From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun. Part I: The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change

By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli. Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Introduction. This investigation aims to inquire into the staged-massacre routine and similar false flag operations implemented by Western powers to justify military and/or political interventions for regime change. The series comprises: I) The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change; II) Role of Western media […]

By Prof Marcello Ferrada de Noli.

Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights

  1. Introduction.

This investigation aims to inquire into the staged-massacre routine and similar false flag operations implemented by Western powers to justify military and/or political interventions for regime change. The series comprises: I) The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change; II) Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign; III) Epidemiological questioning of the ‘UN-Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ Report on the Khan Shaykhun incident.

This first part gives a brief synopsis of such a false flag operations assayed in recent decades in a number of countries, and regarding to Syria, this first section focuses on allegations done by the “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­/ United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”, a document delivered for the Security Council consideration on 24 August 2016.

Ensuing section II in the series assesses the psychosocial role of Western media and stream rights organizations such as “Human Rights Watch”, in the staging and dissemination of this deceitful war propaganda. Inevitably, the role of the “White Helmets” –a propaganda organization of locals established by Western powers in occupied territories of Syria, also associated with other jihadist combat organizations – is also commented. One main reason being that “White Helmets” has been instrumented as the main media source for ‘massacre’ allegations. Invariably, these claims have conveyed a role of pledging for military action against the Syrian government. I may summarize such a role partly with this statement read in the recent “handbook for U.S. Army formations”, “Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook”: [1]

“The new objective is not victory in a conflict, but regime change…Not all regime changes have to be resolved with a military option, but when a military lever is activated, it is done by, with, and through segments of the local population. The involvement of locals gives validity to military action on the world stage.”

The ending section, N° III in the series, focuses on a recently issued report about the Khan Shaykhun purported “sarin attack” of April 2017, published by the “UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” (COI). [2]

Interestingly, while the new COI-report exhaustively list the claims of chemical attacks taken place in Syria since the conflict began –and where the COI found “reasonable grounds to believe” that it was the Syrian government who had perpetrated those attacks– there is no mention at all about the alleged “chemical attack” on Sarmine, Idlib, 16 March 2015. Those allegations, originally put forward by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and sourced in the White Helmets, were focus of an analysis-series undertaken by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) in March-April 2017. [3] [4]. Our investigation demonstrated the falsehoods in the pseudo evidence claimed by a HRW-report [5] as well as serious pseudo-medical fabrications in the corresponding ‘life-saving’ videos showed by the White Helmets as ‘evidence’ for the claim. [See details on this staged-massacre routine further bellow, in section Syria].

Nevertheless, the fact that the UN-panel omitted the above-mentioned “Sarmine episode” from the list of alleged chemical attacks in Syria given in their report, a) It further indicates the accuracy of the SWEDHR analysis and our fact-based conclusions on that new murky episode enacted by the proxies White Helmets. b) It once more confirm that the mentioning of our investigations at the UN Security Council session of April 2017 done by the Syrian ambassador, [6] as well as the citations by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova of SWEDHR independent analyses, [7] [8], including her reference to the denounces in The Indicter Magazine [9], were relevant and legitimate. I thank these diplomats for the attention drawn to the work done by our independent organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. c) The omission of the “Sarmine attack” allegations in the COI-report it also invalidates the unjustified attacks against SWEDHR and its representatives done by some pro-NATO media in Europe – such as Swedish DN [10] or the French Le Figaro. [11] See also my statement published by the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association, “SWEDHR is absolutely independent”. [12]

I draw attention on the facts above as means of encouraging further analysis from the international research community on any spurious claims of that kind against the Syrian people, its secular government, its armed forces, and its friends and allies combating for the victory over religious fanaticism. Unsubstantiated allegations deprived of beyond-doubt evidence, or blunt attacks as hominem, self-expose a desperate strategy intended to find public support for a continuation of the Syrian conflict. Ultimately, for those Western powers and mercenary proxies it is about pursuing a political reversal at the eve of a military defeated campaign. And more victories to come for the human-rights-for-all struggle.

