We Won’t Be Fooled Again 75

Having sat through 25 minutes of intensive propaganda for bombing Syria called the BBC Ten O’clock News – which did not feature a single interviewee against bombing – it was delightful to see them have to report at the end that the Commons has now rejected the Government’s motion to authorise military action.


It will, Nick Robinson quickly assured us, take a few days to work out what this vote means.  He means it will take a few days for those who profit from war to work out how to spin the vote against military action as a vote for military action.  That process will start in the next few minutes.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

75 thoughts on “We Won’t Be Fooled Again

1 2 3
  • Sofia Kibo Noh

    @Phil. 1:39 pm

    Sofia Kibo Noh 30 Aug, 2013 – 9:01 am
    “Rare MSM articles that mention “false lags” are widely known to have disappeared from the internet.”
    Any examples please?

    Ok, I admit I only tried this one,


    All I got was,

    The page you have requested does not exist or is no longer available.”

    John Goss provided an archive link (Thanks). You can read it here.


    I wonder if Medialens have run a check on the number of times MSM articles mention “false flag” operations.

    Does anyone have other examples of disappearing articles?

  • Sofia Kibo Noh


    Re Disappearing DM article.

    I think I’ll have to withdraw my “disappearing articles” sentence then, but the rest of my 9 01 am post still holds, I think.

    Thanks for dismantling my claim so gracefully.

  • Phil


    The dm article from the web archive was discussed a few days ago. The email was (probably) forged and the dm paid out money in compensation.

  • Sofia Kibo Noh

    @Phil. 9 06pm

    Thanks. I missed that. You need to be full-time to keep up with the comments here. I love visiting but I’m not devoted enough to thoroughly catch up after every absence.

    I’m impressed by how quickly I was put right on the matter. Always good to share many eyes and perspectives.

    My assertion the it was plural “articles” was plain exaggeration.

    I can’t defend that.

    Last word to Mark Twain,
    “If a spectacle is going to be particularly imposing I prefer to see it through somebody else’s eyes, because that man will always exaggerate. Then I can exaggerate his exaggeration, and my account of the thing will be the most impressive.

  • Phil


    I’ve never told you a gerzillion times about that.

    I suspect that direct censorship such as removing articles is rare. I am happy to be shown otherwise but it just isn’t needed within herman/chomsky’s propaganda model. Articles that break a tabboo are just simply buried and ignored.

    One article that I mention with boring regularity is from the telegraph. It discusses a secret air surveillance fleet run by the met police. I have never been able to find another word about the subject.


  • BrianFujisan


    Another article that seems to have vanished – from Global research No less

    i put a link on my F.book page last night, and now it wont work – Page not found

    the title of the piece was

    Syria: Obama’s pretext for war? The ” rebels ” are in possession of Chemical weapons

    By Phil Greaves

  • BrianFujisan

    @ Phil

    thanks for that, i had intended to look it up again, as my son had found it to be a good read, after my Fbook post, he is in the army, and i wanted to read that once more

    Cheers Dude

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Does it make sense that 16 pounds it trimmed off benefits for the sake of the economy, while at the same time doing everything to start a war to spend a trillion pounds?

  • BrianFujisan

    @ Sofia

    Wow good find, but yes there’s a lot in there, will have a good look later, wee viking fest on doon the coast ( Largs ) so heading out. cheers for that link.

    @ Courtenay.

    Good point, and i fail to see how their evil war is going to benefit the people of the uk. ( other than later pay off to the already elite – as Bliar was )

