The Broader View Reveals the Ugliest of Prospects 431

Standing back a little and surveying the events of the last couple of weeks, gives a bleak view of the current state of western democracy.

We have seen what appears to be the most unconvincing of false flags in the Gulf. I pointed out why it was improbable Iran would attack these particular ships. Since then we have had American military sources pointing to video evidence of a packed small Iranian boat allegedly removing a limpet mine from the ship the Iranians helped to rescue, which was somehow supposed to prove it was the Iranians who planted the alleged device. We also have had the Japanese owner specifically contradict the American account and say that the ship was hit by flying objects.

The Iranians certainly have a strange method of bomb disposal if they carry it out using unarmoured personnel, with as many as possible crammed into a small boat in immediate contact with the “mine”. It is also hard to understand why the alleged “limpet mines” would be four feet above the waterline.

Limpet mines are placed below the waterline. There are numerous reasons for this. Firstly, holes above the waterline will not sink a ship. Secondly, the weight of the water helps contain the blast against the ship. Thirdly, it is obviously harder to detect both the diver placing the mine and the mine once placed if it is below the water. In fact it would be very difficult for a diver to place a limpet mine four feet above the waterline, even if they wanted to.

There seems to be a remarkable disconnect between the widespread popular disdain at yet another fake western power casus belli in the Middle East, and the near universal complicity of the UK political and media class in promoting this transparent lie. It is as though even pretending to have any respect for truth and fact has simply been discarded within the UK’s governmental system. Which ought to worry us a lot.

The second development ought to have been the biggest media story of the decade in the UK, if we had anything like a free and honest media. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, made plain the Trump administration’s intent to prevent the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Pompeo told a meeting of Jewish leaders:

It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back.

This blatant interference by a foreign power in the UK’s democracy is an absolute scandal. Compare the lack of media outrage at Pompeo’s intervention with the ludicrous claims made about much less high profile Russian attempts at influence. This incident provides incontrovertible proof that the world does indeed operate in the way that I have been explaining here for a decade. It is not a “conspiracy theory” that democracy is manipulated by hidden powers, it is fact. Pompeo’s description of Corbyn’s route to election as “running the gauntlet” is particularly revealing. Even more so is the cursory coverage this story was given, and I have seen no evidence to date of any MSM “journalist” attempting any follow-up investigation on the methods the US are planning to employ – or more likely already employing – against Corbyn.

Everybody should be incandescent at this, no matter who they vote for.

Something else which revealed the truth of the way the political world now operates, and which again did not get nearly the media attention it deserves, was Matt Kennard’s stunning revelation of the way the Guardian has been taken over by the security services. I have been explaining for years that the Guardian has become the security services’ news outlet of choice, and it is very helpful to have documentation to prove it.

It is worth noting that the Guardian obeyed completely the DSMA committee ban on mentioning Pablo Miller in reporting the security service fantasy version of the Skripal story. As Kennard points out, it is also very interesting indeed that the Guardian published Luke Harding’s front page fabrication of Manafort/Assange meetings two weeks after MOD Director Dominic Wilson congratulated Guardian deputy editor Paul Johnson on “re-establishing links” with the security services. The Guardian is, like other British newspapers, as controlled by the military and security services just like in any other decent autocracy.

Incidentally, I cannot find Matt Kennard’s excellent work set out anywhere, except in that twitter stream. Surely there is an article on a website somewhere? I cannot find anything on Google, but as it is exactly the kind of information Google routinely suppresses, that does not mean it is not out there. Anyone seen it?

Finally, we have of course seen Sajid Javid sign the extradition warrant for Julian Assange to be sent to the United States for the “crime” of publishing truthful information about US government illegalities. Julian’s extradition hearing was, contrary to normal practice, held despite the fact he was too sick to attend in person. And it was presided over by Judge Arbuthnot, despite the fact that her husband is a former Tory defence minister who started a “security consultancy” in partnership with a former head of MI6, the war criminal John Scarlett who oversaw the fabrication of the dossier of lies about Iraqi WMD, in order to launch an illegal war of aggression that killed and maimed millions. The Assange team had asked her to recuse herself on that pretty obvious basis, but she had refused. At an earlier hearing she taunted Assange with the observation that he could get adequate exercise in the Embassy on a 1.5 meter Juliet balcony.

Just as the Guardian has never apologised for, nor withdrawn, the utter lie of the Assange/Manafort story, so the identity politics promoting, false “left” has never apologised for its pursuit of Assange over sexual allegations in Sweden, which were obvious on the slightest scrutiny to be only a fit-up designed to get him into custody. Those figures like David Allen Green, Joan Smith and David Aaronovitch, among scores of other pustulous hacks, who mocked and scorned those of us who always said that Assange faced not extradition to Sweden but to the United States for publishing, have been shown up as, at the very best, stupid naive and unwitting tools of the state, and more likely, insincere and vicious propagandists.

This brief review of current issues reveal that not only do western governments lie and fake, they have really given up on trying to pretend that they do not. The abuse of power is naked and the propaganda is revealed by the lightest effort to brush away the veneer of democracy.

I find it hard to believe that I live in times where Assange suffers as he does for telling the truth, where a dedicated anti-racist like Corbyn is subjected to daily false accusations of racism and to US and security service backed efforts to thwart his democratic prospects, where the most laughable false flag is paraded to move us towards war with Iran, and where there is no semblance of a genuinely independent media. But, starkly, that is where we are. This is not unrelated to the massive and fast growing inequality of wealth; the erosion of freedom is the necessary precondition that allows the ultra-wealthy to loot the rest of us. It remains my hope there will eventually come a public reaction against the political classes as strong as the situation demands.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


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>

431 thoughts on “The Broader View Reveals the Ugliest of Prospects

1 2 3 4
  • Tired

    This is fantastic work, Mr Murray, but it breaks my heart that this is our reality. Thank you for reporting it. The Guardian is a disgrace and they will not report the truth for the reasons you have outlined.

  • Ruth

    A very important measure the security services carried out in the Guardian was to remove the readers’ comment sections after nearly all articles. The Daily Mail runs comment sections but these are heavily interferred with.

    • Ken Kenn


      The Guardian will always allow comments which criticise Corbyn or any other anti Centrist ( read against austerity ) commentators.

      If you read Craig’s post it does suggest that the Guardian was initially in favour of the ‘Establishment ‘ fell out ( Snowden ) and then came back into the fold, destroyed its hard drives and is now a good doggie.

      This maybe why Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil ( for now) as the Guardian would no doubt dis-own him as they have with Julian Assange.

      ” We only printed it – it was Assange and Greenwald who said it and we just repeated it ”

      ” Don’t jail us US.”

