THEY’VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE…

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “THEY’VE BEEN WRONG BEFORE…”

  1. He is absolutely correct in all he says except his claim about a “gullible” media.
    HM press is a lot of things but gullibility is not one of them.
    I was saying to a friend of mine a few days ago that given the mess that the administrations on both sides of the pond are in,it was time for a war to deflect public attention.
    Bang on cue,the Trump obliges,aided and abetted by HM press and the maniacs in Westminster.
    How very convenient.
    Might be wrong about who was responsible for this atrocity but rationally,there was no gain in it for Assad so why do it?

    Liked by 6 people

    1. Well, that’s certainly a possibility.

      As you say, really Assad had nothing much to win from this.

      I wonder if some of the weapons that we supply to Saudi for use on children in Yemen aren’t diverted to one or various of the sides in Syria.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. As Bringiton says, what did Assad think he was going to gain from this.

      Of course we don’t know, but that’s becasue we didn’t make any investigations into it.

      Trump did it and his little puppet in Downing street nodded her head vigorously, which simultaneously selling more bombs to Saudi and putting a few hundred thousand children into poverty in the UK with her Social Security reforms.

      Good Christian that she is.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. “I don’t leave my brains at the door when I examine a situation analytically.”

    What a fantastic put down of the BBC and that eejit Fallon this phrase is. Well done Peter Ford!

    That sound you heard was the sound of the BBC interviewer being on the receiving end of a slap across his face with a rather large fresh wet fish!

    Liked by 5 people

    1. The implication being that Fallon, and the BBC do!.

      Bravo.

      The UK government has rushed to congratulate Trump for acting before engaging his, erm …brain, and without consulting Congress or the UN. He hasn’t thought about the whys and the wherefores

      And May would congratulate him if he blew up Maine. She’s so desperate for friends and a trade deal

      I wonder if she’s thinking much about all the Yemen children that her bombs are blowing up?

      Like

  3. This may also be about ensuring Trump and his closest advisers during the Presidential campaign can no longer work towards securing a better relationship between the USA and Putin’s Russia. The anti-Russia hawks in the Washington deep state at work?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I am quite interested in conspiracy theories, rather than being convinced by them. They tend, usually, to require a suspension of belief about what probably happened.

    A tale.

    I like to think of her as a friend, maybe even a heroine, but she is off the radar now. Rachel North, was a victim of the 7/7 bombings on the London Underground. Her web site became a place for men in their underpants to argue with her experiences. I’ll admit it, they appeared to make a case. In probably the strongest piece of personal journalism I have ever seen, she demolished them point by point.

    It would have been a magnificent effort by a mainstream journalist, but Rachel North wasn’t. She was just the young woman that, after the event went for a gin.

    I was convinced by her, and the counter-attack by the conspiracy nutters did my head in. I hope she is well, because they are the most unlikable bunch of nut cases.

    If they can’t take you down on the evidence, they will try to take you down on who or what you are. This was a woman who dealt with huge trauma. The accusations that these lunatics unleashed were unfounded and designed to hurt.

    I think they did and I am disgusted by it.

    ———————————–

    But false flag events seem to have a more convincing pedigree.

    The USA has a secret ‘history’ of these sort of events, the best documented is probably this one, but there are lots of others:

    Vietnam War: “The Tonkin incident”, where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn’t decisive and President Nixon negotiated a “peace with honour” in 1973. This war was lost, when North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam in 1975.

    As an excuse for taking sides.

    Or this one:

    Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to “liberate Kuwait” and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to “witnessing” Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.

    Just saying:

    Beware of what you read, and dispute what you see.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think you have to start with the premise that by and large governments are corrupt and always have been.

      The reason w get so much flag waving, nationalism of the wrong sort, and “brave boys” talk from them.

      I think the answer is to keep an open mind, and to think behind what has happened.

      Given that the Press also has an agenda, sometimes with government, sometimes against, those of us who can, should think beyond what they tell us.

      How irritating the internet must be to these people.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Nope, the media isn’t gullible, that’s letting them of the hook. They are complicit, they should be reminded that they also can be tried for war crimes, not just the military or politicians.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. But when was the last time a politician, or the senior brass in the military or even in the Police was taken to court and successfully prosecuted in a Court of law? I don’t recall that happening in the US / UK alliance, ever. Sure, they’ve given up some front line people to public affront, but the big names, those that are actually responsible?

      Not so much.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Yes, they are complicit. Obviously they are, in most cases, commercial organisations, but even the non commercial ones have to compete for custom. They are agenda led. Money mainly, but they’ve always been partial to the odd honour… eh? Arise Sirs Twins from Sark.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Strangely, names beginning with the letter ‘B’ come to mind in recent years. One of whom also appears to be an expert in legerdemain when it comes to ‘Vows’. The other just lies.

    When is a vow not a vow?

    When Gordon Brown says it is.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I suppose:

    When is the truth malleable:

    When Tony Blair talks about being convinced by the evidence. Whilst sweating profusely.

    Liars and charlatans, the pair of ‘B’s.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s