It is disconcerting to be praised by a website whose next article warns of a “plague of sodomites”. Sometimes truth-telling is a difficult act because truth is a simple matter of fact; who might seek to exploit that truth is a different question. I almost certainly have little in common with the anti-gay people who chose to commend me.
It is however incumbent on those who know truth to reveal it to the best of their ability, particularly if it contradicts an untruth being put about widely. The lie that WikiLeaks is acting as an agent of the Russian state is one that needs to be countered. Wikileaks is much more important than a mere state propaganda organisation, and needs to be protected.
Political lying is a sad fact of modern life, but some lies are more dangerous than others. Hillary Clinton’s lies that the Podesta and Democratic National Congress email leaks are hacks by the Russian state, should be countered because they are untrue, and because their intention is to distract attention from her own corrupt abuse of power and money. But even more so because they recklessly feed in to a Russophobia which is starting to exceed Cold War levels in terms of open public abuse.
Clinton has made no secret of her view that Obama has not been forceful enough in his dealings in Syria, and within her immediate circle she has frequently referred to the Cuban missile crisis as the precedent for how she believes Russia must be faced down. It is her intention to restore US international prestige by such a confrontation with Putin in Syria early in her Presidency, and perhaps more to the point to restore the prestige of the office of POTUS and thus enhance her chances of getting her way with a probable Republican controlled senate and congress.
The problem with a game of nuclear armed chicken is we might all end up dead. The Americans do not read Putin well. As my readers know, I am in no way a fan of Putin. He believes he has a personal vocation to restore Russian greatness and has been ever more consumed by a religious devotion to the Orthodox Russian Church. It seems to me highly improbable Hillary can make him back down over Syria. I am no more a fan of Assad than I am a fan of Putin. Nevertheless to risk nuclear war over a desire to replace Assad with rival swarms of vicious disjointed Saudi and Al-Qaeda backed jihadist militias, scarcely seems sensible.
Is Trump any less dangerous? I don’t know. I simply fail to understand the cultural background from which he springs, and what I do understand, I dislike. Were I an American, I would have backed Bernie Sanders and I would now back Jill Stein.
It is worth noting that Hillary’s claim that 17 US Intelligence Agencies agree that Russia was the source of the leaks is plainly untrue. All they have said is that the leaks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed attacks.” Under extreme White House pressure to state that the Russians did it, that extremely weak statement was the only thing that the US Intelligence chiefs could cobble together. It is very plainly an admission there is no evidence that Russia did it, but the appalling corporate media have reported it as though it “proves” Hillary’s accusation of Russia is true.
Bill Binney is like myself a former recipient of the Sam Adams Award – the World’s foremost whistleblowing award. Bill was the senior NSA Director who actually oversaw the design of their current mass surveillance software, and Bill has been telling anybody who will listen exactly what I have been telling – that this material was not hacked from Russia. Bill believes – and nobody has better contacts or understanding of capability than Bill – that the material was leaked from within the US intelligence services.
I was in Washington last month to chair the presentation of the Sam Adams Award to heroic former ex-CIA agent and whistleblower John Kiriakou. There were on the platform with me a dozen or so former very senior and distinguished officers of the CIA, NSA, FBI and US Army. All now identify with the whistleblower community. There were speeches of tremendous power and insight about state abuse, from those who really know. But as usual, not one mainstream media outlet turned up to report an award whose previous winners and still active participants include Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning.
Similarly my statement of definite knowledge that Russia is not behind the Clinton leaks has caused enormous interest in the internet. One article alone about my visit to Assange has 174,000 Facebook likes. Across all internet media we calculate over 30 million people have read my information that Russia was not responsible for these leaks. There is no doubt whatsoever that I have direct access to the correct information.
Yet not one single mainstream media journalist has attempted to contact me.
Why do you think that might be?
Jake Wallis Simons was reviewing the papers on Sky News this evening. Unusually he was uncontroversial.
Here he wasn’t when Craig described his activities including making untrue accusations about Craig.
Fighting Back for the Right to Support Palestine
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/fighting-right-support-palestine/
Once you are a whistleblower, you are almost alien to mainstream media, unless you are being used as a pawn in a bigger game. I continue to support whistleblowers.
Jeremy Corbyn wants our questions put to Theresa May. I realise all questions asked cannot be put to the Prime Minister. I asked:
“Why has Julian Assange not been released from the Ecuadorean Embassy after the ruling by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared that he was being arbitrarily detained?”
Forgot the link. But when has a party leader ever asked for the opinions of ordinary people? I have never in a fairly long life experienced the like of this.
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/s/question-for-theresa-may
Thanks for that useful link. I’ve asked a question too!
I might also add that if other people ask a similar question about why the findings of the UN committee on arbitrary detention are being ignored it might be one of the questions the leader of the opposition asks.
I’ve often thought JC’s questions from the public are quite weak, no wonder if this is the sort of dross that’s served up. The only thing being ignored is due process.
Presumably you are a member of the public. Assuming this to be true than you basically saying that you regard yourself as both weak and dross.
Have you ever considered seeking to improve your self image – it may help.
That’s because CE, you have nothing but contempt for the public.
Because he isn’t. He is free to walk out of the Ecuador Embassy – he will then be extradited to Sweden to assist in their due legal processes and as is required by our due legal processes which Mr Assange was allowed to use and exhausted before he took refuge.
Next
I do hope Jeremy isn’t so daft as to walk into such an embarrassing slap down.
Not many people with a working knowledge of the English language would describe the activities of the Swedish state in relation to Assange as being in accordance with “due legal process”
We all saw an example of “due legal processes” in the case of Amanda Knox.
http://truepublica.org.uk/global/amanda-knox-story-media-depravity/
Some local prosecutor who decided that Amanda Knox did not conform to his idea of a “good girl”, and so she had to be punished. That along with the efforts of the DM.
“I continue to support whistleblowers.”
So it shouldn’t be hard for you to condemn the murder of Sergei Magnitsky should it?
“The Working Group is convinced once again that, among others, the current situation of Mr. Assange staying within the confines of the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London, United Kingdom, has become a state of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The factual elements and the totality of the circumstances that have led to this conclusion include the followings: (1) Mr. Assange has been denied the opportunity to provide a statement, which is a fundamental aspect of the audi alteram partem principle, the access to exculpatory evidence, and thus the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations; (2) the duration of such detention is ipso facto incompatible with the presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has been denied the right to contest the continued necessity and proportionality of the arrest warrant in light of the length of this detention, i.e. his confinement in the Ecuadorian Embassy; (3) the indefinite nature of this detention, and the absence of an effective form of judicial review or remedy concerning the prolonged confinement and the highly intrusive surveillance, to which Mr. Assange has been subjected; (4) the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London is not and far less than a house or detention centre equipped for prolonged pre-trial detention and lacks appropriate and necessary medical equipment or facilities. It is valid to assume, after 5 years of deprivation of liberty, Mr. Assange’s health could have been deteriorated to a level that anything more than a superficial illness would put his health at a serious risk and he was denied his access to a medical institution for a proper diagnosis, including taking a MRI test; (5) with regard to the legality of the EAW, since the final decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Mr. Assange’s case, UK domestic law on the determinative issues had been drastically changed, including as a result of perceived abuses raised by Sweden’s EAW, so that if requested, Mr. Assange’s extradition would not have been permitted by the UK. Nevertheless, the Government of the United Kingdom has stated in relation to Mr. Assange that these changes are “not retrospective” and so may not benefit him. A position is maintained in which his confinement within the Ecuadorian Embassy is likely to continue indefinitely. The corrective UK legislation addressed the court’s inability to conduct a proportionality assessment of the Swedish prosecutor’s international arrest warrant (corrected by s. 157 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, in force since July 2014). The corrective legislation also barred extradition where no decision to bring a person to trial had been made (s. 156).
So in order to correct Julian Assange’s deprivation of liberty, according to the Working Group, the following actions need to be taken.
