Deliberate Misinterpretation

As I was listening to the news at 6PM I heard the reader announce that Putin  has just stated the US was about to attack Damascus with chemical weapons,blame it on Assad, and then use it as a pretext for further attacks.

 

 

 Strange, I thought, as it was only a few hours earlier I had read it online and it was that Putin had said the Syrian rebels were going to fake this attack, not the US.

The Independent lead with the headline :

US plans to bomb Syria and blame Assad, Vladimir Putin claims

 

Upon opening the article the headline is now worded differently :

 

Fake chemical attacks in Syria could provoke further US strikes, Vladimir Putin claims

This rewording is quite important.

It makes it clear that the order of the claim is : 

1. Fake rebel gas attack
2. US strike
3. US blaming Assad for having to act again due to the initial gas attack which will be blamed on Assad.

So the initial headline is not technically incorrect, as literally if/when the US attack Syria again it will plan to bomb Syria and blame Assad (because it will be a response to an alleged attack by Syrian government forces)

But it is worded very purposefully in a way to suggest Putin has claimed :

1. US will attack Syria with fake gas attack
2. US will strike at Syria's military 
3. US will blame Assad for the initial gas attack using it as a pretext for point 2.

Which is a complete and purposeful misinterpretation of what was actually said.

The point of this deliberate wording is to try and portray ,to the mass public minds, Putin as some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist who thinks the US is faking gas attacks so as to try and reduce the influence of what he has actually said and to dismiss any further statements or points he makes.

Now, we all know that as a provacateur the US and its agencies are pretty much capable of anything to further their agenda or narrative.

BUT, this is politics and the master of world political game is Russia and there is no way they would fall for such a trap to be used to discredit them. 

Russia has had plenty of opportunities in recent history to completely embarrass the US in the open but has chosen not to for that is not how diplomacy works.  

Even if such a claim was made, it would be backed up with proof as was the case in Turkeys oil trade with ISIS.

This media attempt could be seen last week again where it was pushed in the western media 'Putin denies climate change on trip to Siberia'.

I have seen Snopes do a similar tactic on Eva Bartlett during their fact check on her (where they conveniently only brought up points they could deliberately twist but couldn't find time to 'fact check' the rest of her answers) where they compared her to 'Sandy Hook deniers'.

The aim of this is to get the mass populous to disregard ALL of her views and testimony as a result of this mental association with other perceived 'crazy lunatic conspiracy theorists'.

So by picking out one small segment of what was said and twisting it, they try and get the audience to then ignore the rest of the content of what that individual has to say.

It might make you wonder, what is in the rest of that content that has them afraid?

Simply, it runs counter to their preferred narrative and you aren't allowed have an alternate narrative or opinion in the 'liberal' West. 

UPDATE: Just seen the first headline The Independent went with - so they've changed it twice now - this one is very specific