Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian 295


UPDATE One reason I was so stunned at the Guardian’s publication of these lies is that I had gone direct from the Ecuadorean Embassy to the Guardian building in Kings Cross to give an in-depth but off the record briefing to Euan MacAskill, perhaps their last journalist of real integrity, on the strategy for Julian. I told Euan that Russia was ruled out. I did not mention this yesterday as I greatly respect Euan and wanted to speak to him first. But on phoning the Guardian I find that Euan “retired” the day the lying article was published. That seems a very large coincidence.

I am just back from a family funeral – one of a succession – and a combination of circumstances had left me feeling pretty down lately, and not blogging much. But I have to drag myself to the keyboard to denounce a quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies published in the Guardian about a Russian plot to spring Julian Assange last December.

I was closely involved with Julian and with Fidel Narvaez of the Ecuadorean Embassy at the end of last year in discussing possible future destinations for Julian. It is not only the case that Russia did not figure in those plans, it is a fact that Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia as undesirable. Fidel Narvaez told the Guardian that there was no truth in their story, but the Guardian has instead chosen to run with “four anonymous sources” – about which sources it tells you no more than that.

I have no idea who the Guardian’s “anonymous sources” are, but I know 100% for certain that the entire story of a Russian plot to extract Julian from the Embassy last Christmas Eve is a complete and utter fabrication. I strongly suspect that, as usual, MI6 tool Luke Harding’s “anonymous sources” are in fact the UK security services, and this piece is entirely black propaganda produced by MI6.

It is very serious indeed when a newspaper like the Guardian prints a tissue of deliberate lies in order to spread fake news on behalf of the security services. I cannot find words eloquent enough to express the depth of my contempt for Harding and Katherine Viner, who have betrayed completely the values of journalism. The aim of the piece is evidently to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks’ (non-existent) relationship to Russia as part of the “Hillary didn’t really lose” narrative. I am, frankly, rather shocked.


295 thoughts on “Extraordinary and Deliberate Lies from the Guardian

1 3 4 5
  • Steve Toczyski

    The cooperation with the security service is no real shocker, the group is owned by two very wealthy Russians and state collusion is not exactly new territory for them. The Guardian has been a lack lustre paper for quite a few years now and it appears to be comfortable with its new identity in the “post truth” age.

  • Peter Grafström

    I trust you Craig but this martyrisation of Julian Assange (and I am not being sarcastic, I think he really is being repressed) functions as a cover for the fraudulent psyop that he and wikileaks have been from the beginning.
    It may be that wikileaks made a blunder in publishing identities of active military in Afghanistan in 2010 and that otherwise they would have been at leasure to continue supporting the imperial aims, the colour revolutions etc with some occasional insignificant apparent freedom fighting for show. The most cited example by wikileaks supporters was the shooting chopperforce in Iraq. But that video had been available from other sources before. So wikileaks role was just to make use of their substantial leverage via msm. That leverage is never there for genuine opposition.
    But it may also be the case which some suggested early on, that the aim of the wikileaks psyop was to motivate a strikedown on internet freedom. And the latter is what is happening.

  • Kenneth G Coutts

    Hi Craig.
    My condolences for your loss.
    I remember from years ago in my youf, further education college.
    One of the newspapers to go to, as a student was the Guardian
    For content , etc.
    Oh! how they have fallen.
    They even punt the lie, they are an independent newspaper
    With independent, em! ” Journalists” free from big money
    And political pressure.
    Aye Richt!
    It is only from investigative journalists and folk like yourself
    Who bring the truth to us.
    That we learn and understand the machinations of shitty, Scurrilous goings on.
    What is it, the mindset of people, the mass, who do not collectively stand up to the injustices of the state in this case the Engerlish state against Mr Assange, when I know and see it.
    Happening.
    Of course there is alot of people who feel and know these injustices.
    Yet we are ignored.
    Regards

  • Sharp Ears

    Aaronovitch is attacking Craig on Twitter by insulting Nadira. It is gratifying that many of the responses to Aa are critical of his slime. Back under your stone, you slimy snake Aa. I have never forgotten his deceit in creating false book reviews on Amazon.
    https://twitter.com/DAaronovitch/status/1045396388920643589

    https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1045399767478685697

    PS He has also slagged off Miles Goslett who has written a book about Dr Kelly’s death. Peter Oborne gave Aa what for.

    An inconvenient book? Read Miles Goslett on the death of David Kelly – not Aaronovitch’s caricature
    Peter Oborne 24 April 2018
    The case for a full coroner’s inquest to find out the truth regarding the tragic death of a government scientist in the wake of the Iraq war has been trashed for no good reason. Why?
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/peter-oborne/inconvenient-book-miles-goslett-david-kelly-aaronovitch

  • Joe sullivan

    The guardian is not a newspaper. It’s a fucking rag. See how much the attacked enquiring voices on the Vegas shooting. Check out how many articles they wrote on it.

1 3 4 5

Comments are closed.