– Refuse extradition until a decision to bring Assange to trial has been made.
– Conduct a proportionality assessment of the Swedish prosecutor’s international arrest warrant.
– Recognise that extradition of Mr Assange would no longer be permitted under UK law.
– Afford Mr Assange access to medical tests and facilities, without sanction.
– Conduct a judicial review of the prolonged confinement and surveillance to which he has been subjected,
with a view to remedy.
– Allow him to contest the “continued necessity and proportionality of the arrest warrant”.
– Provide Mr Assange with access to exculpatory evidence.
– Afford Mr Assange the opportunity to provide a statement.
After all that, which has the force of law, is done, then the UK can start looking at extradition.
It’s neither here nor there anyway. After Mr Assange has been questioned inside the Embassy by Ecuadorean lawyers at the prompting of Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts have thrown the case out as a consequence, Mr Assange will be able to walk out of the Embassy a free man. Provided he is still able to walk by that time, that is.
Oh – and he also needs to be paid some compensation, of course, as the Working Group has noted.
Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights – do you seriously suggest that we breach the ECHR for Mr Assange?
You’re talking through your hat. The intention of Article 7 is to ensure that people cannot be punished retrospectively for acts which were not criminal at the time that they were committed. That has nothing to do with recognising that under current law Assange would not be extraditable under the conditions of the EAW.
Article 7
No punishment without law
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.
Read Clause 2 please. There are many lawyers who interpret Article 7 exactly the way I do. You may think that they can be dismissed through a cheap jibe, but that is the thinking of a totalitarian mindset which can only countenance their own received version of the truth which fits in with their preconceptions.
Such as who? Let’s see an opinion.
I’ll certainly dismiss your second sentence. You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about, and your cheap insults are not even worth a response.
The source for my claim was a friend who is a human rights lawyer – he did say “that the way Article 7 was interpreted it probably meant that the changes in respect of the EAW could be made retrospective even if the Government wanted to” (or something very similar) – but that is the way lawyers talk. There are plenty of pages on the web about how articles in the ECHR are interpreted (and many would say misinterpreted) – but let’s just say I will take my advice on legal matters from by friend rather than a quack who specialises in cutting and pasting. And even if you don’t like that I am pretty sure that the Government took its own legal advice before drafting the relevant changes to the legislation and made it abundantly clear ( as is done with most legislation) that it commenced on a certain date and did not have retroactive impact – so there is really very little to argue about (go and look at the legislation yourself if you can be bothered to). I very much doubt the Govt is going to go against the general principle of making legislation retroactive, unless there is a very good legal reason to do so – and fugitives from justice who have broken their bail don’t usually fall into that category.
While you are currying favour with the order of St Julian you might as a Corbynista (Mr Goss who also serves both these masters might join in as well) perhaps you might point out to him that the current bounty being offered for leaks about those conspiring against the blessed Jeremy does look very much like the olive branch that Jeremy was offering initially and politely tell him to cease – on the other hand you might do nothing as you are in favour of a good purge, that being one of the traditional treatment offered by quacks.
Trenchant post from Craig, and a fascinating comments thread, with Tom Welsh in fine form.
‘Putin is only using the Orthodox Church to support his own personal goals. When I was in Moscow in the spring I had a long conversation with an Orthodox priest, who was fluent in English and he repeatedly made the point as to how Putin and some of the church leaders were using the Church to support a Nationalist agenda and his Power Vertical.’
Res Diss- in what sense is Putin’s ‘use’ of the Russian Orthodox Church any different from ‘born again’ Bush the Youngers’ cynical use of America’s legion of right wing Evangelical Christians ?
‘And for someone with first hand experience and knowledge of Putin’
That’s quite a claim from CE- you are clearly trying to bolster yout credentials as an ‘authority’ on Russia with that statement so please,do tell, what is the nature and extent of your ‘first hand’ dealings with Putin ?
“Res Diss- in what sense is Putin’s ‘use’ of the Russian Orthodox Church any different from ‘born again’ Bush the Youngers’ cynical use of America’s legion of right wing Evangelical Christians ?”
Apart from extent – very little at all. I don’t think either are right.
Before the first gulf war, Bush senior and some other wise leader of the western world ( can’t remember who-was it Dan Quayle? ) was reported to have consulted Billy Graham. Together they had prayed for guidance.
So that was alright then. It had God’s approval.
Bush (Dub) was a born-again christian also. God had led him to the presidency.
‘And for someone with first hand experience and knowledge of Putin’
If you bothered to quote the sentence in full and in full – I think you will find that CE was referring to Craig.
Indeed, I thought that was quite obvious tbh.
Sorry to go O/T but we are now on page 2 so in my book it’s allowed-
How stupid is this act by Fallon (with,one must assume, the green light from Theresa May) ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37741362
IF Westminster declares any Indyref2 supported by Holyrood as not binding on the UK and IF Sturgeon wins such a vote, and then declares UDI, the UK govt. won’t have a leg to stand on, given the material support it is now giving to the statelet of Kosovo- which only exists courtesy of a similar act of UDI
This could be a spectacular own goal for ‘committed unionist’ May- unless of course, as I suggested on a previous thread, her support for the union is just all fine words that flatter to deceive.
It is stretching it a bit to say that Kosovo’s act of UDI is similar to what you imagine Sturgeon might do. I suspect even Fallon might be able to make that distinction providing he can avoid indulging in a little ethnic cleansing and massacres in Scotland beforehand.
Ethnic cleansing (against the Serbs) has already happened in Kosovo. Hasn’t stopped Kosovo’s independence from being recognized.
Res Diss-
Of course the circumstances of every act of UDI differ- but between 1965 (when Ian Smith declared Rhodesia independent after tiring of reaching a deal with Wilson) and 2008 (when Kosovo declared UDI, after noting the muted reaction by the West to ongoing unrest by Albanians there and in Macedonia earlier in the early noughties) the UK government would have consistently deplored acts of UDI by secessionists. Now that it adopts a ‘case by case’ line it weakens any anti UDI line they may wish to use in the Scottish case- especially if independence wins in an unauthorised Indyref 2- the only circumstances in which I could foresee Sturgeon going for such a ‘nuclear’ option.
History is full of cases of UDI some good some bad – I have no problem with them being judged on a case by case basis.
Quite a lot of the Soviet Empire made attempts to declare UDI in the years before its dissolution and a number even succeeded.
Let’s raise a glass to President Stein!
Just got this email via roundabout route:
‘Amazing.
medea1_720.jpgThat one word says it all if you’ve been to the rallies I’ve been to, or seen the impressive and diverse list of names who are supporting Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka.
They are amazing in their compassion and amazing in the hope they bring. This is real people power.
Jill and Ajamu represent a tremendous joining together of compassionate people under the banner of the Green Party in the race for the White House.
I firmly believe that this revolutionary movement promoting the restructuring of society with bold ideas, can and will transform government from catering to the 1% to caring for the 99%.
And this is the reason I wholeheartedly endorse Jill and Ajamu.
As a social activist and co-founder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange, I’ve successfully changed multinational corporate policy, improved the lives of sweatshop workers, and received awards from diverse humanitarian groups – including a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. I’ve even helped you get your “fair trade” coffee at coffee shops.
I’ve witnessed, with my own eyes, the power and beauty of fusing social movements into one overarching “movement of movements” like the Green Party, one that’s willing to use electoral politics as a tactic for desperately needed transformation and real change.
medea_2_720.jpgAnd in our nation, the Green Party is so desperately needed. Because in the end, you’ll see NO change coming from the establishment candidates. They’re warmongers – hawks and militarists – with deep ties to Wall Street and the weapons industry. For them, profits take priority over people. They have little regard for our planet, and even less for peace.
Trump for example, has told us he will ban Muslims from immigrating to the country. Clinton says she has the diplomatic experience necessary to maintain world peace and safety. Her record tells us something different.
I’ve done my homework on both of these candidates and can tell you that their brand of diplomacy has been or will be done by bombings and drone attacks.