  1. False flag operations for regime change

In the various endeavours for regime-change assayed to fit the geopolitical and economic interest of western powers, a foremost argument has consisted in allegations on infringements of human rights and accusations of insufferable oppression against the population. These claims have often culminated with the staging of ‘massacres’ against civilians. Subsequently, to these blames the strategists have added a corresponding pledge “by the locals” for external military interventions. Such false flag

The practice of false flags to justify political overthrown or military interventions steams from an old geopolitical tradition of deceptive strategy. However, during the last decades it has been surreptitiously established a geopolitical routine. It has a clear aim, which is regime change, and a clear design, which is war propaganda. And its effects are not solely in the sphere of ‘fake news’ for purely propaganda aims, but also used as the pretext for the initiation of bloody overthrows or cruel, long lasting wars.

A most classic episode, and which represent the reestablishment of the false-flag routine in the post world ward era, was the psy op known as “Gulf of Tonkin incident” enacted on August 4, 1965. Then, the false claim consisted in that Soviet-built North Vietnamese torpedo boats would have attacked the U.S. destroyers “Maddox” and “Turner”. To this false claim followed the same day an order by President Lyndon B Johnson’s for a deadly retaliatory air strike against Vietnam. [13 ]

Amidst the media dramaturgy around this ‘patriotic response’ to the made-up attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, President Johnson obtained the approval of Congress (the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”) for the waging of a war which at its ends had killed over one million North Vietnamese –most part civilians– but also over 50,000 American military. [14] President Johnson later blamed the military for the fabricated events in the Gulf of Tonkin. [13]

President Trump and the retaliatory attack “due to” the Khan Shaykhun incident

In resemblance, President Trump’s order on a retaliatory missile strike against Syria this year would have also been based in manipulated information, namely, allegations of a “chemical attack” in Khan Shaykhun attributed to Syrian forces. It was, again, about a routine allegation sourced in testimonies originally provided by the White Helmets, and for which no conclusive evidence has ever been produced.

Military-wise, the tactical damage effected by that missile operation was neither significant (in relation to the weaponry chosen), nor deterrent for the Syrian army. In the general context of the warfare on Syria, the attack could be also considered as a relatively ‘mild’. This would indicate that there were other political factors that prompted Donald Trump to order the show of force on Syria. For instance, Trump’s order on the Tomahawk-missile strike should be also evaluated against the backdrop of his then deteriorated political status in the U.S. domestic sphere, and the missile-attack as contributing to change the public approval rate towards his government. [15]. According to the Gallup poll, the approval rate for Trump was 35% before the missile attack on Syria, increasing to 40% after  that. [16]

Stressing this argument, it could be said that a  similar impact in the approval rating [AR, for brevity] of U.S. presidents can be historically found associated to presidents’ belligerent executive-decisions argued on false flag operations. For example, George W. Bush obtained an increase from  58% to 71% following the invasion of Iraq – based on the false claim regarding ‘Saddam Hussein’s  weapons of mass destruction’. The same phenomenon regarding his father, George H.W. Bush, after the U.S. initiations of hostilities in the Kuwait War, or Ronald Reagan and the Granada / Panama military operations. [15]

Further, there are in my opinion other consideration to include in that background, and that put in doubt the seriousness of the reasoning argued for the Tomahawk-missile attack (the alleged “Khan Shaykhun chemical attack”. I refer to the spectacular military dispay exercised by the Russian armed forces when 26 Russian Kalibr cruising missiles were fired from a submarine and a combat ship in the eastern Mediterranean, to eleven different targets nearly 1,000 miles away in Syria (near Akerbat, Hama province), successfully destroying ISIS weapons depots and ISIS command posts. The New York Times reported at the time, flabbergasted, [17]

“…A demonstration that Russia has the ability to strike from virtually all directions in a region where it has been reasserting its power — from Iran, from warships in the Caspian Sea, from its base in the Syrian coastal province of Latakia and now from the Mediterranean.”