      Cowardly *******.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Ken Kenn June 18, 2019 at 23:04
        I shouldn’t think Greenwald will stay in Brazil for long with their new Fascist President.

        • pretzelattack

          given how uncomfortable he is making the guy, i hope greenwald gets out while the getting is good.

    • Rhys Jaggar


      The DM also has ways to make page loading very slow to try and stop commenters who think for themselves. They routinely censor comments they do not like.

  • Hmmm

    So just a few days till Iran has a nuclear weapon. Iirc amassing enough uranium 235 is the key, making the bomb is the easy bit…
    Yeah, it is B.S. but why does the US want to stop nuclear enrichment in Iran?

      • N_

        Interestingly Boris Johnson once lived in Israel. His father’s new wife Jenny Sieff was a member of the Sieff family, the notoriously Zionist gang that controls Marks and Spencer, and she got her Israeli diplomat friend Michael Comay – once the Zionist ambassador to Britain – to help Johnson and his sister in relation to their time in Israel, even supplying them with a car. (Source: Haaretz.) What does Alex Younger think of that? Free gifts from a foreign diplomat are an interesting thing for a leading politician to have on their record. Imagine if the diplomat were Iranian or North Korean.

        What passport did Boris Johnson enter Israel on?

        They don’t talk about it much, but in British ruling class circles dual British-US citizenship is quite common. The usual preference is to travel on the US one, which may indicate where loyalties lie in the event that things get heavy.

        You’ve got to wonder whether Johnson doesn’t also hold a third citizenship. His mother was the granddaughter of a rabbi.

        When Johnson went again to Israel as mayor of London, he laid into the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, saying they were fools with no real influence. (So why spend time denouncing them?) Supposedly he was there to “lure” Israeli “tech” businesses to set up shop in London. Met a lot of resistance, did he? Had to use cunning and guile to induce them to sign up?

        • John A

          Johnson gave up his US passport to avoid double taxation. Typical Tory, all taxes are evil mindset.

          • N_

            Who paid his US tax bill to pave the way to his renunciation of US citizenship? There had been stories that he was behind in his tax payments and that he could face arrest if he returned to the country of his birth. It’s remarkable that his renunciation wasn’t reported until it was spotted in an official gazette. It wouldn’t surprise me if the official processing of a renunciation while tax payments are outstanding would be unlawful.

            But he renounced his US citizenship long after the stay in Israel which featured his doing manual work (the horror!) to help out at an obscenely racist institution – a kibbutz. Imagine if it had been a Nazi settlement in Chile.

        • IrishU

          What is the source for, ‘in British ruling class circles dual British-US citizenship is quite common. The usual preference is to travel on the US one, which may indicate where loyalties lie in the event that things get heavy’?

          • John A

            In the case of Johnson, he was born in the US. Therefore automatically entitled to a passport.

          • N_

            @IrishU – Personal experience. And this applies not just in Britain, but in many other European countries. Sometimes the rules require that a ruling class brat goes and spends some time in the US as a youngster to keep its citizenship. (I don’t know what those rules are, but it’s something I’ve encountered a number of times.) I am not saying the proportion of US passport holders in British ruling class circles is 30%, but it is not an unusual thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is 5%.

  • Andrew Ingram

    I’m with you 100% on this Craig. It is very frustrating. It feels a bit like “they’re” up in the tree firing shit down on “us”, they’ve gravity on their side and we’re powerless. So be it – but we’re not powerless we just need to get smarter and as there are more of us than them we will prevail.

    • wonky

      I support this notion and would like to add, that “we” outnumber them by the factor 1000 the least.

  • Rhys Jaggar

    Mr Murray

    I have reached the stage now where I no longer consider the MSM to be informing me, rather seeking to misinform me. I consider your site to be more likely to supply news than the Times, Guardian, BBC or Mail.

    Of course, you are an individual whose website’s scope cannot possibly compare to that of a fully fledged media company, but 50-100 sites like yours across different subjects could make a fair crack at it.

    I solely use MSM to inform myself as to the latest areas for scams, misinformation and smearing. I assume every political story at the BBC is lies until proven otherwise, in particular where foreign affairs are concerned. I no longer watch the main news programmes, I no longer listen to Today on Radio 4 and I would not be seen dead reading the Guardian, let alone paying for it.

    I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Americans resident in Uk must be told they are no longer allowed to remain if they voted for Dubya, Obama, Trump or the Hillary billy, since by doing that they declared themselves ardent supporters of Us imperialism, warmongering, genocide, torture and industrial levels of digital surveillance. Such people should not be welcome here and if kicking them all out kick-starts a world doing the same, then maybe Americans will start voting for people for whom inhumanity is not daily normality.

    After all, if Pompeo thinks he can control UK politics, then we can certainly control Uk residency permits, visas etc etc.

    • carmel townsend

      Very well said Rhys. Like you, I catch headlines of the “news” first thing, followed by the unchanging updates throughout the day. I don’t read papers, nor watch TV “news” bulletins. I mainly listen to the issues of the day, in order to judge what misinformation, lies, or latest hysteria (Imam criticising Israel, heaven forfend). I then check this excellent blog, along with Off Guardian, Wee Ginger Dug, Wings Over Scotland, Counterpunch, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Jeffrey St. Clair and Jonathan Cook. Having accessed these well informed writings, I know what we’re up against and taken the corporate news agenda, with a massive dose of salt.
      Well done, Mr Murray. Keep up the good work.

    • David

      “I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Americans resident in Uk must be told they are no longer allowed to remain if they voted for Dubya, Obama, Trump or the Hillary billy, since by doing that they declared themselves ardent supporters of Us imperialism, warmongering, genocide, torture and industrial levels of digital surveillance. Such people should not be welcome here and if kicking them all out kick-starts a world doing the same, then maybe Americans will start voting for people for whom inhumanity is not daily normality.”

      And thus you fall neatly into the trap that has been laid. The poor saps who voted are no more or less to blame than all the Brits who voted for Blair, Brown, Cameron or May. Did these voters also declare themselves ardent supporters of US imperialism, warmongering, genoicde, torture, surveillance etc.? Because they voted for it just as surely as the Americans did. And by the way a vote for Nicola Sturgeon or Jeremy Corbyn will turn out the same way.

      The political manipulators and oligarchs control us by dividing and conquering, deliberately fomenting discontent, manipulating us to fight each other over meaningless nonsense while they steal our food, our chattels, our lives, and even our very souls. Point your finger where it belongs. Not at the silly voters who voted for one candidate or another, believing the lying promises of peace, justice, prosperity and freedom which every one of those candidiates made. But at the candidates themselves, and at the shady web of wealthy donors (and their lieutenants, hangers-on, wheel-greasers and agents), which controls the politicians, the press, the secret police forces, and the media.