  • Courtenay Barnett

    If only I had Obama’s brains and sense of logic – I might be able to be President.
    A. There is a gas attack against certain Syrian civilians.
    B. The attack happens at a time when the UN is proceeding to investigate and thus the President of Syria would have known, if indeed he wanted to gas his people, that this was not an opportune time. The UN inspectors are in the process of making their findings. And the Assad government, it is being widely reported, seems to have gained the upper hand against the rebels. So – why would the government gas people at this time?
    C. President Obama, prior to receipt of any UN report, and at a time when the US is in deep, deep deficit, then concludes that the best thing to do to the Syrian people, already immersed in a civil war, is to drop bombs on Syria.
    Former Congressman Ron Paul made this comment:-
    “According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
    So, based on Obama’s logic:-
    1. Without final and/or conclusive proof, bombing Syria is a moral imperative to be pursued. Thus, the “ moral barometer country” of the world has to use this ruse – as with President Johnson announcing the North Vietnamese attack on a US ship in the Bay of Tonkin, a day before the attack took place ( he forgot the international date line) – as with WMDs in Iraq. ( As if the US has or ever had any moral barometer to measure good or bad deeds. Have we all forgotten the use of ‘agent orange’ and the widespread use of chemicals against the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam war to defoliate and try to win a war that was being lost – and – which country sold chemicals to Saddam which he used against Iran during the 8 year war, but the US simply turned a blind eye at the time) ? All this “logical posturing” so that Obama can proceed to stage 2.
    2. Bomb a country trying to get to peace talks and if negotiated terms can be reached in Geneva, to stablise the country and agree some terms for any changes some people in the country may be seeking. However, with Obama’s intended attack – that would change the narrative and the prospects on the ground in Syria would seriously worsen, by reason of a US attack which would increase, not decrease, hostilities inside and outside of Syria.
    3. Obama chooses to ignore the facts on the ground:-
    i) There are different religions in Syria, of which Christians are one. Assad maintains Syria as a secular state having a majority of Muslims. We have seen images of fundamentalist Muslim leaders sawing off heads and killing Christian priests. So, if this is the type of “tolerant” thinking and alternative grouping that the US supports to come to power – then like the “successes” in Iraq and Libya – I suspect that the Syrians are better off with the evil they have lived with as a government to this date.
    ii) Obama uses terms such as “limited” or “targeted” strikes. Yet can he ever say that the response from Syria might not be directed via groups, such as Hezbollah or Hamas against Israel. Will Syria – or Iran – spread the war wider in the Middle East or aboard to the US and/or Europe? How does one contain hostile reactions once bombs start dropping? Then what of the positions of the Chinese and Russians on the Syrian question? To its credit, the British Parliament, and the British people ( only some 11% support an attack on Syria) have taken a sane vote against war.
    iii) How can a country ( the US) deeply in debt find reason and sense, in spending more on a war that must cost billions, once started, and simultaneously there is want of American jobs, decaying infrastructure and a crippling debt burden ( which Ron Paul tells us that the media is saying will require an appropriation bill to print/ borrow more money to fight this Syrian war).
    Is Omaba – logical – a warmonger – or a “snake” ready to spew venom against any nation that displays its right to maintain independent policies as a sovereign nation?
    I, sadly and humbly forecast, that any US attack on Syria will turn out very bad for Syria, the Middle East and will spread to affect others in the world.
    So sad.
    PS. Does anyone know of any present poll figures for what the American public wants:-
    i) percentage supporting a US attack on Syria?
    ii) percentage opposing a US attack on Syria?
    Assuming that there is a democratic will of the people, then as in Britain, the Congressional vote, should bear some reference to what the constituents want. Should.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    A Century of Lies: The Rationales for Engaging in Foreign Wars, A Century-old White House Tradition

    By James F. Tracy
    Global Research, September 01, 2013
    Region: USA
    Theme: Culture, Society & History, US NATO War Agenda
    582 55 18 857

    If President Barack Obama and his administration are not lying in the lead-up to a probable bombing campaign of Syria it will be a rare exception among US Presidents, particularly since their public duplicity concerning war dates to at least the early twentieth century.

    Indeed, being forthrightly dishonest to the American people concerning the rationales for engaging in foreign wars has become a century-old White House tradition.

    The historical record of past presidents’ prewar and wartime hucksterism is unambiguous, greatly contributing to the immense bloodshed and destruction that continues under the country’s reckless international leadership to this day.

    Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Harris & Ewing bw photo portrait, 1919.jpgWoodrow Wilson: Sinking of the Lusitania–World War I, 1917-1918
    “It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken, in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it. The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a nation. We must put excited feeling away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the nation, but only the vindication of right, of human right, of which we are only a single champion.” April 2, 1917
    FDR in 1933.jpgFranklin D. Roosevelt: Embargo against Japan, Pearl Harbor—World War II, 1941-1945
    “Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.” December 8, 1941
    A middle-aged Caucasian male wearing a dark business suit and wireframe glasses is depicted smiling pensively at the camera in a black-and-white photo.Harry S. Truman: Threat of Communism, Violation of UN Charter–Korean War 1950-1953
    “On Sunday, June 25th, Communist forces attacked the Republic of Korea. This attack has made it clear, beyond all doubt, that the international Communist movement is willing to use armed invasion to conquer independent nations. An act of aggression such as this creates a very real danger to the security of all free nations. The attack upon Korea was an outright breach of the peace and a violation of the Charter of the United Nations. By their actions in Korea, Communist leaders have demonstrated their contempt for the basic moral principles on which the United Nations is founded. This is a direct challenge to the efforts of the free nations to build the kind of world in which men can live in freedom and peace. This challenge has been presented squarely. We must meet it squarely. . . .” July 19, 1950
    37 Lyndon Johnson 3×4.jpgLyndon B. Johnson: Tonkin Gulf Incident, “Domino Effect”—Vietnam War, 1964-1974; “War on Poverty”
    “Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters, and therefore directed air action against gunboats and supporting facilities used in these hostile operations. This air action has now been carried out with substantial damage to the boats and facilities. Two U.S. aircraft were lost in the action. After consultation with the leaders of both parties in the Congress, I further announced a decision to ask the Congress for a resolution expressing the unity and determination of the United States in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in southeast Asia. These latest actions of the North Vietnamese regime have given’ a new and grave turn to the already serious situation in southeast Asia.” August 5, 1964

    Richard Nixon.jpgRichard M. Nixon: “Vietnamization”; Bombing of Cambodia, 1969-1973; “War on Crime”
    “Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam … This is not an invasion of Cambodia … We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire. We have made we will continue to make every possible effort to end this war through negotiation at the conference table rather than through more fighting on the battlefield…. The action that I have announced tonight puts the leaders of North Vietnam on notice that we will be patient in working for peace; we will be conciliatory at the conference table, but we will not be humiliated. We will not be defeated.” April 30, 1970
    Official Portrait of President Reagan 1981.jpgRonald Reagan: Threat to American medical students—Invasion of Grenada, 1983; Bombing of Libya, 1986; US vs. “Evil Empire”–Cold War 1981-1989; “I don’t recall.”—Iran-Contra; “War on Drugs”
    “In all, Reagan said ‘I don`t recall’ or ‘I can`t remember’ 88 times in the eight hours of testimony on Iran-Contra on Feb. 16-17, 1990,” the New York Times observes.
    “I remember being told that there were certain levels of government or agencies and so forth that were not prohibited by the Boland Amendment, and I remember that. And this was in connection with my telling us that we must stay within the law and so forth. And I never challenged or questioned what I was told about that or something else because, not being a lawyer myself, but being surrounded by a number of them in government, I figured that I was hearing the truth when they told me that something could be done and still be exempt from the Boland Amendment.” February 16-17, 1990