I mean that the 59 Tomahawk-missile strike ordered by Trump may have been an operation also intended to balance a domestic public opinion impressed by the Russian military might, as shown not only by the objective effectiveness of the above mentioned Russian missile launch, but also by the wide reporting of it in the news.

Nevertheless, the Syrian government and the Russian Federation well calibrated their reaction to the U.S. “retaliation”, and thus a risk for World War III was averted. An escalation would possibly have taken the conflict to a scenario similar to a “No-Fly Zone”. Neither Trump pursued a further escalation, as for instance in the line advocated by the U.S. hawk-lobby pursuing a No-Fly Zone in Syria. In these regards,  it is worth to mention the statement by the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chief of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, during a hearing at the U.S. Armed Services Committee: ‘For us, to control all of the airspace in Syria will require us to go to war against Syria and Russia’. [18]

An illogical allegation

As to the allegations that President Bashar al-Assad would have ordered a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, I have already pointed out in The Indicter shortly after those claims were made, and thereafter in interviews with media [19] that such “self-destructive” move from Bashar al-Assad appears inconceivable, or plain illogical. His forces were then, as they are now, clearly wining the war. Namely, Assad was on top of an irreversible winning position – militarily and politically – particularly since the recapture of Aleppo last year, or even before, since the debut of the Russian military support (as well as from other allies forces, such as Iran and Hezbollah).

Secondly, at that time, the previous more hostile position of the U.S. government (and by a variety of EU countries) had shifted substantially in reference to the Syrian president. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley had declared just a few days prior the incident: [20]

“Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out”

So, why would President Bashar al-Assad indulge in that kind of ‘harakiri’ decision that it would instantaneously decimate all the positive odds his geopolitical position was enjoining by the beginning of April 2017?

Further, as I declared in the Radio Sputnik interview of the same month, [21]  why the international community would be so eager to, and uncritically, to trust ‘denounces’ made by organization such as the White Helmets after it has been demonstrated on and on the spurious or even fabricated ‘evidence’ they have presented in the past regarding similar allegations?

Such attacks initiatives comprising chemical or other prohibited weaponry, are only in the losing parties’ options. Only the side in a war that is desperate to turn the odds, as its total defeat seems imminent, would need to essay the trespassing of that highly hazardous red line.

Another relevant issue is that President Trump had given signals all across his election campaign that he would cooperate with Russia, and eventually with Assad, to end the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, just days before the White Helmets false flag operation, Donald Trump had announced a drastic change in U.S. policy towards Syria. So the question is, why would have the Syrian government issued such a political catastrophic and self-destructive order?

  1. From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun.

Phony allegations on ‘massacres’ falsely attributed to the government targeted for a regime change, is a false flag routine that has been repeated in the last decades at increased tempo. While those initiatives most certainly steam from operation rooms of a variety of Western Intelligence services –included on the field– the role of the stream media has been pivotal. In episodes of recent years it can be also observed a more often participation of stream right organizations.

I here review some examples historical examples selected from recent decades, and which ends in this report referring the current situation on Syria.


In fact, the events of December 1989 in Romania were not a revolution, but a putsch. It was a bloody coup that intended a pro U.S. ‘regime change’.

Here we find a classical example of the role of western media, for instance in the dramatic narrative around the staged mass graves, intended to depict an allegedly gruesome massacre in Romania 1989. Namely, a toll of 4,500 bodies it was said been found on exposed mass graves, allegedly been massacred by security forces in a three-days repression orgy ordered by the government in December that year. It was the main argument used to speed by violent means the regime-change in Romania and to legitimate the prompt execution of President Ceausescu and his wife. Subsequently, western media had distributed deceitfully photographs, manipulated to depict the claimed Timisoara mass graves. The world opinion was horrified.