      Place the blame where it truly lies!

      • Dungroanin

        Don’t forget the excellent women bloggers too Vanessa Beely, Caitlin Johnstone. Also the excellent regular posts at moonofalabama.

        There are many others with specialist career knowledge Colonel Pat Laing for example on US military imtelligence and nearer home Richard Murphy for all things to do with accountancy, taxation and government spending.

        Of course a lot are mentioned btl 😉

        There really is no need to consume the various spam frim tge MSM pretending to be offering different versions of Spam spam spam #

  • Goose

    On the subject of the guardian. The guardian and the Washington Post along with numerous other newspapers websites such as The Intercept set up SecureDrop type, whistleblower submission systems, that preserve anonymity. They then appealed for whistleblowers to use them. How on earth is this appeal and desire to receive, handle and publish classified documents any different from what Assange is currently facing 175 years for?

    The collective hypocrisy of the media over Assange because of petty dislike of the individual, is an absolute disgrace. Why aren’t they defending this man doing what they were – and in many cases – still are doing? Nobody seems to realise what’s at stake with this ridiculous prosecution.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Goose June 19, 2019 at 00:05
      But The Intercept is owned by a very dodgy character, and a number of whistleblowers have been snared through the Intercept’s ‘sloppiness'(?). Who in their right minds would trust the other two you mentioned?
      With all the search engine’s algorithms, I can’t find the article which exposed The Intercept’s lack of whistleblower’s ID protection.
      I believe three got caught due to the Intercept’s ‘bad security’.

      • David

        ‘secret’ data-drops , you are playing with groups who claim ‘mastery of the internet’ , and have funding to achieve this…

        the best way for serious whistle-blowers to quasi anonymously share/send secrets in this connected world is to rewrite them on a piece of paper, stick them in a thin envelope, inside another envelope – then you get the problem – who to send to?

        you are facing a ‘watering-hole’ attack as any potential person/establishment will, naturally today, be ‘staked-out’

        I’m not a blower of whistles, tho’ may have simulated such for the purposes of art/science whatever, I’d probably nowadays write to Sophie in ‘t Veld (random choice) through her diplomatic bag…

        the endemnicity in our media of grey/black actors (from our state) (aimed at our citizens) should not be underestimated. I just met a pair of uk cyberwarriors typing away in a tag team on some very obtuse UK website, a top UK hundred website, but for a niche and youthful readership – I was quite surprised to meet wombles A & B diluting the discourse with twaddle. (Presumably just the single workstation at the Brigade, with a few throwaway plausible personalities meddling)

        it’s almost beyond fixing

        • Goose


          Nor am I.

          They say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel and it’s undoubtedly true.

          The people putting up the ‘cyber resistance’ against this site and their fellow citizens for merely questioning things are no doubt well meaning, but nonetheless overly patriotic, brainwashed fools. It’s easy to tell a bunch of impressionable people things like ‘they are trying to weaken our resolve’ etc. And ‘the enemy is among us’… then let them loose. The people doing this are outrageous and their arguments would be easily defeated if they ever came out of the shadows to debate with people like Craig about their right to stifle free speech in our country; a country where our ancestors fought hard to protect that free speech.

          • Kerch'eee Kerch'ee Coup

            @Spencer Eagle
            All typewriters had to be registered with a sample typescript each year oop in north Korea

      • Goose

        I agree on the Intercept’s sloppiness and Reality Winner, the jailed whistleblower ,certainly knows about that. Although, you have to believe in people like Glenn Greenwald – look at the political scandal he’s just exposed in Brazil and the difficulties that’s giving him in terms of the threats to his citizenship. Let’s assume, certainly in Reality Winner’s case it was a genuine blunder. I’d agree though, The Intercept is certainly of questionable trustworthiness these days.

        My point isn’t about the relative trustworthiness of various publications though. It’s about the shortsightedness of all the collective media in not defending Assange, when the precedent his case might set is to make investigative journalism in the public interest illegal.

        • pete

          Re “…agree on the Intercept’s sloppiness and Reality Winner”
          I too agree the Intercept let down Reality Winner badly when they verified the document/s they had by releasing a copy which was used to track her down. This was naive of them, but their administration was such that it was not up to dealing with the forces they were critical of. They had not realised that the peculiarities of the document would leave traces that would reveal or narrow down who leaked it. Documents can be marked in all kinds of subtle ways that will betray their origin, photocopier’s can leave hard to detect traces of their location and ID in a series of coded dots which would be easy to miss.
          But that by itself is not an argument to dismiss the Intercept as something that cannot be trusted. It is just that we need to recognise that they too have an opinion and that we need to be aware that they may have ideals that are not identical to the ones we might prefer.
          An example of the difficulties they have to deal with is shown in this article:

      • uncle tungsten

        Try greyzone Paul. I vaguely recall they ran story on the trap that intercept was setting.
        Maybe Off Guardian ran one as well.
        Maybe search by the victims name.

      • ZigZag Wanderer

        Indeed it is hard to trust the Intercept these days . Whilst Glenn Greenwald is banging the drum for freedom of speech , his boss Pierre Omidyar is very active in funding groups dedicated to internet censorship.

      • Jen

        Is this the article you are looking for?

        Whitney Webb (Mint Press): “Another Whistleblower Bites the Dust as The Intercept Adds a Third Notch to Its Burn Belt”

        Incidentally Hale had been in contact with Jeremy Scahill who’s supposed to be an experienced journalist. It would have been Scahill’s responsibility to protect Hale.

  • Loony

    Why do people care what the MSM writes or says?

    It is a dying industry and the noise it makes is little more than its own death rattles.

    In the 1950’s sales of the News of the World came in at about 8 million/week. Today its replacement newspaper, The Sun on Sunday, averages sales of just over 1.1 million and sales are on a downward trend. No-one cares about the BBC and so the BBC are about to launch an economic war on the old in order to force old people to subsidize their puerile output and the puerile lives of the people responsible for producing arrant garbage.

    In the US people like Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon of CNN have a lower audience than many internet commentators.

    Newspapers are largely worthless and so people like Jeff Bezos and Carlos Slim can get control on the cheap. Naturally such people attempt to make money by promoting policies that benefit their existing businesses. Chief among these is endless immigration – thus giving Bezos access to an endless supply of cheap labor and Slim makes money out of Mexicans trying to send money back to Mexico to support their families.

    In the UK failing enterprises like the Guardian will sell themselves to security services on the cheap. No-one believes the lies that these people write and although MI6 and select billionaires have acquired public mouthpieces for not much money, they have still wasted their money as literally no-one pays any attention to them.

