The mandated, acceptable opinions that we’re all currently being told we should hold are becoming more and confused, contradictory and insane. As a writer, one hates to keep going back to the 1984 well…but papers like The Guardian leave you very little choice. What are the following if not direct, pure examples of doublethink?
The Guardian, in one of their annonymous editorials the “Guardian View” on Putin’s speech yesterday, claim:
In the eyes of many Russians, the Syrian adventure has also brought tragedy for their own civilians, in the shape of the bombing of a plane full of holidaymakers. Rightly or wrongly, such a shock is seen as proof that there is a price to pay for intervention abroad…
And yet, in the weeks leading up to the all-too-predictable decision by the British parliament to drop some more bombs on Syria, the MSM printed – without contradiction, examination, or even a splash of irony – various claims of Cameron and Fallon et al. that the UK will be safer from terrorism as a result of their bombing campaign.
Here, in this sourceless saccharine mess of an article – about a poor family who went on holiday to a war-zone and got bombed by the Russians (it was definitely the Russians, because it happened at night) – the Guardian claims:
[Russian bombings] already appear to be entrenching the war and fuelling radicalisation.
One of a the interviewees adds:
“There is no Isis in our area at all, but there is going to be soon.”
All this, of course, was not mentioned in the run up the parliamentary vote – where such arguments were dismissed as “appeasement” by the press and “terrorist sympathising” by Cameron himself.
Perhaps most telling of all in this article is this line, from the same man, who is (allegedly) a fighter with the “Free Syrian Army”:
“Isis are not very good, but a lot of people think they are doing the correct thing against the regime,”
There you have it – ISIS are “not very good”, with their crucifying, organ-eating, burning people alive and such – but hey, at least they aren’t Assad, or Russian! It will be interesting to see if this is the first step in a rebranding of ISIS as “our bastards”, rather than evil incarnate. If that is their plan, they have made it very hard for themselves.
In an interview with Channel 4 News (reported by the Independent), Hammond claimed:
“There is one person in the world who can bring this madness to an end immediately and that is Mr Putin by picking up the telephone to Mr Assad and telling him the game is over,“
Now, that seems rather odd, given that we have been told that ISIS are a “multi-tentacled monster” who planning to flood Europe with heroin and dominate the world by 2020. Why on Earth would this “madness” end if NATO managed to talk Russia out of backing Assad? How would removing Assad end the threat of ISIS? An odd statement from Mr Hammond.
So….to sum up:
- Russia bombing ISIS makes Russia unsafe.
- The UK bombing ISIS makes Britain safer.
- Russia bombing ISIS radicalises the population, resulting in increasing numbers of terrorists.
- British bombing does not.
- ISIS are a quasi-omnipotent death cult, controlling the world’s heroin market and bent on world domination
- …but if NATO managed to get rid of Assad then they’d all give up and go home.
Good luck unravelling all that.