Does it really make sense to believe that the world is filled with people who spend every waking moment hating Americans and thinking up ways to kill us?
Or rather, is the world filled with farmers who want to bring in a good crop without the fear of plowing up a landmine? Tradespeople who want to create and sell quality goods and services? Mothers who want to see their children grow up healthy and prosperous?
sepia-jill-and-medea-cropped_720.jpgI’m writing to you today to endorse Jill and Ajamu. I urge you to support them as wholeheartedly as I do – with heart, energy, time and money.
Currently the campaign has fallen a little behind in their fundraising. That’s why I need you to give again today, as much as you can – even $10 would help.
This is our year to make it clear that a tremendous movement for change has taken hold and we won’t quit until we see that change. We plan to revolutionize the world and restructure society as we know it.
It’s up to us to turn back the forces of evil and work for the greater good. As Jill and Ajamu say … it’s in our hands. Will you give today?
Medea Benjamin
Code Pink CEO
Political Activist
P.S. I just wrote a new book on Saudi Arabia called Kingdom of the Unjust. Hillary Clinton has taken millions of dollars from the Saudis for her foundation and as Secretary of State, she authorized billions in weapons sales to this repressive regime. Donald Trump has all kinds of businesses with the Saudis. Jill Stein is the only candidate who has taken the clear and principled stand of calling for an end to weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, a position taken by the Green Party. Instead of investing in the two parties that are in bed with repressive regimes, why not support the Green Party revolutionary movement today?
P.P.S I’m voting for Jill and Ajamu because I want the Green Party to get 5% of the vote, which would be a real gamechanger. It would mean that in the next race, the Party would automatically be on the ballot nationwide and would receive $10 million as a legitimate major party! Polls show that 57% of Americans want a new political party. Let’s help the Green Party grow and thrive in this and future elections.
Thanks for that info. I had forgotten about that magic 5% and it could even be a step toward Publicly Funded elections being a viable alternative to the current debacle. Stein doesn’t have a chance of winning but that means your vote can have meaning and relieves some of the stench from the process.
Unfortunately, the Demoprat/Repugnants have control of the debates, and have specified 15% of three major polls before a third party can get into the debates. That ‘rule’ desperately needs to be abolished, because it’s in the debates decent candidates shine – Jill would wipe the floor with those two a**holes.
I too am voting for Jill Stein. There’s another reason besides the 5 percent to vote for Jill. Every vote for somebody other than Hillary reduces Hillary’s mandate for her bellicose policies. The latest polling suggests that Hillary may get 50 percent or more of the popular vote. She must be stopped from getting that kind of mandate.
Then you better choose congressional candidates carefully. If she gets the Senate and the House….game over. TWO choices, Kamala Harris (D) and Loretta Sanchez (D) for US Senate in california. No other candidates….WWJD? (Harris old guard-Sanchez IDIOT)
To those of us who followed the Bernie campaign, very closely, know Hillary and the iron curtain U.S. media, were lying about leaks being from the Russians. It appears that a few people in the DNA felt the cheating against Bernie, the lies, and election rigging, were more than they wanted to be a party to. A couple of them where murdered. THEY don’t want people talking about the DNA anymore, as the finger points to them, and Hillary, for the murders. And of course the corruption. The cheating is so easy to detect if you have access to the internet, and don’td pay attention to news media (Hillary Propaganda Media).
No surprise there . She is after all Henry Kissinger’s most talented pupil .
I finally completely resigned myself to the fact that much of our mainstream media works for the CIA and that the UK government is a puppet government at the time of the referendum.
It’s all an elaborate con of publishing unimportant but superficially outrageous stories; covering important truths; smearing figures of dissent; and employing columnists who march their readers to the top of the hill and march them down again when the time is right.
Fortunately, the internet and independent now offer some truth – although I have little doubt that trolls and stooge bloggers are widely used to confuse and bully.
Your contention that the mainstream media works for the CIA would put you in agreement with a German journalist by the name of Dr. Udo Ulfkotte.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/world-class-journalist-admits-mainstream-media-completely-fake-we-lie-cia/
Subsequent to this revelation he has written a book on the same subject. I understand that it has not been translated into English as there is a lack of demand for such subject matter in the English speaking world
Loony-
The Anglosphere doesn’t much approve of anything from other countries that questions the fundamental precepts of globalised capitalism- whether those precepts are the over-arching beneficience of US foreign policy (as criticised by Ulfkotte) or liberal immigration policies as demanded by business, and supported by useful idiots on the Kumbaya left, as criticised by Thilo Sarrazin here-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deutschland-schafft-sich-unser-setzen/dp/3421045453/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477295742&sr=1-1&keywords=sarrazin+thilo
The hardback version of Sarrazin’s book was published in 2010, and was a massive bestseller in Germany. However no Anglophone publisher has deemed it appropriate to bring out an English translation; an act which would facilitate a wider discussion of the questions Sarrazin’s book raises, and make money (should the translation actually be properly reviewed- a big IF) on the back of decent sales for the brave publisher,
Funny dat.
Do you actually read the articles you post links to?
Which part of this do you endorse and why are you posting a link to it on this site? Direct quote, 15th paragraph:
“Needless to say, the outlet’s newsroom was crammed full of women, their pet cucks and, of course, Jews. The former enjoyed absolute power regardless of their position—a simple complaint to HR was enough to fire anyone, no proof required. The cucks, represented by twig-armed, piercing-laden, wispy-bearded creatures in Che Guevara shirts, were very pleased with the way things were going, sipping lattes and snitching to HR on those who expressed ideas incompatible with the narrative. Jews were in their native element in the newsroom, doing their usual “arrogant intellectual” schtick and getting promotions out of nowhere. The majority of articles bashing natives, their culture and values came from them, as later study of the newspaper’s website showed me.”
I assume that for Tom misogyny and antisemitism are a feature, not a bug.
H.A. Goodman, again, on Wikileaks revelations and the Clinton Foundation…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5nQzu305Jo
You couldn’t make this stuff up.
I suppose it could be summed-up by saying that corporations are very, very, very dumb.
I think we should scrap the term POTUS and replace it with POTIN (President of the Indispensable Nation). It’s similarity to “Putin” gives it an authoritarian ring which is wholly appropriate for the leader of country that systematically defies international law.
It looks as if the Washington Hillbillaries will be back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue shortly and that should frighten the living daylights out of any sane person. Hillary never met a war she didn’t like of course which makes her the mirror image of the fake war hero John “Crackpot” McCain. Rumours are circulating that Vicky “F*ck the EU” Nuland will be made Sec of State just to displease Russia. Just great.
Hillary has a complex about needing to appear tough. She will take office convinced that she needs to show Putin who’s the boss which makes her the perfect patsy for the neocon/liberal interventionist Rasputins who will be advising her. “The POTIN’s gotta stand up to Putin” they’ll say “or you will look WEAK!”)
The danger is that she will miscalculate as she did in Libya. Worse, Hillary doesn’t learn from her mistakes. She would like to repeat the Libyan “success story” in Syria.
Here is an excellent interview with Diana Johnstone who makes a very convincing case for the destabilisation and chaos that lies ahead under HRC:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-the-queen-of-chaos-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii/
If you’re up for replacing the word POTUS if/when Mrs Clinton gets in , shouldn’t it be will POTA?
Neo-cons are Neanderthals. When they find a potential wife they just club her over the head and she gasps Oh my darling husband before being made off with over his shoulder to a nearby cave.
US hegemony is exactly the same. Every time they find a country, they hit it over the head with a bommy knocker and the lady is supposed to gasp ” Oh my lovely rescuer ” before submitting to being a US thrall.
Hillary is a neander-cunt neo-con. There’s something very very dodgy about a so-called feminist who believes in 30 years of bommy-nockin Muslim countries and thinks homo sapiens, viz Christian Putin, will be an end to civilisation wot it is now. There’s something primordiarily wrong with Hillary Clinton.