    The last remaining hope for these people is draconian internet censorship. They are not able to compete in the free market and so are seeking to get the competition banned and de-platformed. No-one really cares about “hate speech” and all the rest it is just useful cover to censor people that are able to out compete the legacy media. What they write and what they say is far less important than what they are lobbying for,

    Anyone that despises the lies of the media should be supporting all forms of alternative media irrespective as to whether you agree with the message or find the messenger attractive or unattractive.

    • Garth Carthy

      “Why do people care what the MSM writes or says?
      It is a dying industry and the noise it makes is little more than its own death rattles.”

      Well, Loony, it’s hard to disagree with that with regard to the printed media, but just about everybody watches the news on one of the main TV channels and so the mainstream media still influences millions of people even though it frequently protrays a biased (elite-centric) picture of the world.
      I would add that though the printed media may be dying, newspapers still sell many millions of copies and each of those single copies are often read by other members of the family, etc.
      I mean, you just have to go into any paper shop or supermarket and you can hardly avoid seeing the headlines smearing Corbyn or asserting that “Russia or Iran did it”.

    • Ian

      And listen to opinionated bar-room bores like yourself holding forth with vehement denunciations of anybody who disagrees with them, on subjects they have a flimsy, passing acquaintance with? You make a good case for the MSM.

      • andic

        “Anyone that despises the lies of the media should be supporting all forms of alternative media irrespective as to whether you agree with the message or find the messenger attractive or unattractive.” Loony

        “And listen to opinionated bar-room bores like yourself holding forth with vehement denunciations of anybody who disagrees with them, on subjects they have a flimsy, passing acquaintance with? You make a good case for the MSM.” Ian

        I know a lot of loony’s posts get trashed on here but you need to take a look at yourself here.

        There decent people in all strata of politics and the first step is listening and accepting the olive branch – simply if you’re not willing to try then you are not really a nice person.

        A lot of Craig’s article criticises the Guardian people who consider themselves of the right and who could not dream of living in a country where Corbyn is PM might be surprised to realise that the paper they consider left wing garbage is actually a fascist outlet. (By some definitions).

        It’s them and us and if tofu knitting vegans and church going little old ladies and everyone in between can’t realize that then we might just go and watch love island

    • Dungroanin

      MSM should also include ‘Hollywood’, and entertainment industries such as Netflix and computer gaming.

      For example that George Clooney, the Choef cheerleader of the White Helmets, is the mega millionaire face of the billionaires who have him selling any number of variations on their right to exceptionalism – and he’s probably completely ruined Catch 22 in his version!

      There is a full spectrum delivery of the nonsense propaganda from the youngest pre pubescents age to the oldest voters.

      Its not the medium that matters – its the message!

  • Athanasius

    Until quite recently I would have agreed the whole thing was a false flag. I still think that’s quite likely, but I now give some credence to the possibility of it actually having been Iran. Iran signed a deal with the US under Obama, and it can be clearly shown that they kept to every last jot and tittle of the agreement. It wasn’t Iran that broke it and it wasn’t Iran that revoked it. Trump voided the deal and imposed sanctions on Iran which are seriously hurting it. Now that country’s back is to the wall. To all intents and purposes, the US has declared war, and it’s entirely possible the Iranians are fighting back with whatever weapons they have to hand. If they’re going down, they’ll take the entire western economy with them. I’m not entirely sure that this IS what’s happening, but it’s a possibility.

    One way or the other, either by it’s own direct actions or through the influence of it’s agents over Trump, the trail leads back to another country whose name we’re not allowed to mention because that would be “hate speech”.

    • Goose


      Interviewer : are you saying Iran self-sabotaged itself in a statement to give the US a reason to attack?

      Official : Yes

      Interviewer : So if it was an intentional statement why did they rush to remove the evidence and then issue a denial?

      Think about the utterly absurd contradictory logic we are being asked to accept by serious commentators in our MSM.

      • Athanasius

        I’m not saying they actually did it. I’m simply saying it’s not completely out of the ball park. Either way, we both know who’s ultimately at the back of it. In the end, the Iranians are getting hosed.

        • Goose

          Even if you go down the path of it was a ‘show of strength’.

          Still makes no sense targeting allies. Like setting your own house on fire.

    • Ox Vorontsova

      The threat to exceed production of nuclear fuel contrary to the deal against the EU endorses the narrative that this attack was sanctioned by Tehran.

    • Dungroanin

      The FUKUS empire is making a grand show of their forced retreat as the SCO throws its mighty arms around Iran.
      Syria and Turkey to follow
      With India and Pakistan as full members now – the supposed anti muslim bias of the SCO is dissipated. SE Asia has already been established as the major trading partner of the SCO.

      It won’t be the US Navy and CENTCOM providing ‘protection’ in the Gulf of Arabia for much longer.

      Hey even Israel and Ukraine are saying they want in on the SCO!!!

      Lol. Time for a bit ofCorbyn baiting as usual.

  • Tony_0pmoc

    Interesting analysis, re US fabricated mine tanker attack, though I think it will be disastrous if true, because I suspect Iran will respond very aggressively, at obvious naval targets, as it has the missiles to do so. This could easily escalate into a full blown war, involving nuclear weapons, because the current US leadership, are that insane. Pompeo and Bolton, are even more insane than Cheney, and “Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain. The world has gone mad, and there is no evidence the UK Government are helping to restore any kind of balance. They too appear to be infected.

    “Why the US rushed to propagate the ‘naval mine’ scenario to explain recent attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman”


  • PaulH

    On Iran, have you seen the Moon of Alabama’s take on it? Maybe the credibility of the US has got to the point where a false flag false flag is a clever strategy.

    • Tony_0pmoc

      PaulH, Yeh, Ex-Syria Ambassador Peter Ford agrees with him, though I doubt anyone else will, even The Americans (internally)

      • Tony_0pmoc

        “Trump offered to suspend sanctions while negotiating with Iran, Khamenei rejected the offer: more attacks expected” By Elijah J Magnie


        ““The selling of oil was compared to a horde of wolves hunting together: when one is unable to hunt, others replace him. When Iran was under sanctions unable to sell its crude oil production daily, Saudi Arabia and Russia replaced Iran and increased their production and delivery. This is why Sayyed Ali Khamenei told the Iranian leadership to no longer consider any country as a durable friend and ally.”

        Today, the Gulf of Oman has become the operational stage to attack oil tankers. The oil tankers suffered multiple attacks. Had the attackers aimed to sink the oil tankers, this would have created an ecological disaster in the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean. Iran wants everybody to sit around the negotiation table, including the Gulf countries, but only once the sanctions are lifted.