However, according to the testimony given the year after by Dr. Milan Dressler, a lawyer and also pathologist working at the Timis District Morgue, “the mass grave never existed”. In fact, the corpses piled in the infamous picture background have been transported there from a cemetery for indigent people. [22]

The ‘evidence’ turned out being a bunch of manipulated photographic work. One of the pictures [see below] was described by the stream media as a man crying over the massacred body of a mother and her child. It was showed later that the woman wasn’t that man’s wife nor was she the mother’s infant. It was also demonstrated that the bodies depicted in the photograph as massacred victims had instead a completely different causes of dead. The woman in the picture, for instance, has died of cirrhosis, and the infant of crib death. [23]

Meanwhile, the organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported, “Immediately after the December revolution, the Bush administration welcomed the changes that had occurred in the country”. HRW also praised the U.S. government of Bush for its commitments in favour of the human rights there. [24]

The Kuwait war

The same type of manipulation for propaganda war and regime change took place when mainstream media all over the world showed in 1991 pictures of an agonizing cormorant (Socotra Cormorant), blackened, drenched in oil, left to die in the Persian Gulf waters. It was said that the “black cormorant” was a victim of a ruthless Sadam Hussein that had opened the oil pipelines. It was instead a manipulated imagery, filmed in another country. No cormorants are present in Kuwait before the spring season; Besides, CNN could not have ever filmed those cormorant scenes in Kuwait since it was a territory at that time occupied by Iraq. Some reporter admitted to have taken a cormorant from a Zoo and purposely soaked it with oil. [25]

Source of the image above, including caption: Alamy Stock Photo


Iraq – “Weapons of mass deception”

Then we have the staged “weapons of mass destruction”, a chapter that would be better known as “weapons of mass distraction”. The same false flag routine was again implemented by the media, now to obtain the public support for a U.S. military intervention that would ultimately obtain the regime-change in Iraq, and the execution of President Sadam Hussein. This at the price of thousands killed in combat, added later fatalities resulted from combat-injury sequelae or related, [26] plus the infamous political consequences in the region. And all in exchange of a misappropriation of Iraqi oil resources.

Among the public protagonists in the false-flag operation “Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction” –which was a plain lie–  were high rank officials in the U.S. administration. Colin Powell, the then  U.S. Secretary of State, affirmed in the United Nations on the 5 of February 2003:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”. [27]

In fact, his sources were spurious and based in plagiarized excerpts from an older study.  A variety of inspection commissions were set by the UN, the Security Council, and/or belligerent forces, such as the Iraq Survey Group, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and also a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency. No weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat were ever found.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald affirmed in an interview that, “Most notoriously, The New York Times did more than everybody to convince Americans of the need to attack Iraq. But even since then the model of the US media is very much to show faith and loyalty to the US government” [28] Thus, it is no coincidence that the same paper has been advocating for the need to attack Syria, and, in spite of its stance on the Trump presidency, the NYT has echoed staunchly support to the military actions ordered by Donal Trump on Syria. [29]



The staged massacre routine continued was then essayed in Libya, and again as instrument for regime change and the execution of the government leader.

Amidst reports that Omar Gaddafy would have ordered the aerial bombing of civilian crowds, the mainstream media reported at the end of February 2011 that over 10,000 have already been killed. It was a plain lie. The source was a Libyan member of the International Criminal Court, the same court that had previously declared an impossibility to estimate the commitment of war crimes in Libya in absence of reliable sources. [30]

While inventing massacres attributed to Gaddafy’s orders, the Western media invented achievements ascribed to the rebel forces, which in fact neither had occurred. For example, the BBC aired in August 2011 a news video intending to show the vast popular support to the rebels in a demonstration said been held in Tripoli’s Green Square. In fact BBC was using footage from a demonstration held in India. [See the Indian the flags in the screenshot from the BBC news program]. [31]

The regime change in Libya, according to Hillary Clinton: “We came, we saw, he died”. Click on the image for the video:



Syria – False flags and the staged-massacre routine in the Syrian conflict

There are countless examples of fabricated news about the Syrian conflict, and where the blame about alleged atrocities is regularly put on the Syrian government.