    George H. W. Bush, President of the United States, 1989 official portrait.jpgGeorge H. W. Bush: “Drug indicted dictator” Manuel Noriega—Invasion of Panama, 1989; “Incubator Babies Story”–Gulf War, 1991; “War on Drugs” (continued)
    “And I am very much concerned, not just about the physical dismantling but of the brutality that has now been written on by Amnesty International confirming some of the tales told us by the Amir of brutality. It’s just unbelievable, some of the things at least he reflected. I mean, people on a dialysis machine cut off, the machine sent to Baghdad; babies in incubators heaved out of the incubators and the incubators themselves sent to Baghdad. Now, I don’t know how many of these tales can be authenticated, but I do know that when the Amir was here he was speaking from the heart. And after that came Amnesty International, who were debriefing many of the people at the border. And it’s sickening.” October 9, 1990
    Bill Clinton.jpgWilliam J. Clinton: “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995; “Humanitarian Intervention”—NATO bombing of Yugoslavia 1999
    “Our humanitarian coordinator, Brian Atwood, who just returned from the region, has described an elderly Albanian woman he met in a camp outside Tirana. She saw all the male members of her family and most of the men in her village rounded up by Serbian authorities, tied up, doused with gasoline, and set on fire in front of their families. It’s the kind of story that would be too horrible to believe if it were not so consistent with what so many other refugees have been saying. What we need to remember is that this is the result of a meticulously planned campaign, not an isolated incident of out-of- control rage, a campaign organized by the government of Belgrade for a specific political purpose –to maintain its grip over Kosovo by ridding the land of its people. This policy must be defeated.” April 28, 1999

    George-W-Bush.jpegGeorge W. Bush: “Al Qaeda” attack of 9/11—Afghanistan, 2001-present, “War on Terror,”—2001-present; 9/11 and Iraq’s alleged “Weapons of Mass Destruction”–Iraq 2003-present
    “Facing clear evidence or peril, we cannot wait for the final proof–the smoking gun–that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.” October 6, 2002

    U.S. President Barack Obama is photographed standing in front of the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office of the White House, December 6, 2012.Barack H. Obama: “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—NATO Bombing, Guerrilla War in Libya, 2011; “Humanitarian Intervention” and “Responsibility to Protect”—Guerrilla War in Syria 2011-present
    “In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus … Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people. Like all governments, the Libyan government has a responsibility to refrain from violence, to allow humanitarian assistance to reach those in need, and to respect the rights of its people. It must be held accountable for its failure to meet those responsibilities, and face the cost of continued violations of human rights.” February 22, 2011

  • Courtenay Barnett

    Russia has handed Obama a diplomatic ace:-
    • The chemical weapons in Syria will be placed under UN international control/supervision. It must follow that since an allegation of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons was the reason to call for a “war”/”limited strikes” against Syria ( i.e. firing a number of 1,000 pound Tomahawk missiles or a package of some 166 smaller bomblets in said missiles – is just a “limited” slap on the wrist for Syria?). The advantage to Obama, in accepting the Russian/Syria deal is that he would not have to face a Congressional defeat on the vote to strike Syria. He can then claim that his tough foreign policy stand forced Syria to do the right thing. Victory for the US.
    • Assad can, no doubt, make secret a large part of his chemical stockpile. It might not be that easy to verify the total stockpile of chemical weapons without having had some historical records that are verifiable, truthful and accurate. But, that is to the advantage of Syria and the job of the UN weapons inspectors. The decision to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control/scrutiny gives Assad an escape route in that he can still maintain that his government did not use chemicals to attack Syrian civilians while simultaneously projecting himself as a responsible leader. Victory for Syria.
    • Russia, having dealt the card it has, can state to the international community that it believes in the solution to international problems through diplomatic means and that is why the proposal was placed before the international community by Russia. Victory for Russia.
    It is hard for me to conceive that this proposal does not solve the problem of a looming war being started against Syria. It is still however early days, but given the mix of contemporary US politics; Russian interests; Syrian desires to maintain power in a viable and peaceful way – I must rely on precedent to guess, going forward, what the players are likely to do.
    Cuban Missile Crisis
    • US wanted to place missiles in Turkey and had warheads in Italy.
    • Soviet Union found such placements unacceptable and responded by locating Soviet missiles in Cuba. An international standoff took place, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.
    • A solution came when the US behind the scenes agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey and disarm the missiles in Italy; in turn the Soviet Union removed its missiles from Cuba and the US publicly declared that it would never invade Cuba.
    Win-win – win solution for US, Soviet Union and Cuba ( if we ignore the on-going Cuban economic blockade).
    So now – which side still needs a war in Syria?

1 2 3

Comments are closed.