        “President Trump is betting on maintaining the status-quo. This doesn’t suit Iran, because its economy will suffer dearly. Binding the deep economic wound and holding on until Trump ends his first mandate is playing into Trump’s hand and this is not going to happen. The tension in the Gulf was generated when Trump decided to pull out of the nuclear deal (known as the JCPOA). Let him pay the price now. If Iran cannot export its crude oil it means the country must be ready for war”, continue the source.

        Russia advised Iran to remain within the JCPOA and Iran promised to withdraw only gradually. The Iranian leadership believes Trump would like to see Iran pull out completely from the nuclear deal so he can accuse Tehran of moving towards a nuclear bomb.

        It is a real war that is unfolding in the Middle East today, a war where oil tankers and oil delivery to the world (30% of world oil supply goes through the Gulf) are the targets. President Trump and his Middle Eastern allies will have to bear the responsibility of the losses and the increase in the oil price worldwide due to attacks on oil tankers that are not likely to stop even in the face of US threats.

        If Iran considers the sanctions detrimental to the survival of its population in the medium term, it means Iran is ready to go to war and accept the consequences. It is not possible to threaten a country that is already foundering economically. However, for Trump to lift sanctions would provide ammunition for the Democrats to attack Trump in his forthcoming campaign.

        The other choice would be to lift sanctions and invite Iran to negotiate. And the last choice would be to challenge Iran, confront it and accept that the entire Middle East will go up in flames. After all, the Iranian leadership welcomed the US aircraft carrier coming to the Gulf and called it a “shooting gallery”. The ball is firmly in the US court.”

        • Hatuey

          Utter junk. As if anyone in Iran thinks a war with the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Britain, to name but a few, would solve a thing.

  • uncle tungsten

    On tankers and other accidents in any gulf you care to imagine. The outcome of the bombing of the tankers is that the price of oil and gas will rise. Shipping has now moved rapidly up the scale to ‘risky’. Given the USA intention to obliterate Iran and its primary military attack force then drones and rpg’s or phosphorous bombs will be the weapon of choice. Not just Iran will use them though, the defence of the umma will be taken up by all and throughout the main transit routes and everywhere a tanker goes. There will be no hiding place for a ship that has a tiny radio homing beacon onboard somewhere.

    The rise in tne price of oil will escalate should USA attack Iran, Trump will lose his base as they go driving right now in their ‘driving season’.

    What will be the takeaway lesson from the latest attacks? break america, damage their economy until they scream. Drones are now the weapon of choice and Trump is their first hostage.

    • Goose

      I doubt very much the people around Trump(Bolton & Pompeo) are really friends of Trump, or his MAGA supporters. They probably see them as H.Clinton saw them – as a bunch of yokels , ‘a basket of deplorables’. These men are Republicans but they’re not populists.

      How could they be? It’s obvious that all State officials in all agencies are at best embarrassed by Trump and his rants about ‘Deep state plots’ on Twitter, at worst humiliated. If war results in Trump’s base abandoning him then people like the ever hawkish Bolton, Id imagine, will see it as serving two purposes.

      What they won’t want however, is a Warren or Sanders Presidency.

      • Dom

        Bolton has never occupied a more powerful position of influence than he does now. The idea he would advance his agenda further by getting rid of Trump perhaps requires more vigorous thought.

        • Goose

          They might figure Trump is going to lose anyway.

          I follow US politics in the UK media , but I’m no expert on US politics, I’d guess in any head-to-head Trump loses to either Warren or Sanders. I believe Trump beats Biden because black voters and Bernie supporters simply won’t be enthused enough to turn out for creepy uncle Joe.

          • remember kronstadt

            Not likely to ditch POTUS when he has a handful of wars and the economy feels good and the Bolton gang will do all they can to keep him sweet. Democrats will do everything they can to not win an election, again.

          • Goose

            Amazing how the big money comes rolling in behind those candidates that are quite obviously the least appealing and least able to win. I don’t have a vote, but I know if I did, I wouldn’t, couldn’t vote for Biden.

          • RandomComment

            The UK media, lead by the Beeb, has been hostile to Trump (with exceptions). The polls you are reading are suppression polls. If you were more familiar with US politics, you would have seen how Hillary routinely out-polled Trump by huge margins, yet we know the result.

            Whether you agree, or not, a majority of US citizens don’t want socialism. Warren hasn’t a chance – Trump destroyed her over the genealogy issue. Sanders – everyone knows now how corrupt the DNC is and how a vote for him would be a vote for Hilary.

            She will be running, I promise you.

            One thing I agree with is that “creepy uncle Joe” has no chance. Trump would love to run against him, easy meat (and with good reason).

            In fact I’m struggling to think of anyone who has a chance for the Dems. Anyone remotely good is way down the list.

          • Ash

            > Whether you agree, or not, a majority of US citizens don’t want socialism.

            Actually, if you refrain from calling it “socialism”, they do.

          • Aloha

            Here is a great interview with Nick Brana who worked inside the Democratic party for more than a decade. He knows the machine like few others do, and he sums up very well how the DNC is in total control of who they will put in to run against Agent Orange.

      • Northern

        I get the impression a Sanders presidency wouldn’t actually be much more difficult for them than a second Trump term, he’s closer to the centre ground than the media tries to portray him, and he’s exposed to quite a lot of the Military Industrial Complex on the home front, at least in terms of his voter base. Supporting Nuclear capable F35s in his own back yard doesn’t fill me with confidence.

        • Wikikettle

          Northern. The F35 is the biggest MIC money spinner in history. Our Royal Navy got its two aircraft carriers. That’s about 80
          F35’s. RAF not happy. However the F35 is so high tech and fragile that only about 50% are fly capable ! I would not nuclear arm them. HSE would agree. Its amazing that after WW2, when we were broke, we designed and built Vulcan, Valliant, Victor, Lightning and Harrier. The TSR2 was years ahead of anything the US had. Another home industry gone.

          • Wikikettle

            The Blackburn Buccaneer was nuclear capable, carrier capable, very very low flying capable and beat everything at drills in the US. Watch ‘ The Buccaneer at Red Flag with Ken Norman ‘ on you tube. Now our great RAF is reduced to doing US bidding.

        • Goose

          I’ve heard that about Sanders. But he has to get votes…. and just look at Tulsi Gabbard if you’re outside that Overton window(window of permitted discourse). Americans are fed pro-military, military industrial complex propaganda, it’s very hard to oppose anything ‘military’ without being unfairly labelled unpatriotic by Fox News etc.

          Tulsi Gabbard when making her own criticism of interventionist US foreign policy, seemingly feels the need to bring up her own military service backstory (She was in the Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005). If she didn’t have that experience the media would absolutely slate her as unpatriotic.