One method used on and on, has been the production of false or retouched photographic material representing ‘victims’ portraits, particularly children. This issue has been well documented elsewhere. For instance, The Independent’s report “Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake ‘Aleppo’ footage”. [32] The image above is a screenshot from the video embedded in the reportage published by The Independent. [32]

Another famous case is “the girl running to survive” (image below)


Or the case of the 8 babies demise reported by CNN sourcing on “a Syrian human rights group”:



The photo of the eight “Syrian babies” reported by CNN (above) was in fact taken in Egypt (below)


However those innumerable falsified photographic material distributed by Western media, a more severe form of disinformation on the Syrian war has been the staged-massacre routine, most often around allegations of “chemical attacks” on civilians.

The debunking around the modus operandis of those false flag operations is well documented, for instance by the work of Professor Tim Anderson, [33] [34] or by the independent researcher Adam Larson in The Indicter Magazine. [35] [36].

As mentioned in the Introduction section above, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) had the opportunity to analyze “life-saving” videos published by the propaganda organization  “White Helmets”. [3] [4] The White Helmets materials claimed documenting the alleged clinical/forensic sequelae of a ‘chemical attack’ in Sarmin, in the Syrian province of Idlib. In studying the background and sources used, SWEDHR did review all the published material claimed as the base for such allegations. With the help of these data, I will debunk here accusations done by “the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”, [35] and referred to the “Sarmin attack”.

For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the last report of the “UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” (COI) of September 2017 did excluded the “Sarmin attack” from the incident-listing of allegations of chemical attacks. [2]

The psy op ‘Sarmin’ and the White Helmets videos

The “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” is a document delivered for the Security Council consideration on 24 August 2016. [37] At the time it was included an alleged ‘chemical attack” on Sarmin [Note that “Sarmin” or “Sarmine” refers to a locality in the Idlib province. Not to be confused with “Sarin”, the chemical agent]. The attack would have occurred on the 16 of March, according to the OPCW report.

As it can be seen in the corresponding ”Sarmin” section (pages 13-14 of the document), the all allegation inculpating the Syrian government is based in one premise: the alleged presence of a Syrian helicopter.

The ‘conclusion’, “there is sufficient information for the Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location N°2 was caused by a Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter…” is based solely on that:

a) “Witnesses confirmed that at least one helicopter flew over Sarmin at the time of the incident”.


b) “(The panel) found no evidence that armed opposition groups in Sarmin had been operating a helicopter at the time and location of the incident”.

However, the “Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” chooses not to provide any information about who or how many those witnesses were, or if the ‘witnesses testimonies’ were independent of each other, and/or independently verified. The panel reports neither how that information was obtained. Why?

Because, as I will show below, the “confirming witnesses” were the same two subjects from the place ascribed to the jihadist forces in Idlib (one of them a White Helmet official) who also were the ones initially making the allegation. That was one main observation in our analysis of the the report published by Human Rights Watch, [38] that echoed the “denounce” done by the White Helmets on the alleged Sarmin incident. I quote here from the SWEDHR analysis in The Indicter Magazine: [3]

The “Sarmin attack” report published by HRW in April 2015 is, in itself, a remarkable feat of evidence engineering. HRW refers to two witnesses – anonymous “Sarmin residents” – stating they have “heard” helicopters “shortly before the attack”.

They heard them but did not see them. Both witnesses also reported hearing “no explosions”. [38] In the entire HRW report there is not one reported sighting of a helicopter, the existence of which should be an essential element of the White Helmet claims, uncritically reproduced by HRW and never questioned by the UN.

One of the key witnesses cited in the HRW, April 2015, report is a White Helmet operative by the name “Leith Fares”: [39]

“Leith Fares, a rescue worker with Syrian Civil Defence, told Human Rights Watch. “A helicopter always drops two barrels.” “You know, we were at first actually happy,” Fares said. “It is usually good news when there is no explosion.” [38]

A notably peculiar factor of the White Helmet footage of this alleged attack is that they do not film any external shots of the attack itself, despite their declared anticipation of being targeted, having “heard” helicopters.

Instead, the only footage is of an enclosed indoor space with no contextual filming to evidence where they are in Syria or that an attack has just taken place. The indoor environment certainly resembles a makeshift hospital emergency room. White Helmet “rescuers” parade in and out, manhandling and maneuvering the limp, lifeless bodies of three children. The naked bodies of these children have no external, visible injuries and do not respond when the various “medics” perform all manner of ostensibly “life-saving” procedures, in a haphazard effort to resuscitate these children.