‘Cause you tellin’ the wrong story, boy.
@RD, on this fifth anniversary of the attack on Libya & the NATO gifted/assisted murder of Gaddafi, an act of international terrorism that you championed, it’s fitting that I’ve just caught Peter Tatchell on Sky News, bemoaning & berating “the Left” for not demonstrating against Assad & Russia, at the same qualifying himself as “being of the Left, but not that sort of Left” !, which prompted even the astonished Sky anchor to reply, “but that’s exactly the same sort of rhetoric that we hear from Boris Johnson !! 😀
Seems you are exactly the same “sort of Left” as Peter Tatchell.
“an act of international terrorism that you championed”
No I didn’t I’d rather that Ghadaffi had been brought to justice for the multiple abuses of human rights that he had committed. I don’t regard you as belonging to the Left in any form whatsoever.
The act of international terrorism was the misuse of the UN No Fly Zone to effect regime change; you spent a lot of your time back then demonising Ghadaffi, exactly as you are doing now iro Assad, so you are not fooling anyone with you “rather brought to justice” claim.
As to being of the Left, as I implied before, you are as much as part of the Left as serial war-monger Tatchell & blond buffoon Johnson.
Murray, you nail it again. Fantastic website.
I appreciate your commenting. Yes, I did see your praise on that other website…along with what their next story was. I didn’t read the next story though, as it did seem to be simply an anti-gay message, and I’m not going to bother with that. It’s become a very difficult time when the only place you can find truths such as yours are on extreme conspiracy type sites. So now is the age (apparently) that every time we read something, we have to do some background research on whether or not any of it is true. That’s exactly how I came upon your writings here…I had to verify what that other site reported that you said. So again, thank you for writing on it here.
“Similarly my statement of definite knowledge that Russia is not behind the Clinton leaks has caused enormous interest in the internet”.
Re-reading Craig’s fine article, I suddenly noticed the above sentence. Much as I agree with the thrust of the article, and much as I feel a corrective was badly needed to the MSM rubbish about how “we think Russia did it”… there is something not quite right here.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. From the point of view of computer forensics, all that anyone can say is that “we have no way of knowing who was responsible for the hacks”. Given that technical fact, we can then speculate as much as we like about who is likely to have done it, based on motivation, “cui bono”, capabilities, etc.
For the justification of my statement that no one knows who performed the hacks, see the following article. (Yes, Sputnik News, but an American expert of unquestionably knowledge).
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610141046319131-obama-russia-hack/
There are some commentators that have already advised me that Sputnik is Russian and therefore not to be trusted, In addition it is claimed that Professor Postol is broadly analogous to George Galloway and hence also not to be trusted.
Moving on, there is of course one way that a person could have definite knowledge of an absence of Russian involvement – and that is if they knew the source of the leak.
Obviously I do not know the source of the leak – but a likely candidate would be someone within the US military/security complex. Rumors abound that many in the FBI are extremely pissed at Comey for not prosecuting Clinton. In addition a lot of sane and knowledgeable people are terrified of the likely consequences of a Clinton foreign policy.
Given the examples of people like Snowden and Manning it is not exactly unknown for the US to still produce the odd patriot.
“There are some commentators that have already advised me that Sputnik is Russian and therefore not to be trusted, In addition it is claimed that Professor Postol is broadly analogous to George Galloway and hence also not to be trusted”.
Yes. That raises the logical question, “how do you know if those commentators are to be trusted?” Personally, I find it very suspicious for anyone to assert that “such and such is French and therefore not to be trusted” or “such and such is American and therefore not to be trusted” or “such and such is X and therefore not to be trusted”, for any value of “X”.
No one is perfect, and it is probably safe to say that no one tells the truth (even as they believe it to be) all the time. Professor Postiol is certainly known for speaking out against the US government and NATO line, just as George Galloway is. While I disagree with Mr Galloway’s politics – just as I disagree with Craig Murray’s politics – I respect him as an honest and sincere man, and especially as one of the best English orators and writers I have ever come across. His writing and speaking is definitely in the same class as Churchill’s or Lincoln’s.
LOL.
If a British citizen is paid to appear regularly* on the (State-controlled) media of a foreign state in order to criticise every aspect of his own country, then he is giving aid and comfort to the foreign state. In Galloway’s case, both RT’s – Russia, and Press TV’s – Iran. I can’t imagine, say, Michael Gove, receiving similar attention from the Russians, can you? The claim of balance and impartiality falls even flatter for RT than it does for the BBC. He is hired purely and simply because he is advocating reversals of UK policy which will favour Russia’s interests. Yes, he’s very articulate, and as a populist demagogue he would perhaps succeed if his honesty were a little more clearly obvious. As with any orator, though, it’s rather more revealing to analyse the content of what he says rather than the delivery, and to see if he has a detailed philosophy or a succession of soundbites tailored to his audience on the day – as many of his Muslim ex-constituents evidently decided before kicking him out of Bradford West.
*And generously.
You’re making it up.
And you’re George Galloway.
I cannot see Michael Gove receiving similar attention to George Galloway for the same reason I cannot see Jackie Collins being given similar attention to Shakespeare.
Galloway obviously does not want to “succeed” in pure careerist terms that is why he made statements and comments that led to his expulsion from the Labour Party. In many respects he has sacrificed his career for his principals.
He believes that he has something to say and is on record as sating he will appear on any form of media that will host him. If his appearance on Russian or Iranian media is so objectionable then perhaps the BBC should offer him a regular slot.
” I can’t imagine, say, Michael Gove, receiving similar attention from the Russians, can you?”
______________
Baal.
Though I don’t recall Michael Gove, risking life or limb, to deliver aid to the oppressed Palestinian people. Nor do I recall Michael Gove bringing a seriously injured child back to Britain, from Iraq, for life saving treatment, paying for it himself, at the height of the war in Iraq (which was illegal anyway) and suffering abuse for his humanitarian troubles, from the British media and establishment.
I do however recall Michael Gove, voting for airstrikes on Iraq and Syria, in 2014 and 2015.
I’d take Galloway over Gove any day of the week, if I were searching for the truth.
If a Russian citizen is paid to appear regularly* on the (State-controlled) media of a foreign state in order to criticise every aspect of his own country, then he is giving aid and comfort to the foreign state.
Would you agree with the above?
Gove was a name snatched from the air, RoS. You can supply another, better-qualified, self-promoting Establishment figure of your choice. Someone who will present the benefits of free markets and globalisation via that exemplar of evenhandedness, RT, on his own programme, for cash. Or even visit topics like Grozny and Aleppo as well as deploring whatever nastiness we happen to be up to.
Gove or Galloway? I’d say Gove’s been a lot more effective than Galloway in changing the UK political landscape, albeit not in a good way. Practicality would suggest someone more like Gove, though both are publicity-hungry lightweights. How about Corbyn or Galloway? No contest.
You remark elsewhere apropos of my suggestion that Assange’s leaks tend not to be evenhanded as to nationality – and that’s all I’m saying, the examples are just that -:
if I lived in Israel or Russia, then I’d take notice, but I don’t, I find it difficult enough to keep up with machinations of Westminster and Washington, nevermind, whats going on in the Knesset or Kremlin.
So I have to conclude that you are uninformed and/or uninterested in the role of Russia’s state media in attracting ‘socialist’ patsies to airbrush Russia’s (ruthlessly nationalst) activities, and shouldn’t really be commenting on the matter at all.
*ie someone who has actually risked life and limb for the UK
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
This is true. But in this case the assertions have been to the effect that there is evidence showing Russian responsibility. We know that, in fact, there is no such evidence and may therefore conclude that those making the assertions are lying to us.
Quite so, and I agree with what you say – and with Craig when he said it. What I wanted to point out was that Craig is wrong in saying (just once, perhaps in an excess of exuberance) that he had shown that the Russians definitely did not do the hacking. We know that there is no evidence showing that they did it, and we may conclude that as they had no motive to do it, they probably didn’t. But we can’t be 100% certain. (Thanks, RD!)