          • Northern

            Yeah I suppose it is true that a non-interventionist presidential candidate would immediately be labelled as soft on terrorism etc etc. Testament to the power and depth of American propaganda that people can be fed all this borderline fascist, exceptionalism crap without noting the historical parallels.

          • Goose

            A few examples; In the UK we all know lots of people on the left and many in parties like the SNP, Greens who think NATO is a Cold War relic that should probably have been wound down after 1989-1990, when the Iron Curtain was lifted and the Cold War came to an end.. Moreover, they think, if anything, it now increases the risk of war with Russia and that Europe could probably have much better relations without it. But no one here dare say so, lest be labelled a stooge of the Kremlin. Ditto nuclear disarmament. Corbyn is having to stay within that window of permitted discourse.

            In the US, Sanders stalled, then belated struggled to criticise moves by Bolton, Pence and Pompeo to remove Maduro in Venezuela. His hesitation was probably due to the fact the media would have immediately accused him of supporting Maduro’s regime and its very left-wing policies. Anyone so much as talking about reducing the size of the crazy enormous military budget, in order to spend on schools and other essential infrastructure, would face charges they intend to leave the country completely defenceless in those horrible TV attack ads.

            What you have to ask is, is this person more likely than the other person to do the right thing.

        • nevermind

          Choosing F-=35’s to carry any nuclear ordenance is a seriously bad decisipn as it diminishes one’ tactical abilities and to an extend that it can be called selfharming.
          Civilians around the world, beware.

    • Sharp Ears

      Here, in leafy Surrey, unleaded petrol is 3p cheaper than it was last week. ?? Perhaps demand has fallen due to the declining economy.

  • Laguerre

    There won’t be any new evidence, other than fabrications, which the US is not bad at doing. The vast quantity of evidence suppressed makes it otiose. The point here is to have the noble truth-speaking Dutch do the attack, as more believable than if it were the US.

    • David

      the Daily Torygraph (oh, and Grauniad too) article quotes a few times from that initiative source of high integrity, Bellingcat, “overwhelming … evidence”

      they presumably with spooky help might have correctly identified some of the murky chain of command for Rus proxy war in Donbas, possibly, but I still wait patiently to see accurate “evidence” for MH17, from ‘Carlos’ for one,

    • Loony

      There is no doubt that aspects of the US administration are keen on fabrications. One reason why fabrications are so popular is that the population demands that they be lied to. Of course not all lies are equal.

      Take your own objection to being lied to over the situation in the Middle East. Next compare and contrast this with own propagation of lies with regard to Germany maintaining the Euro as a strong currency.

      Lies beget lies. It is surely best to stop telling lies and to try to analyze situations for what they are and with a view to determining the truth.

  • Mary Pau!

    I told my sister, an old fashioned Socialist, about the Guardian’ s current cosy relationship with MI6, and their News editor Paul Johnson sitting on a key Defence committee, and she was quite shocked. “The Guardian always prides itself on its editorial independence, she said. !haha.) Not any more.

    • John A

      Well the Guardian’s CIA source twins, Luke the convicted plagiarisst Harding, and Shaun ‘I saw Russian tanks crossing the border but forgot to bring a camera or my mobile phone, but a Ukrainian cowherd woman backs me up’ Walker, have both jumped into action with articles in the CIA house rag, the Guardian.

    • Kempe

      You need to read up on how the DSMA committee works. The majority of its members are senior editorial staff from various sections of the media.

      You’ll note that Paul Johnson is no longer a member.

  • Northern

    Somewhat O/T but still interesting;

    Anybody got a link to a well written article on the revelations from the Roger Stone trial? I ask as I’ve read several articles on it today but all of them from individual blogs, often writing in English as a second language, so I’m still not massively sure of the veracity of this whole story.

    The prosecutors seem to have conceded that a whole cornerstone of their case is based on a 3rd party draft report (the Crowdstrike ‘intelligence assessment’) that they were never allowed to examine? Looks like the Obama administration deliberately ran a smear campaign against Trump in an attempt to hobble his presidency before it even began, which I’m sure the majority media will be quick to post down the memory hole for most people. I’m not familiar with US law but sounds pretty treasonous to me?

    Would be fantastic to watch all the deep state cockroaches on both sides running for cover if the democrats attempted to impeach Trump and he responded by going after Obama for treason. Perhaps it’s already been agreed by both parties to avoid mutually assured destruction.

  • Jm

    Who’s running Rory Stewart?

    His wife?

    They’d make a fine espio-couple I’m sure.

    • Bob

      What is an espio-couple? The only meanings of Espoo I could find are a character from sonic the hedgehog or maybe a way of saying spying. Either way I don’t understand your post.

  • A.C.Doyle

    From Craig Murray’s opening post:

    “The second development ought to have been the biggest media story of the decade in the UK, if we had anything like a free and honest media. Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, made plain the Trump administration’s intent to prevent the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Pompeo told a meeting of Jewish leaders.”

    To me, the most sinister aspect of this is not the statement from Pompeo that the US would interfere in the UK elections. It is rather the circumstances under which he was obliged to make such a statement.
    Pompeo is both a politician and a person of limited integrity. On the matter of integrity, he said so himself: so when Corbyn is presented to him as a threat and he his asked to state how he would respond to such a threat, he would naturally be expected to make noises that his audience wished to hear (summarized): We’d push back even preemptively etc. etc. Actually to do this he would not even need to know who Corbyn was (or even be able to find the UK on a map). His instincts and his assessment of what would go down well with his audience are all that is required.
    As I said, it is the circumstance under which he said it. It was a meeting with British Jewish leaders. British Jews are about 0.5% of the UK population. For them to be seen to be openly attempting to manipulate US foreign policy and the UK electoral system to the detriment of the remaining 99.5% of the UK population is likely itself to catalyze exactly the antisemitism that they fear.

    • Doodlebug

      An astute observation, if I may say so.

      It appears the word ‘antisemitism’ is itself the result of a semantic ‘hi-jacking’, semitic peoples being descended from a group with an archaic (semitic) language in common. They include Arabs (and therefore Palestinians). Such academic nicety has long since been eclipsed by the more commonplace understanding however, that antisemitism is a specifically anti-Jewish attitude.

      There is much that may be said concerning the hypocrisy that is the benchmark of the state of Israel, but the following link is a must-read for anyone in any doubt. It dates from 1982 – an ‘eye blink’ in time when set against a geopolitical development that’s been in train for well over a century. I would draw readers’ attention to the comments noted on p.4 in particular.