The operation Sarmine videos to deceive UN Security Council

These ‘Sarmine-videos’ were simultaneously published the very same day in which the news of the Sarmin allegations reached the media (16 March 2015). The two separate uploads in YouTube were made by the White Helmets, [40] respectively by another associated jihadist organization (“Coordinated Sarmine”) which is baring in its video-logo the jihadist Shahada flag used by Al-Qaeda formations. [41]

In the main: The Sarmin videos uploaded by the White Helmets in conjunction with the “al-Nusra flag group” contained fabricated scenes of life-saving, including faked intra-cardial injection procedures on a presumably already deceased infant. This can be shown in sequences shown in the videos below [click on image below for the videos].

Representatives of the Syrian American Society (SAM) then managed to show those fabricated ‘Sarmine videos’ published by the White Helmets, at the UN headquarters in New York on 16 April 2015, [42] at a meeting sponsored by then U.S. ambassador Samantha Powers. She said after the meeting: ““If there was a dry eye in the room, I didn’t see it,” [See the news article, “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. [43]

CNN reproduced, uncritically, fake scenes of a video uploaded simultaneously by White Helmets and an organization presumably derived from the jihadist organization al-Nusra

Based on the deceitful SAM coup at the UN gathering, made possible by the fabricated White Hemelts “Sarmine videos, a series of news articles appeared in mainstream media, e.g. The New York Times, [42] BBC, [44], etc.

The video was subsequently reproduced by CNN. [45] [46] In none of those cases where the Sarmine videos put forward by the White Helmets, “Coordinated Sarmine”, and SAM, were referred or broadcasted, a fact-verification of the content of such a material was ever performed. Or simply the material was reproduced in full awareness of its deceptive content. To this, added the coverup by other mainstream European media. [47] Isn’t this scandalous?

Now have emerged “new” allegations on chemical attacks (the “Khan Shaykhun incident” ) issued to further blame the government of Syria. The sources of the allegations are basically the same: the White Helmets.

(In a brief dialogue I had in Twitter with Dr Zaher Sahloul, the President of SAM and a presenter of the unethical White Helmets video at the above-mentioned UN meeting, I challenged him to retract such a material. [48] He replied that he would. [49] It never happened.

Introducing the next section (“Part II, Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign”) of the series “From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun.

Apart of Intelligence outlets, a variety of other actors get together in the war propaganda against Syria, to produce the misinformation that reaches the public. Here we find a) prominent Western corporate media, b) mainstream human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, [50] and c) some new established “NGOs” of ‘first responders” created and financed by Western powers –like the ‘White Helmets’ founded under the Obama administration in 2015, and d) other façade ‘right-organizations’ set up by the Western powers such the “London-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights”. These last two mentioned have retained the assigned role of ‘sources’ regarding the alleged ‘attacks’ claims that we hear from time to time. [More details in the chapter “White Helmets”, in Part II of this series].

Most interesting, is that every such attack-claims are made by the White Helmets and its associated Al Qaeda formations, is accompanied by a pledge for military intervention from the part of the U.S. and it sallies, issue that regularly makes its way to the UN Security Council. For example, an identical pledge for a No-Fly Zone in Syria was done by the White Helmets during their claim on a “chemical attack” in Sarine 2015, as well as now in April 2017 about Khan Shaykhun.

The subject of Part II in this series: “Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign”. And Part III: “Epidemiological questioning of the ‘UN-Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ Report on the Khan Shaykhun incident”.


References and Notes

[1] Asimetric Warfare Group, “Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook”,

[2] “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Advance Edited Version)”

[3] M. Ferrada de Noli,  “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims”. The Indicter Magazine, 6 March 2017.

[4] M. Ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Movie: Updated Evidence From Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children”. The Indicter Magazine, 17 March 2017.