Tom Welsh; “What I wanted to point out was that Craig is wrong in saying (just once, perhaps in an excess of exuberance) that he had shown that the Russians definitely did not do the hacking.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but where is Craig stating that he has shown that it wasn’t the Russians ? What he has said is that he knows for sure that wasn’t them, a totally different proposition.
“Maybe I’m missing something, but where is Craig stating that he has shown that it wasn’t the Russians ? What he has said is that he knows for sure that wasn’t them, a totally different proposition”.
I feel I’m the one who is missing something. You seem to be asserting that there is a significant difference between:
“he has shown that it wasn’t the Russians” and
“he knows for sure that wasn’t [the Russians]”
I can’t for the life of me see any difference. Unless, of course, “he knows for sure” without any actual evidence. Which, by any reasonable definition, is not knowledge but faith.
Tom Welsh; “You seem to be asserting that there is a significant difference between:
“he has shown that it wasn’t the Russians” and
“he knows for sure that wasn’t [the Russians]”
Of course there is; as inherent in the very definitions of the words “shown” & “knows”, as Lysias’ comment illustrates.
And my point, Macky, is that I don’t care what someone claims to know, if he cannot demonstrate it to me with objective facts. It’s no good to say, “I know X to be true but I can’t or won’t tell you why”.
Otherwise, obviously, we could all claim all sorts of things to be true that aren’t. Epistemology 101.
Macky is right. I do not claim to have demonstrated it is not the Russians. I know it was not them, because I know who it was. I am not revealing who it was because people have died for being tangentially connected. And as I thought I was signalling very plainly, I knew who it was even before I met Julian.
OK, now I think I understand. Apparently Craig is telling us, “I know it wasn’t the Russians because I know who it was. But I am not going to tell you who it was, or how I know”.
That means that, to believe him, we have to trust Craig. But more: we also have to trust the people who told him what he knows. Having followed this blog for some time (not always bloviating copiously as in this thread) I don’t think Craig would claim to be an expert in IT, let alone the highly specialized fields of IT networking and IT security. So presumably he is relying on someone else’s expert judgment, and also on the judgment that that person is an expert.
To my mind, all this is miles away from Craig convincing us, with facts, that the Russians didn’t do it.
The article linked to below has the headline, “Brent Budowsky to RT: ‘Washington has evidence Russia hacked US’… no proof though”. Just as Kerry had “a mountain of evidence” that the Novorossians shot down MH17 – but never published a single shred of it.
My concern is that Craig’s assertion amounts to “Craig to blog followers: I have evidence Putin is not religious” (or whatever). But if he can’t tell us why he believes that, how can we believe his unsupported statement?
https://www.rt.com/usa/363846-budowsky-leak-putin-hack-russia/
We don’t know what Assange told Craig. That could be the source of Craig’s confidence.
I think that you mean that there is no evidence that you are prepared to countenance.
No. Actually, there is no evidence that has been published. I am not prepared to believe in evidence just because someone tells me they know of it, any more than I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (With apologies to all pious Pastafarians).
Please see my previous links – one of which actually included a picture of part of a Russian bomb that hit the convoy. You can and will ignore or try to rubbish – but like it or not it is evidence.
Hahahahahahahaha! Very droll. So someone living in England, who has not visited Syria for a long time, produced a picture that was claimed to be of a given convoy, with what appears to be a Russian bomb in the picture. That would be convincing if only:
1. A picture said to be of a given convoy were necessarily a picture of that convoy.
2. A given convoy said to be a humanitarian aid convoy might not equally well be a convoy acrryong food, weapons, other supplies (or, indeed, even ammunition, weapons or poison gas) to terrorists.
3. The given convoy even existed.
4. There were some grounds for trusting the person who took the picture, and the person or persons (not necessarily the same) who conveyed the picture to the person living in England who published it.
5. The picture of the bomb was certainly in the same scene as the convoy, not Photoshopped in.
6. The picture of the bomb was from Syria, and not (for instance) from Chechnya 20 years ago.
And on, and on, and on. Remember the US Congressman who made a fool of himself by presenting to Congress that photograph of “Russian tanks crossing the border into Ukraine”? Until it was proven that the photograph was not only of Russian tanks in Georgia seven years earlier, but copyright to an Israeli photographer who threatened to sue for breach of copyright.
But that got forgotten really quickly, didn’t it?
I think it was back in the 1970s that I learned that not only still photographs, but moving video pictures, could now be convincingly faked. That was, let’s see, 40 years ago – and of course intelligence services can usually do better than the publicly-known state of the art.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
True but trooting out the saying is often a sign of the presence of paranoia, corruption and hearsay.
You say so, and I say that is untrue and irrelevant. Moreover, what you said could equally well be said about any statement whatsoever. Including yours. Wouldn’t it be better if we were to debate like polite, rational beings instead of exchanging foolish personal abuse?
And he’s now taking to releasing Chelsea Clinton’s emails.
What a pathetic individual.
He’s the kind of creep who’d be sniffing around in your wife’s knicker draw if you let him out of sight.
What an astonishing charge to make. One hopes that, in your private life, you are not subjected to such wild accusations without evidence behind them.
No doubt in the case of Assange you are just ‘piling on’ after assuring yourself that there is no danger of being called to account by a man in detention who has run afoul of the poweful.
On the evidence of your comment it can justifiably be concluded that you are a cringing coward bullying someone, who cannot defend himself, by spreading lies about him. The sort of creep, in fact, one wishes would confine himself to the relatively harmless pursuit of relishing the scent of underwear but who appears to yo have graduated to nastier, bloodier habits.
No the coward is the one who tries to get at someone by threatening to release their daughter’s private emails – or the ones who support such behaviour.
I am sure Assange can get my IP address from Craig if he wishes to sue me for libel.
The fact is that Chelsea Clinton is deeply involved in the Clinton Foundation. There is little doubt that the Clinton Foundation is riddled with corruption and has been used to enrich the Clinton family, Charles Ortel sets it all out in forensic detail
http://charlesortel.com/
If someone leaking Chelsea Clinton’s e-mails is a coward, then how would you best describe someone who enriches themselves off the back of Haitian earthquake disaster and then tries to obfuscate any inquiry into their criminality by claiming that the prvacy of their adult daughter and co-conspirator is being breached by cowards?
Your ISP address or your employers?
Mine since you ask.
I couldn’t agree more, Bevin. I simply cannot understand the hatred and contempt that are piled on Assange’s head, even by people who cannot ever have met him and who therefore know practically nothing about him – except, perhaps, that he is famous and they are not. Aware as I am that Assange is a normal human being with human failings, I seem to hear a distant cry of, “Crucify him! Crucify him!!”
“Couldn’t agree more, Bevin. I simply cannot understand the hatred and contempt that are piled on Assange’s head”
______________
Simple really Tom, Assange gives the public, a view into the machinations of several governments. I hope Mr Assange, finds a safe haven, outside Britain, and continues to inform the public, of the neferious activities of those we’ve elected to represent us.
Yes, Loony, I can easily see why governments and their many dependents should hate Assange. But why do so many journalists – who have, after all, been fed out of his hand – and ordinary citizens seem so determined to vilify him? If I had a pound for every time I have heard someone (who presumably has never met Assange) say terrible things about him, I would be able to buy a jolly nice smart TV set. Or a laptop.
They rarely seem to say that they think it’s wrong for a private citizen – and a foreigner at that – to tell the people all the things that their own government has been doing illegally without their knowledge. Most of the spiteful comments are extremely personal.
I can only think it’s pure jealousy.
Assange gives the public, a view into the machinations of several governments.
Might be something of an eye-opener if he performed the same service for Russia and Israel, to name but two, mightn’t it? Can we gather that whoever it was who supplied the leaks (and it wasn’t A. personally) doesn’t hack those servers?
