), let's look at those who tried to accuse others of doing what Bellingcat in fact did themselves, and even gloated that the falsely premised article was some kind of vindication.
Let's start with @bellingcat's @N_Waters89, a likely author of the anonymously bylined & discredited Bellingcat piece.
Nick has deleted a number of tweets, but luckily I saved them for us. #Bellingcaught
"For anyone who's been paying attention, it was clear the 'OPCW leaks' were based on flawed information from the start.
The correspondence we obtained proves it. There was a coverup, but it wasn't the OPCW doing it."
Nope:
.@N_Waters89: "...Peter Hitchens, Aaron Mate, Robert Fisk, Wikileaks, the Courage Foundation and others have been caught red handed either practicing 'journalism' of the most shoddy kind, or participating in a cover-up of a chemical attack."
(
Nope, Mr. Waters either got played by his source, didn't do proper due diligence, or both.
Deleted:
.@N_Waters89: "Just to emphasise this: if my entire career was built on a story in which I hadn’t bothered to check possibly the most vital piece of information, namely the reply from the OPCW DG to my source, my response would not be 'haha.'
Fair point: my response is HAHAHAHA
Then there's @bellingcat, which also took to Twitter to laughably accuse OPCW inspector Brendan Whelan and @wikileaks of possibly concealing a supposedly damning letter that, in reality, they never received.
Then there's @bellingcat founder @EliotHiggins, who reveled in what he thought was some grand scoop that disproved the OPCW scientists and journalists that he's attacked, and vindicated the US-UK-France bombing of Syria in April 2018 that he's shilled for.
In a tweet that he decided to pin to his profile, @EliotHiggins took glee in announcing that I never received a letter that, in reality, was never sent to anyone except for Eliot's propaganda outlet, for the purposes of spreading pro-war disinformation.
Recap: @bellingcat published part of OPCW "letter." They claimed it proved: a Syrian chemical attack; no OPCW cover-up; Russia-Syria admitting guilt; AND me & others possibly concealing it!
@TheGrayzoneNews then exposed that the "letter" was never actually sent, plus ridiculous.
Now let's continue our look at those who spread @bellingcat & their source's disinformation, and in the process accused others of being what they in fact were themselves: useful idiots.
First up, more gems from @EliotHiggins. After he published his fake letter, Eliot accused @TheGrayzoneNews of being "shameless" given that "@bellingcat showed the leaker withheld key documents that showed his claims were a load of bunk." 😂 😂 😂(
.@EliotHiggins also continued to spread his conspiracy theory that somehow a source had concealed from me evidence that, in reality, didn't actually exist.
Higgins: "so it looks like he got played, as did those who believed his reporting, oops." Oops!
(
In one of the funniest bits from this episode, @bellingcat claimed that Russia and Syria -- despite vigorously objecting to the Douma allegations in public -- had secretly admitted guilt, which was somehow kept secret until @bellingcat got the scoop! 🧐 (
"Goodness, this is embarrassing" war lobbyist @Charles_Lister exclaimed. "Turns out the whistleblower was ill-informed; the @OPCW investigation was entirely proper & definitive; and #Syria & #Russia even privately agreed with it." Goodness, this is embarrassing.
"Another shocker from the 'things that are obvious unless you’re a moron or acting in bad faith” school: the ‘OPCW leaks‘ were total nonsense. Make sure to remember the ‘journalists’ that hyped it next time they come with their next line of bullshit," @DGisSERIOUS declared. 😂
In response to @EliotHiggins gloating that I "DID NOT receive a crucial email" that was never actually sent, probably because what Bellingcat published under false pretenses actually hurt OPCW's case, @DGisSERIOUS opined that I was "Judith Miller-esque!". Anyone catch the irony?
Guess who was an advisory board member for ZAKA, the scam Israeli "rescue" group that's spread fake Oct. 7th claims including beheaded babies, “mass rape”, and a fetus cut from its mother?
.@gettleman, lead author of the NYT article that weaponized sexual violence to baseless claim that "Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7th", is on the defensive -- and doubling down on his fraud. ()
In a new article, he attempts to rebut unspecified "critics" -- whom he tellingly never names or cites.
That's because if he actually acknowledged and linked to the debunking by @TheGrayzoneNews, @intifada, and @Mondoweiss of his scam "reporting," it would be obvious that he can't refute it.
.@gettleman faced a serious problem: He led his story with a slain Israeli woman, Gal Abdush, and claimed she was a "symbol" of Oct. 7th sexual violence. He even all but declared that she was raped.
But then Gal's sister, Miral Alter, called out @Gettleman as a fraud. She said that "there is no proof that there was rape" and accused @gettleman of misleading their family.
Playing damage control, @gettleman went back to Miral and tried to get her to back down. The result is more scumbag journalism.
In his initial article, @Gettleman prominently featured the claims of Yossi Landau, Southern Commander of the scandal-plagued ZAKA. (pic 1)
But Haaretz has already exposed Landau as a liar for falsely claiming that he saw burned babies and a fetus cut from a dead woman’s womb on October 7. ()
So now, in his new attempt to defend his original article, how does the NYT fraudster @Gettleman handle relying on the Zaka fraudster Landau? He simply pretends he doesn't exist.
According to @Gettleman, two of the people he interviewed who described witnessing sexual assault "have since come under intense scrutiny." (pic 2)
This allows @Gettleman to omit that Yossi Landau has also come under "intense scrutiny" -- and found to be a flat-out liar.
Memo to @gettleman and his NYT editors: you don't get to escape accountability for relying on fraudulent sources by suddenly omitting that you relied on them. That shows you're only doubling down on your fraud.archive.is/H6rAm
A major embarrassment for NYT's @gettleman
and his story on "How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence."
Gal Abdush is the Oct. 7th victim whose story leads and is featured throughout the NYT article. Her family is even featured as the cover image. NYT describes her as a "symbol" of Oct. 7th sexual violence.
But Abdush's sister says "there is no proof that there was rape." She also accuses the NYT of manipulating their family. They didn't know that she would be presented as a rape victim.
In other words, NYT weaponized both a dead woman and sexual violence to spread propaganda in the service of a genocide.
“So far, there was only one direct eyewitness testimony” — whose tale was outlandish and had zero evidence.
@noam_dworman Now we got two new purported male witnesses. One isn’t identified. The other happens to be an officer from an elite Israeli military unit.
@noam_dworman The head of Israel’s rape commission says “we will never know neither the numbers or the scope” of these alleged rapes. Why not? And why should I buy these claims if so?
“As a condition to enter Gaza under IDF air support, outlets have to submit all materials and footage to the Israeli military for review prior to publication. CNN has agreed to these terms....”
Your first clue that the Washington Post's new NordStream scoop -- which blames a senior Ukrainian intel officer for the bombing -- is yet another CIA cover story is in the second graf:
"...U.S. and Western officials have called" the NordStream bombings "a dangerous attack on Europe’s energy infrastructure."
No, top US officials -- namely Blinken and Nuland -- have openly celebrated the NordStream bombings as a "tremendous strategic opportunity" that they're "very gratified" by.
()
()