[5] Human Rights Watch. “Syria: Chemicals Used in Idlib Attacks”. HRW, 13 April 2015.

[6] “Report by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights referred in UN Security Council. White Helmets, Syria”. The Indicter Channel. Published in YouTube, 13 April 2017.

[7] “Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 27, 2017”.

[8] “Russian diplomat accuses White Helmets of supporting terrorism”. TASS, 27 April, 2017.


[10] M Ferrada de noli, “The Fake News attack by Dagens Nyheter on Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights”. The Indicter Magazine, 22 April 2017.

[11] M Ferrada de Noli, “Libellous attack by mainstream journalists angered by SWEDHR denounce of unethical war propaganda”. The Indicter Magazine, 15 April 2017.

[12] M Ferrada de Noli, “SWEDHR Is An Independent Organization. Article in the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association”. SWEDHR Research & Reports, 9 June 2017.

[13] Jesse Greenspan, “The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 50 Years Ago”., August 1, 2014.

[14] “Vietnam War Casualties”. Wikipedia article. Retrieved 15 September 2017.

[15] Jason Le Miere, “Trump’s Approval Rating Likely to Get Boost from Syria Strike. Newsweek, 4/7/2017.

[16]  Kaitlan Collins, “Trump’s Approval Rating Remains Steady Following Missile Strike In Syria”. The Daily Caller, 4/10/2017

[17]  “Russia Asserts Its Military Might in Syria”. The New York Times, 19 August 2016.

[18] “Swedish elites’ DN endorse H. Clinton No Fly Zone: It’d mean War with Russia & Syria”. Th Indicter Channel. Published in YouTube, 22 November 2016.

[19] M. Ferrada de Noli. UOSSM admits: Doctor reporting alleged aerial Khan Sheikhoun attack “was no expert to determine that”. The Indicter Magazine, 29 April 2017.

[20] Michelle Nichols, “U.S. priority on Syria no longer focused on ‘getting Assad out’: Haley”. Reuters, 30 March 2017.

[21] ‘The evidence of chemical attack in Syria is questionable’ – Marcello Ferrada de Noli“. Interview with Sputnik.

[22] “Coroner: Romanian Massacre Never Happened”, Chicago Tribune, 19 March 1990]

[23] Iconic Photos, “Timisoara Massacre”


[25] Marcello Foa, “Fakes in Journalism”, EJO, European Journalism Observatory, Nov 14, 2003.

[26] Marcello Ferrada-Noli M, John I. Apkan, Leif Svanström (2004), “Epidemiological bias in assessments of war-related injuries: the case of Iraq”. Safety 2004. P. 230. Institut Leben/Kuratorium fur Schutz und Sicherheit, Vienna, Austria.

[27] Jonathan Schwarz, “Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said”., 5 February 2013.

[28] RT, “Greenwald: Assange show – Kremlin propaganda? Look who’s talking!” 19 April 2012.

[29] Nicholas Kristof, “Trump Was Right to Strike Syria”. The New York Times, 7 April 2017.

[30] Marcello Foa,  “Stragi, fosse comuni e video choc: rischio propaganda sulla verità”. Il, 25 February 2011.

[31] “Libya / Incredible media lies – BBC shows ‘Green Square’ in INDIA, 24 August 2011”. YouTube, 24 August 2011.

[32] Bethan McKernan, “Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake ‘Aleppo’ footage. The Independent, 26 December 2016. [see embedded video].

[33] Tim Anderson, “Chemical Fabrications: East Ghouta and Syria’s Missing Children”. Telesur, 11 April 2015.

[34] Tim Anderson, “Systematic Misinformation on Syria. The United Nations AbuZayd-Pinheiro Committee”. Global Research,  11 Septembe 2017.

[35] Adam Larson, “Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks”. The Indicter Magazine, 5 April 2017.

[36] Adam Larson, “Syria Sarin Allegation: How UN-Panel Report Twists and Omits Evidence”. The Indicter Magazine, 18 September 2017.

[37] “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”. Document delivered to the UN Securiry Council  24 August 2016.