Still waiting for final, demonstrable, actionable bombshell which will put Hillarious in jail, though. Long promised, but all that’s coming out is the sort of thing you’d pretty well expect, and let’s face it, no huge surprises if you have ever taken an interest in the Clinton organisation.
Ba’al;
There is the possibility those emails have been tapered with, but there is so little to get one’s teeth into it makes one wonder. I agree with you about how WL being fed info that excludes outing other state players like Putin. One would have to think US cyber-warriors can give tit-for-tat to the Russian hackers, if and i say IF they are the source. I really think US is false-flagging their attempts to influence election.
I remember the U2 incident, wherein Eisenhower strictly forbade a Powers mission as he was making progress in negotiations with Soviet. But the military wanted to scuttle and sabotaged aircraft to assure an incident. Things went downhill from there.
Baal.
Yes, and if I lived in Israel or Russia, then I’d take notice, but I don’t, I find it difficult enough to keep up with machinations of Westminster and Washington, nevermind, whats going on in the Knesset or Kremlin.
Re Tom Welsh’s comment – “I simply cannot understand the hatred and contempt that are piled on Assange’s head”.
————
Most people form their opinions based on what they read or see in the Media. So, if the MSM is consistently negative on Mr. Assange, it is hardly surprising if some people are too. The real question is not why are some contemptuous of Mr. Assange, but why is the MSM so full of one sided propaganda against him.
The answer, I am sorry to say, is that we don’t have a free press. On matters that are important to the establishment, the media speaks with one voice. The establishment, and their security services, whom he is very critical of, see Mr. Assange’s disclosures as a major threat and that is why there is a continuous propaganda campaign against him.
It’s not so important whose emails he publishes, as what is in those emails to make them of public interest. If Ms Clinton’s emails contain nothing but private information, of course it would be very wrong to publish them. But if they contain credible evidence of wrongdoing or crimes by her parents, that’s a very different matter.
Sounds like the thinking of the German government in 1914: that, if the Central Powers acted firmly enough, Russia could be faced down.
Just what John Kennedy in 1963 was determined not to let happen again.
RT now dumping material before Julian/wikileaks?
Maybe they’ve just got bored of keeping up the pretence.
A fake news channel and a fake ‘whistleblower’, match made in heaven, or Russia.
Surely you cannot possibly believe what you write. Does someone pay you to make these remarks? Any chance I could get a job?
Spot on Loony @ 14.27 today.
The Clintons are the most criminal first family in modern times.
Seriously? Have you never heard of the Bush crime family? Perhaps you’ve never heard of a country called “Iraq” ?
Glenn you may find this interesting.
Out of the last seven presidential contests, Hillary or Bill Clinton, has stood in four of them. Meanwhile Jeb Bush, has represented the “Bush” family, for the fifth time, in the last eight elections.
Talk about closed shops.
Indeed, RoS – the US is turning into a dynasty republic. There are rumours that Chelsea Clinton might be interested, once she and her hedge-fund manager husband have creamed off more money than they know what to do with.
What I don’t understand is how someone like “Sharp Ears” above, who’s very right-on an’ all, can give the Bushes a pass. Daddy Bush & Dubbya both launched an attack on Iraq for absolutely no reason, millions of lives lost and the Middle East destabilised, Dubbya allows unprecedented terrorist attacks on his watch – and all that doesn’t count. Forgotten!
Perhaps CDS is taking its toll among British people too?
“What I don’t understand is how someone like “Sharp Ears” above, who’s very right-on an’ all, can give the Bushes a pass. ”
___________
Glenn.
I doubt Sharp Ears, is giving the Bush family a pass, maybe Sharp Ears thinks that the Clinton’s are more corrupt, I suppose it’s all a matter of opinions.
Best not make it a personality issue. Complicates things too much.
Thing is, the Bush’s and Clinton’s are both part of the same familigia. They work for the international Bankers.
Obama, a CIA project, also works to the interests of the international Bankers.
These are the globalisers.
Their aim, the creation of a one world financial empire controlled by Bankers.
It’s only then that they can fully implement their plans for humanity.
Trump and others around the world are against the globalisers plan. These are trying to use whatever power is left to the nation state to fend off the globalisers.
This will include a greater emphasis on domestic production rather than international finance, outsourcing abroad and so on.
That’s what it’s all about.
You take a position on that main issue and forget about the media garbage, which itself is there only to distract from the main plan.
At least the globalisers are united around the world. They work together, primarily through media, but also in knocking out opponents here and there.
And they’ve loads and loads of money to buy off whomsoever they wish.
Another way of looking at it is as a fight between what has emerged as a global elite and national elites.
My guess is that peeps will get a much better deal from local elites than they’ll ever get from a global elite.
Once established, a global elite will have absolute power, whilst local elites will only ever have a relative power.
Herbie: “Best not make it a personality issue. Complicates things too much.”
Indeed, but it’s hard not to take it _personally_ when one is accosted with charges such as, for instance, they don’t care about the deaths of 1/2 million children, because the neo-con is seen as preferable to an out of control Nazi.
It’s been quite obvious for some time that all these slight variations of corporate centrists are working along the same lines, for the same interests of the monied elite. As you say.
We do find at one end of the spectrum there is a little less abuse of the working poor, and – in the US particularly – less pandering to the insane ravings of the Christian fundamentalists. However – as CM said in a post a little while back – if the mainstream parties were placed on a spectrum of 0 – 100, where 0 is extreme left and 100 extreme right, we are presented a choice between the 83-87 range (or thereabouts, I don’t remember exactly).
—
RoS: It might be a matter of perspective, agreed. However, it should be remembered that Republicans rarely end wars, although they are very fond of starting them. There is likely to be a lot more war under a Republican administration, particularly led by Trump who’s incredibly thin skinned, and likely to order attacks because someone said something insulting about him personally.
I think you will find the Clinton’s were heavily involved in Iraq.
I know you are too busy to read most things but Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright) is on record as saying that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was a price worth paying in order to punish/contain Saddam.
And this makes them worse that the Bushes, right? Because that’s the discussion here – if you concentrate hard – not whether or not Bill Clinton is perfect.
I am so sorry I did not realize that the slaughter of 500,000 children could be appropriately characterized as a simple character flaw.
Seeking to compare the Bush family to the Clinton family is a little like seeking to identify whether Ronnie or Reggie is your favorite Kray twin – so not exactly an intelligent discussion really whether you concentrate hard or not.
All this wriggling shows how bad your case of CDS actually is, Loony.
Glenn – It is a great shame that you are always too busy to inform yourself of reality or to make any substantive points. Perhaps if you were to refrain from making ad hominem responses you may free up some time in your busy schedule for something slightly more productive
Most of what you write consists of ad hominem attacks, Loony. Perhaps you consider intervening in a discussion between others to accusing one party of being uninformed, not caring about 1/2 million child deaths, unproductive, etc. to be polite contributions?
What is unproductive is attempting to discuss with you. “Yes but Clinton…” is your answer to every possible point these days, as if Bill Clinton was personally responsible for every evil undertaken by the US, but he is also Hillary Clinton – they are both one and two people, equally liable for themselves and each other.
Nobody is saying the Clinton’s are perfect, but whack away at that straw man since it pleases you so much.
I could say with equal justification that you must consider the Bush crime family to be just great, since you’re blowing so much smoke on their behalf.
Now bugger off, I’m bored with your nonsense.
Western backed cowards, in the form of Wahabbists and Salafists, stop any civilians leaving East Aleppo, the poltroons, are determined to use the civilans population as human shields.
The craven fighters, even shelled the crossing that was to be used for civilians to flee, the Western backed murderers made sure not one Syrian could leave.
Now Russian/Syrian and Iranian Houthis, will need to clear out Aleppo, and hope to restrict the collateral damage to a minimum.
https://www.rt.com/news/363782-east-aleppo-militants-block-civilians/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
Absolutely. And the Yanks allowed their ‘proxies’ (poxies?) murderous scum to flee Mosul, so long as they went into Syria to continue the US/Nato agenda. As Kwvin Barrett woud say, ‘Sick puppies’, or as I would say,’Lucirerin Shitbags’.