      • lysias

        Palestinians not only speak the Semitic language Arabic, they are presumably largely descended from the Hebrews and other Canaanites, speakers of Semitic languages, who inhabited ancient Palestine. Why do Jews think Palestinians who converted to Islam ceased to be part of the Jewish people to whom God promised Palestine? Muslims are monotheists, beieving that the God that they worship is the God of Abraham, they practise circumcision, they observe dietary laws, they honor the prophets of the Old Testament. What is their sin? Is it that they believe Jesus to have been the Messiah?

        • Doodlebug

          I cannot answer your various questions directly, but I can provide a quote from the link above, which I would suggest people read in full:

          ‘Foreign Minister Abba Eban noted in 1969 that “we are far from considering our Oriental immigrants as a bridge to our integration in an Arabic-speaking world. Our objective is to imbue them with a Western mentality and to prevent ourselves from being led into an unnatural Orientality.” Former Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur spoke even more bluntly of a “retarded mentality deeply rooted in underdeveloped modes of thought, from which even the academic Orientals cannot free themselves sufficiently.”‘

          What strikes me about the sentiments expressed in these comments is their similarity to those espoused elsewhere decades ago and which argued for the supremacy of a mythical Aryan race.

      • A.C.Doyle

        It is true that the term antisemitism has been much abused. At one level it is a form of racism. Those who are the victims of racism can also practice racism which I think is one of the points you were attempting to highlight from the quoted article. What is clear is that antisemitism has lead to monstrous crimes (Holocaust etc.) but the term is also used in bad faith as an instrument of policy.
        Because of the seriousness of the situation, it is important to understand (that is comprehend) what it is. It is this. It is a value system clash.

        Take an example outside the moral/ethical domain. One from basic chemistry. If you have on the one hand a strong acid and on the other hand you have a strong alkali, you cannot say that one is superior to the other. They are simply different. What happens if you mix them ? You get an violent reaction. It is neither “right” or “wrong”. It simply happens.

        Do the same with two human value systems. Now are talking about the value systems themselves, not necessarily the degree of fidelity by which the individuals may adhere to them.

        On the one hand we have a “Western” value system which is predominantly built on a fundament of Christian values which
        include being fair to others, forgiveness (sermon on the Mount) etc.

        On the other hand, we have a pre-Christian value system which is law and exceptionalism based. 10 commandments / God’s chosen people, an eye for an eye etc.

        What happens when they mix ?

        Analyse a recent practical example. The issue of restitution of war era Jewish property in Poland which led to this statement from Israel’s Acting Foreign Minister Israel Katz: “The Poles suckle antisemitism from their mothers’ milk… ”
        One point of view is that the Jews have a entitlement to that property based on law.
        Another point of view is that the Jews should drop the case and may not have not been scrupulously fair in returning Palestinian property. You don’t have to understand or accept these or any of the other arguments, you simply have to see the conflict is based on a value system clash and is likely to run on.

        Well, this started out with Corbyn and Jewish leaders. How does that translate into the accusations of antisemitism within the Labour party? One thing is to examine the concrete actions which have lead to the charges of antisemitism to see if they are simple manifestations of a value system clash which will naturally occur, whether they exhibit some profound evil, or whether the accusations are bogus instruments for achieving another objective. That as an alternative to simply accepting the blanket charge of antisemitism with all its connotations. Politics is anyway a dirty business.

  • BrianFujisan

    It is A great bit of Work Craig..Thanks..that must have taken time..

    No One Believes a word of these Lies.. And we can’t say it’s laughable, A war with Iran ?

    they are / Were cooking up strikes long before the Tankers False Flags

    And the Carelessness of it.. What about the Environment – if they Fucked up and the Tankers Sank – matters not, it would seem.

    Anyway..thanks for a great post Craig

    And Many Commenters Too.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ BrianFujisan June 19, 2019 at 23:23
      What about the environment if they hit Iran’s nuclear plants?

      • BrianFujisan

        Another Good point Paul

        But Again .. It’s OVER THERE .. ME.. Not as if the listless winds wilfully carry Beyond

  • Wikikettle

    US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson interesting interview on you tube with The Real News Network ” Wilkerson: US Further Isolates Itself From its Allies Over Iran Policy “

  • Paul Barbara

    ‘Former Naval officer exposes flaws in US intel on Iran oil tanker attack’:;
    ‘…According to a former senior US intelligence official, a meeting in Vice-President Cheney’s office occurred a few weeks after five Iranian patrol boats approached three US Navy warships in the Strait of Hormuz. Press reports described Iranian ship-to-ship radio transmissions threatening to “explode” the warships. But within a week, an internal Pentagon inquiry concluded that there was no evidence that the Iranian boats were the source of the transmissions, and that they originated from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Regarding the meeting with Cheney, the former US official said that:
    “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington.”…’
    That is the US’s MO; it’s how they start wars, lies and False Flag attacks/hoaxes. They get away with the same trick time after time, because the MSM refuse to do the job they are meant to, and instead act as the propaganda arm of the ‘government’.

    • Kempe

      Still believes ” that on balance Iran is “probably” behind the series of Gulf oil tanker attacks ” though.

        • Doodlebug

          In a similar act of undue credulousness the BBC last night reported from a US vessel carrying their man to see the Japanese tanker for himself. He went on to describe the damage caused by the ‘limpet mine’, as the camera zoomed in on the near-the-waterline puncture – toward the stern of the ship. The site actually visited by the Iranian vessel, and for whatever purpose, was of course somewhat higher up and much nearer the bow. Viewers were not shown that spot however.

  • certa certi

    ‘Limpet mines are placed below the waterline. There are numerous reasons for this. Firstly, holes above the waterline will not sink a ship.’

    Relevant only if the intent was to sink the vessel. Thus far the perpetrators don’t seem to have intended to sink anything. The intent seems to have been to demonstrate a capability, and to raise costs. Still, it’s a hard move by Iran – I don’t accept that the US did it, they haven’t used pseudo terrorism for some decades – and risks casualties to civilian seafarers. Terrorism.

    The recent attacks have raised insurance costs –

    • michael norton

      US Navy MQ-4C Triton.
      Americans claiming their drone was shot down by the Iranians.
      Recently American oil units in Basra were bombed,
      hotting up.

      • Laguerre

        Not “American oil units in Basra were bombed”. **International** oil units in Basra were were hit by one rocket which could have been fired by anybody.

    • pete

      Re: ”I don’t accept that the US did it, they haven’t used pseudo terrorism for some decades…”
      Quite right, the US tend to focus more on indiscriminately blowing up wedding parties and the like. But still, if you think the Iranians did it to inflate insurance costs, does that not also inflate the cost for themselves as well as their rivals? Aren’t the prime suspects in such a scenario the people most like to gain from this, that is the Insurers themselves?