[38] “Syria: Chemicals Used in Idlib Attacks”. HRW, 13 April 2015.

[39] Quoted from the report listed in Reference [3]:

“Leith (or Laith) Fares is repeatedly found in both Arab and Western news giving statements –from a variety of locations in Syria– to visiting Western journalists. For instance, while in the Human Rights Watch report Fares gives the notion of being present at the alleged event in Sarmin, in Arab News is given that Leith Fares is “a rescue worker in Ariha”, and that “(Fares) told AFP his team had pulled at least 20 wounded people out of the rubble.” ‘Laith Fares’ keeps also an uploading account in You Tube with anti-Syria propaganda videos, and on behalf of White Helmets political positions. [5] The YouTube account reaches 204 upload videos.”

[40] “Syrian Civil Defence, Idlib” (“White Helmets”) الدفاع المدني ادلب_سرمين:محاولة لأنقاذ الأطفال بعد اصابتهم بالغاز الكيماوي 26_3_2015”. Uploaded by الدفاع المدني السوري في محافظة ادلب. YouTube video published 16 March 2015.

[41] Video uploaded by “Coordinating Sarmine” in YouTube, 16 March 2015.

[42] “Syria war: ‘Chlorine’ attack video moves UN to tears”. BBC, 17 April 2015.

[43] Nick Logan, “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. Global News, 17 April 2017.

[44] U.N. Security Council Sees Video Evidence of a Chemical Attack in Syria. New York Times, 16 April 2015.

[45] CNN, “Chlorine gas attack reported in Syria“. CNN Channel, YouTube, 20 April 2015.

[46] Just four days after the exhibition of the fraudulent videos at the UN Security Council (in an ad-hoc session sponsored by the then U.S. ambassador), CNN broadcasted on April 20, 2015 a news-program reproducing segments taken from exactly the same videos and propagated for the No-Fly Zone on behalf of “the Syrian doctors” campaigning. The newscast was published by CNN in YouTube on April 20, 2015. [7] The CNN anchor presented the ‘Syrian doctor’ “who has campaigned around the world for a no-fly zone” [See the video through the link indicated in the above reference. For a clearer audio, you may listen to the MP3 file here below]:

[47] M. Ferrada de Noli, “Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Reply to German ARD/BR-Television ‘Verification Team’ ref. RT interview on White Helmets video”. The Indicter Magazine, 14 March 2017.

[48] @Professorsblogg (Ferrada de Noli) to Dr Sahloul: “If it’s you in CNN-news here, would U retract these WhiteHelmet videos showed in to press for No-Fly Zone in ?”

[49] Dr Sahloul (@sahloul) replied: “All false videos should be retracted but you don’t throw the baby with the bathwater & protection of civilians should be your goal also”. @Professorsblogg (Ferrada de Noli) replied: “Good U retract the false videos & I agree protection of civilians is paramount. That’s why terrorists shouldn’t use them as shield”. Twitter, 21 March 2017.

[46] Tim Hayward, “Amnesty International: is it true to its mission?”, January 12, 2017. 

The author:

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli (at left, interviewed in Swedish TV, Channel 2) is professor emeritus of epidemiology, medicine doktor i psykiatri (PhD, Karolinska Institute), and formerly Research Fellow  at Harvard Medical School. He is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights and editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.” Op-ed articles published in Dagens Nyheter (DN), Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), Aftonbladet, Västerbotten Kuriren, Dagens Medicin,  the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association (Läkartidningen) and other Swedish media. He also has had exclusive interviews in DN, Expressen, SvD and Aftonbladet, and in Swedish TV channels (Svt 2, TV4, TV5) as well as in international TV (e.g. UK, Norway, Italy TG, Television Nacional Chile, RT, Russia Channel 1, Rossiya 24, etc.) and media (DN, SvT, Aftonbladet, Expressen, Aftenposten,Ystad Allehanda,Tass, Izvestia, El Telégrafo, etc.). He has also published op-ed columns in the Russian newspaper Izvestia.

Reachable via email at,

Follow the professor on Twitter at @Professorsblogg