Bring it on, next door to Israel (I suspect some back-backpeddalin, and I’m OK with that).
“The UK is still training the Saudi Air Force despite growing evidence of the Saudi-led coalition’s crimes against civilians in Yemen, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon admitted, replying to an MP’s question. The statement outraged the opposition.”
Is it any wonder Theresa May wants to remove Britain from the ECHR, Saudi Arabia is committing a plethora of atrocities, in Yemen, but Theresa May turns a blind eye, as her government sells billions of pounds of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Again the hypocrisy of the Tories is, breathtaking.
https://www.rt.com/uk/363784-uk-saudi-pilots-training-yemen/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
One wonders who Iraqi/Turkish, and Western forces are really trying to remove from Mosul? In my opinion it certainly can’t be ISIS fighters, who are being allowed to slip out of Iraq, and into Syria to bolster the war against the Syrian people.
The SAS trained Pol Pots creatures under Thatcher; ‘Plus ca change?’.
Hillary Clinton (allegedly) advised to promote a link between Putin and Trump, and then blame Putin, for interfering in the US presidential campaign.
The overall idea is to draw attention away from her own misgivings, whilst blackening Trump and Putin, at the same time.
One could also add that it could boost the popularity in America, to remove Assad, and give Putin a bloody nose at the same time.
https://www.rt.com/usa/363779-clinton-trump-putin-isis/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
Meanwhile according to radio news the parasites, are at odds with each other, as Prince Andrew, (allegedly) had words with Prince Charles.
It is thought that HRH Andrew, is trying to promote his daughters, to royal roles.
Royalties
@ Republicofscotland October 23, 2016 at 16:49
Cor, blimey! For a moment, I was hoping he had confronted the a**hole in ‘it’s’ complicity in the murder of his Mum.
I wonder if he knows (yes, or cares?).
One of the matters that Craig’s post raises is the fact that, among the very large majority of those who are interested in politics who distrust government and fear the consequences of the policies that they pursue, in order to please corporations and strengthen capitalism’s hold over society, there are as many who are ‘right wing’ as there are those who are from the ‘left.’
This appears to embarrass some people, on both sides, as if it were dangerous to associate with those who reach the same position but come to it from different angles. From the ‘right winger’s’ point of view it is as weird to find oneself in agreement with a supporter of LGBTQ ‘rights’ – in opposition, for example, to total state surveillance of the population- as it is for a ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ to discover that many traditionalists, religious and otherwise, are as much against warmongering, in favour of honest public discourse and fearful of public corruption as any socialist is.
In the short term it makes perfect sense for opponents of the oligarchies that rule us to seek allies wherever they can be found. In the long term we need to re-evaluate the principles behind our positions, for the truth is that the basic criticisms of capitalism and imperialism can be made just as authentically by those who call for a ‘return’ to ancient values and traditional policies as by those who call for a new world.
The current system (capitalism/imperialism) is the first in which society is organised in order not to ensure its survival- the basis of all past communities- but to facilitate the exploitation of the many. We talk about the ‘welfare state’ as if the idea were novel, whereas the novelty was in a state in which the old were abandoned, the poor allowed to perish of hunger in times of abundance and children torn from their families and worked to death in mills.
Those who first opposed these terrible emblems of ‘progress’ did so by calling for a return to a world which, however spotty its achievements was nevertheless unequivocally committed, ideologically, to what St Benedict called upon his followers to do: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, treat the sick, house the homeless and assist those in need.
The divide is, or ought to be, not between progressives and conservatives but between those who want a society which governs itself in the interests of all and those who see life as a brief interlude during which it is wise to ‘go with the flow’, obey the powerful and seek for a comfortable career assisting them in their evildoing.
Bevin
You don’t distrust all governments,or oppose all oligarchies or all imperialists – so it is good to know by your self projection which category you fall into and whose evildoing you are assisting.
“The divide is, or ought to be, not between progressives and conservatives but between those who want a society which governs itself in the interests of all”
Correct.
A country which places accounting and finance over humanity becomes a terrifying place.
We’ve been living with this, in its latest incarnation, for the past thirty odd years.
And it’s all a complete mess for humanity. For human beings.
Thing is, it’s supposed to be a complete mess.
It’s an instrument rather than an end.
The end, of course, is even worse.
You would be more effective if you put your dissents in the form of questions than in the form of assertions whose only possible basis must be your own prejudices. You see the world in the black and white terms of a juvenile comic book addict.
Bevin at 16.48 – thank goodness for your wise and informed voice in this bear-pit where it really does feel sometimes as if the barbarians are at the gate.
Bevin, going back over the last ten thousand years or so – ‘human civilisation’ – the plebs have always been treated like shite, and just about all societies were run by hoodlums, who often called themselves kings or emperors, etc.
It was only after the two mass slaughters in the former part of the 20th century that this changed. The ‘post-war consensus’, as it is known, was basically the plebs saying that they’ve had enough of wars and poverty, and all the rest of it. So the Establishment, with a wary eye on what had happened in Russia with the Revolution, let the plebs have their welfare state, and all the rest of it (this didn’t happen in America, which remained rigidly under control of the wealthy. There’s never been any kind of real union movement in America; the ruling classes got away with it though, because America was drunk on money made from the Second World War).
Over the last three decades or so all the achievements of the post-war consensus have been pissed down the drain, and the psychopaths are once again firmly in control. Predicting the future is always a tricky business, but I fear that the plebs will now be under the boot for a very long time to come (the police state has all been written into law since 9/11).
Some arsehole keeps removing my posts.
if they do not stop it there will be trouble.
It’s nothing to do with me, Michael.
Believe me, I get lots of my posts removed as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyXGblps64M
SWEDEN’S open-door policy has WRECKED Europe’s most liberal nation as the Swedes turn against migrants amid an unprecedented rise in violence and sex attacks.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/724302/Sweden-migrant-open-door-policy-asylum-sex-attacks-violence
or years Sweden has regarded itself as a “humanitarian superpower” – making its mark by offering refugee to those fleeing war and persecution.
But people’s patience with their visitors is wearing thin following a year of violence, sickening sex assaults and the death of social worker Alexandra Mezher, 22, who was knifed to death at an asylum centre for unaccompanied children at the hands of a Somalian migrant who claimed he was 15.
At the time, her grieving mother, an immigrant herself from the Middle East said: “Immigration has destroyed Sweden.”
Norton: “…if they do not stop it there will be trouble.”
I bet that’s got them quaking in their boots! 🙂
“..going back over the last ten thousand years or so – ‘human civilisation’ – the plebs have always been treated like shite, and just about all societies were run by hoodlums, who often called themselves kings or emperors, etc…”
This is not the case. It is untrue of most countries. It is untrue of England, for example, where, for most of our history village communities have largely ruled themselves and in which, often through the Church, essential ‘social services’ were available.
In the pre-capitalist era people worked less, ate better, had more holidays and consumed most of their own products.
@ bevin October 23, 2016 at 16:48
Well put; I agree with you, and I believe Aaron Russo would have agreed with you, if he hadn’t ‘contracted’ cancer after he started to speak out….
Meanwhile as the Calais camp’s imminent closure hits the news, the French appear none to pleased with the set up.
Alain Juppe, a possible contender to take over from Hollande, has made noises about dissolving the Le Touquet treaty, signed in 2003, which impliments frontier controls at Calais and Dover.
Juppe, feels that France should not stop immigrants at Calais, and that the UK should deal with immigrants, on British soil.
As for Brexit, and Theresa May’s unfounded optimism, that all 27 EU member nations will give the UK a good deal. Bear in mind that the CETA deal, has been in the boardrooms of Europe for seven long years now, and still it hasnt met with the approval of all, of the 27 member states. The CETA deal, will be dead on Monday if no solution is found.
I wonder if Theresa May realises just how foreboding her task is.