      • certa certi

        No. Iran didn’t do it just to inflate insurance costs. That is one consequence which feeds into raised costs and threatens more. If the alleged perps had wished to sink a vessel they would have. They haven’t. This is what the shipping industry thinks. Nobody in the industry believes the US did it. Mr Murray’s point is irrelevant. Patterns of behaviour and comparisons in the contemporary case could more usefully be drawn from an examination of the Iran Iraq tanker war.

        Last month Iranian National Security Council spokesman Khosravi said for the record that he didn’t believe the US would ‘choose to test the capabilities of the Iranian Armed Forces.’ Clearly then Iran believes it can push back against sanctions without US military consequences.

  • Sharp Ears

    The BBC has this as its main story on the ‘World’ section of its website. Determined to keep the hype going it would seem. ‘US officials say’ reminds me of their usual practice when ‘reporting’ from Palestine when they use the phrase ‘Israel says’ as if to authenticate their stories.

    ‘A US military drone has been shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile while in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, US officials say. One official told Reuters news agency the drone was a US Navy MQ-4C Triton.

    Earlier, Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said it had shot down a US drone over Iranian airspace, near Kuhmobarak in the southern province of Hormozgan.’
    34 mins ago

  • Spencer Eagle

    We are fast approaching a real hot spot on the Iranian calendar, on the 3rd of July it will be 31st anniversary of the downing of Iran Air flight 655. If we recall, the passenger plane, on a scheduled flight from Tehran to Dubai, was shot down by a missile fired from USS Vincennes. All 298 passenger on board, including 66 children, perished. To this day the US government has never formally apologised for what unfolded on that day in 1988. I can’t help but think, as we fast approach ‘peak anger’ in Iran, the recent blatant and clumsy attempts at piling international blame and derision on Iran is part of a deliberate ‘stick poking’, intended to goad Iran into doing something stupid on the 3rd of July.

    • Goose

      You mean such as baiting them into an attack on a US naval vessel?

      The trouble is, if it’s a small crew in a dinghy with more grainy footage and accusations it was the Quds Force(in reality staged by Iran’s foes) it could be very difficult for the Iranians to disprove.

      With the tanker, and now the drone downing (deliberately put where they knew it’d be downed) the US is “establishing a pattern of behaviour” , that makes it easier to persuade the US public the Iranians are likely responsible for whatever comes next.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Goose June 20, 2019 at 11:43
        ‘..With the tanker, and now the drone downing (deliberately put where they knew it’d be downed) the US is “establishing a pattern of behaviour” , that makes it easier to persuade the US public the Iranians are likely responsible for whatever comes next….’
        Exactly what Britain did with Salisbury, as a softener-up to prepare the public for the coming CW False Flags in Syria.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Courtenay Barnett June 20, 2019 at 12:43
      But the US just regurgitates historical False Flags. They wanted a war with Spain? They blew up the USS Maine, and blamed the Spanish.
      They wanted a war with Mexico? They sent a detachment of soldiers to disputed territory, then ‘disputed’ where they actually were when Mexican soldiers attacked them. Even Abraham Lincoln disputed the American claims, and got the nickname ‘Spotty Lincoln’. The US got their war, and great chunks of Mexican territory.
      Fast forward: they want a war with Iran, they attack shipping and blame Iran.
      They still want a war with Iran, they send a drone over Iran, and when Iran shoots it down, they say it was in International airspace.
      I know who I believe, but they may well get their war, with further False Flags or provocations.
      Pompous Pirate gives Iran a ‘Red Line’ – one US dead soldier and it’s war. So we can expect an alleged fatal attack on Americans, probably in Iraq.

  • J

    Good summary.

    Craig, does this mean the architects of this policy can now be tried as war criminals?

  • Andrew F

    “The Assange team had asked her to recuse herself on that pretty obvious basis, but she had refused.”

    This is not true Craig. Judge Arbuthnot has not been asked any such thing. Someone close to the Assange team, such as yourself, should ask why they didn’t do that.

    There was a headline on a piece by “The Canary” that suggested this. The best they could do to support it was a link to “Truth Dig” for a Chris Hedges article, which in turn was based on an interview with Nils Melzer on his RT show “On Contact”.

    The transcript of that show reveals that Melzer said no such thing.

    I hesitate to call this a “lie”, because that usually requires being knowingly dishonest. But the truth is definitely just getting its boots on with this Arbuthnot fabrication – and I hope people ask themselves why this falsehood has been allowed to circulate for three days without any correction by Wikileaks or Assange’s lawyers.

    And another thing, why have we not had a single direct message conveyed out from Julian in the last 15 months of incarceration by one of his many visitors? He always had plenty to say up until 28 March 2018, but since then his “team” has been complicit in his silencing. Why?

  • Wikikettle

    I don’t hear much from Jeremy Bowen. Is he still the BBC Mid East editor ? I read his book on the six day war. Always found his reporting balanced. Perhaps that’s why we don’t see or hear from him.

  • Jack

    ‘You’ll soon find out’ if US will strike Iran – Trump

    Where are the United Nations? Where are the European Union? For crying out loud, is there not one nation, leader out there that will protest at this moment?

    • Borncynical

      Indeed, Jack. Those who one would presume, as supposed allies, would have the greatest influence on the US all seem to be in the thrall of the greatest threat to mankind on the planet. Not that we didn’t know that, but this silence speaks volumes and just serves to endorse our understanding of the relationship.

    • TonyT12

      No-one fancies taking on a mad dog, however loud it barks and bears its teeth. That is the obvious explanation for the absence of sanity expressed by the United Nations or the EU. Out of self-preservation the UN and EU will steer clear and await the inevitable, hoping the carnage will be limited – which seems unlikely. Then they will wring their hands and say: “Oh dear”.

      Whatever the UN and EU may say is pretty much immaterial. Whatever Iran says or does at this stage is just as immaterial. Bolton and Pompeo want a war with Iran and that is the end of the discussion. That Donald Trump takes advice blind from warmonger hawks is tragic. Add Netanyahu and Salman to the cast of this tragedy and it is only a matter of time before the bombs start hitting Iran, and the Iranians find out if they have any friends at all.

      • michael norton

        The Donald is now claiming he believes that Iran would not have been so stupid to have down his drone on purpose, therefor, it must have been an accident.
        Now Donald must know Iran did it on purpose, so what is Donald’s strategy?
        Possibly the Iranians could say, Yes it was an accident, we will do what you want.
        Or possibly they will say We don not put up with anybodys spy planes overflying our lands, so we justifyably shot it down, do your worse Trump.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.