared now for doing likewise?

Blatant Lie: AP "Fact Checks" Directly Contradict AP's Own Reporting on Syria

October 10, 2016 (LD) - The Associated Press (AP) through a gimmick it calls "AP FACT CHECK," claimed after a recent US presidential debate that presidential candidate Donald Trump was untruthful about Syrian President Bashar Al Assad fighting the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (ISIS).

AP's article, "AP FACT CHECK: Trump wrong that Assad fights IS," claims:

Not true. Syria's President Bashar Assad considers the Islamic State group to be among numerous "terrorist" groups that threaten his government, but his military is not fighting them. It is focused on combatting Syrian opposition groups, some of which are supported by the United States. The fight against the Islamic State militants is being waged by a U.S.-led coalition, with help from Turkey, by training, advising and equipping Syrian Arab and Kurdish fighters.

 However, despite AP's claims, AP's own reporting directly contradicts its "AP FACT CHECK," as pointed out by Syrian activist and geopolitical commentator Mimi Al Laham in a recent Tweet.


In their April 2016 article, "After Palmyra, Syrian troops take another IS-controlled town," AP would report that:

A week after taking back the historic town of Palmyra, Syrian troops and their allies on Sunday captured another town controlled by the Islamic State group in central Syria, state media reported. 

The push into the town of Qaryatain took place under the cover of Russian airstrikes and dealt another setback to the IS extremists in Syria. An activist group that monitors the Syrian civil war said that government forces are in control of most of the town after IS fighters withdrew to its eastern outskirts. 

The advance came a week after Syrian forces recaptured Palmyra from IS and is strategically significant for the government side. The capture of Qaryatain deprives IS of a main base in central Syria and could be used by government forces in the future to launch attacks on IS-held areas near the Iraqi border. 

Not only does AP directly contradict its own reporting on Syrian forces over the past year with its recent and clearly disingenuous "AP FACT CHECK," it also contradicts claims that Russia is also uninterested in fighting ISIS - admitting clearly that Syrian government gains against the terrorist organization took place under the cover of Russian airpower.

Also, AP would even report that Russian ground forces were present at Palmyra, directly on the front with ISIS.

AP's May 2016 article, "Russia builds military camp near ancient site in Palmyra," would admit:

Russia has built a military encampment inside a zone that holds the UNESCO world heritage site in the ancient Syrian town of Palmyra, where Islamic State militants were driven out recently by pro-government forces.

The Russian military described the camp Tuesday as "temporary," saying its few housing units were being used by explosives experts who are removing mines left behind by the militants, and that the Syrian government had given approval to build the camp. 

It is uncertain why AP has resorted to such blatant, clumsy lies, especially under a series of articles it is boldly calling "AP FACT CHECK." However, it is clear - based on AP's own reporting - that they are in fact lying intentionally and in direct contradiction to their own reporting.

It is also interesting how AP boldly titles its recent series as "AP FACT CHECK" yet provides no citations or evidence for its "fact checking."



AP has perpetuated intentional lies dressed up as news reporting for years, if not from its inception, deceiving global audiences regarding everything from "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, to the characterization of political conflicts ranging from the so-called "Arab Spring" to political instability in Southeast Asia.

Caught in a blatant lie contradicting its own reporting should put the world on notice that AP is not a legitimate news service, nor should it be trusted as a journalistic source until those responsible for "AP FACT CHECK" are exposed, condemned, and expelled from AP, and AP provides a proper explanation as to how such blatant lies could cross its pages in the first place.

For the Syrian and Russian soldiers and airmen who bravely died fighting ISIS in combat AP itself reported on, no greater disservice could be done than to deny such combat even took place. AP's recent "AP FACT CHECK" was meant to portray recent political debates in a certain light, but instead, it has only managed to cast AP itself as illegitimate, deceitful, and untrustworthy.