News of multiple stabbings and beatings as the adult children jostle for position to enter the land of free housing, healthcare and benefits. Sharp Ears will be preparing her spare bedrooms as I write.
I agree with Juppe. Let’s not stop them at Calais, or Dover even. Let’s send them straight through to Scotland.
Why not just put them in camps and exterminate them? which is the end game of what people like you say.
21st century Britain is running alive with vermin.
And don’t forget to drop bombs, at five hundred grand a pop, on Syria.
Martin Rowson on media coverage of Calais child refugees – cartoon http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/oct/23/martin-rowson-media-coverage-calais-refugee-camp-cartoon
_____
Up to 70 child migrants set to be moved to ‘respite facility’ in Devon
3 hours ago
The Calais migrant camp, known as the Jungle, will be demolished on Monday
Up to 70 child migrants from the Jungle camp in Calais are expected to arrive at a temporary Home Office “respite facility”, the BBC has learnt.
The group are due to be brought to a hostel in the countryside near Great Torrington, Devon on Sunday or Monday.
The children will be transported from Croydon, south London, where they were taken from the Jungle camp by a private security company.
The Home Office said they are unaccompanied, vulnerable children.
It is not clear if the children are among a group that arrived under the “Dubs amendment” which grants refuge to particularly vulnerable individuals, such as those who are unaccompanied and without family ties in the UK.
The purpose of the temporary facility is to provide a safe and welcoming place before the children are reunited with family members or moved to other parts of the country, Devon County Council said.
‘Emergency response’
The council said it is working with the police, NHS and other local authorities as part of the “emergency response”.
“These will be vulnerable young people,” Councillor James McInnes said. “They will be frightened and they will be exhausted, and we as an authority have a statutory responsibility to support those that present in Devon.”
Dozens of private security guards will accompany the group. A source told the BBC most of those expected in Devon are over 16 years old.
Geoffrey Cox, Conservative MP for Torridge and West Devon, said the move will not be a “permanent institution”.
“The majority of the children will only be here for a few days,” he said. “They will be under 18 and there is no question of anyone over 18 coming.”
The Home Office declined to comment on the details of the transfer, but added the children were often traumatised and their privacy should be respected as they received support to rebuild their lives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-37744012
All under the age of thirty.
My Dad left school at 14 to work on a building site as an learning electrician, he was not considered a child.
my granddad left school at 12 to work
he was not considered a child.
Why are people of thirty
now considered children?
Is this new world constructed by the likes of
the politically correct
I’ll shoot your dog you scum – Jeremy Thorpe
I’ll spank your bottom – Cyril Smith
Paddy Pants down – I’ll kill Serbs ( but not Islamics)
Little Tim Farron – if you hurt me I’ll tell my mum
Truly awful Norton – my eldest is now over 18 but she is still vulnerable in many ways that I am not. Even in the bad old days working people looked after the young at work – I’m not a bleeding heart but you just need to look at the conditions children and young adults face in the Jungle to know it is just not right.
Michael – I fear you are not well read on the concept of white privilege. This basically means that your Father and Grandfather were the beneficiaries of white privilege and as such their experiences are in no way comparable to the experiences suffered by refugees – all of whom are the victims of white privilege.
Other notable beneficiaries of white privilege were the approximately 750,000 British, 1,150,000 French, 460,000 Italian, 1,700,000 Russian, 1,000,000 Austria-Hungarians and 1,800,000 Germans who perished in World War 1. Thanks to their privilege the relatives of these poor souls had no need to abandon their homelands in order to throw themselves on the mercy of the welfare states of far away lands.
I do hope that clears things up for you.
Michael has no understanding whatsoever of what used to be termed ‘the class struggle’.
That’s the frightening thing about our present age.
An extremely wealthy a-hole who owns a newspaper can mould and shape all of Michael’s perceptions of the world.
But I’d like to think that Michael is brighter than that.
but resident dissident,
they do not have to travel from Afghanistan to France/England, they could stay in their own country, just out of interest, what is the age children leave school in Afghanistan and get a job?
CETA, RIP!
My thoughts exactly.
Spitting Image
by Scott Thomas Outlar / October 23rd, 2016
The cults line up
on their respective
sides of the sand
to send curses
back and forth
while those of us
with a semblance
of sanity remaining
just shake our heads
and wish for a pox
on both of their houses
The fools
dressed in blue
shake their fists
and rage righteous
as the fools
garbed in red
grab their stones
and start slinging
You’re a mark!
You’re a rube!
You’re a dunce!
You’re a tool!
You’re a scam!
You’re a cheat!
You’re a liar!
You’re a mule!
They shriek
and they scream
from one side
to the other
but what they fail
to realize
is that they might as well
be spitting
in a mirror
Crooked as hell
and immoral as The Beast
these two parasitic groups
are both broken wings
of an eagle
nosediving
toward abyss
http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/10/spitting-image/
“Scott Thomas Outlar is a lover of truth and enjoys researching philosophy, psychology, politics, spirituality, and any other facet of consciousness in the pursuit of reaching a higher state of vibration. He also enjoys writing rants, poems, essays, short stories, and prose-fusion screeds covering such subjects. ”
YCNMIU – rubbish poetry I’m afraid. Good poetry says more than the actual words – this says considerably less.
Let’s talk about poetry, then.
Should be interesting with the fascist lunatics who post on this board, who wouldn’t know ‘art’ if they were beating an immigrant over the head with it.
As I’ve said many times, the UK was once a powerhouse of creativity.
It’s now all gone; all pissed down the drain, because corporations/fascism can not comprehend anything outside of a balance sheet.
So all you get now is ‘incredibly dumbed-down art’, whilst the vile corporations strain to buy up what used to be real art, to try and give themselves credo.
Not.
“The new groups are not concerned, with what there is to be learned,
they wear Burton suits – ha you think its funny
turning rebellion into money”
and more tragically, but unfortunately true
“All over people changing votes along with their overcoats
If Adolf Hitler flew in today
they’d send a limousine anyway”
This one keeps being blocked due to copyright. My original HD of this is long gone, and this is now all I can find (not good quality)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs9jgNR7-N0
Arcade Fire came out of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and there’s been diddly squat ever since on the artistic front.
Perhaps the fascist lunatics can tell me why?
In memory of whistle-blower Serena Shim:
State Department officials told WTF News it would be December 2017 before a Freedom of Information Act request could be completed for information on what actions were taken by them to assist her as a US citizen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZVAuAMVeH0
Our support for “good” slaughter in Yemen:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/saudi-arabia-yemen-conflict-bombing-latest-uk-training-pilots-alleged-war-crimes-a7375551.html
But don’t forget the “sickening atrocities” in Aleppo.
BTW, has Bad Vlad the Impaler’s Fleet of Doom passed our shores yet? Seen orf by Admiral Fallon, I expect. They don’t like it up ’em.
The clock is ticking. Will it be plutonium for breakfast, or the gasbag with the stupid hair?
May the God of Hanging Chads preserve us.
@ mike October 23, 2016 at 21:58
‘….The clock is ticking. Will it be plutonium for breakfast, or the gasbag with the stupid hair?….’
No sweat, Sir. just ‘Duck And Cover’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60
“Here’s what I learned about Julian Assange while working alongside him”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/heres-what-i-learned-about-julian-assange?utm_term=.ujpLZBqd8#.wwMykeWDE
Like Hmmm you are just a garden variety eggplant.
Can you imagine NOT responding to an auditory sound of threat when under incarceration?
Why am I asking? Eggplants don’t respond.
Some ‘joker’ on one of these threads quipped ‘hasn’t the ‘Kutsznetsov’ sunk yet?’
Well, my, my: ‘Report: Presence of Russian Aircraft Carrier in Eastern Mediterranean Will Limit IDF’s Ability to Act in Syria and Lebanon’:
https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/21/report-presence-of-russian-aircraft-carrier-in-eastern-mediterranean-will-limit-idfs-ability-to-act-in-syria-and-lebanon/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJH7Y56c7Y