Is this ‘Plan B’? The new restrictions the Prime Minister announced at the Downing Street press conference sounded like a much-haggled-over compromise, with the details still being hammered out minutes before.
- The mandatory face mask policy will be extended from schools, shops, public transport and beauty parlous to theatres and cinemas – but not to pubs, bars or restaurants.
- Vaccine passports will be introduced for nightclubs and unseated indoor venues with more than 500 people, but not pubs, bars or restaurants – or No 10 Downing Street, presumably.
- Vaccine passports will be introduced for unseated outdoor venues with more than 4,000, and any outdoor venue, whether seated or unseated, with more than 10,000 people. (So some but not all football stadiums?)
- If you haven’t been double-jabbed, a negative lateral flow test result will enable you to access those venues that require a vaccine passport.
- Work from home – if you can.
If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, this isn’t ‘Plan B’ so much as ‘Plan C for Camel’.
It goes without saying that there is no evidence these measures will suppress infection of any Covid virus, let alone omicron. After all, vaccine passports in Scotland have had zero effect, as confirmed in the Scottish Government’s recent 70-page report.
Being double-jabbed only marginally reduces your susceptibility to infection from Delta at best, and probably doesn’t reduce it at all, and self-administered lateral flow test are notoriously unreliable and likely to produce more false negatives than false positives. So insisting that people produce evidence that they’ve been vaccinated or have tested negative before admitting them to (checks notes) nightclubs, unseated indoor venues with more than 500 people in them, unseated outdoor venues with more than 4,000 people and all outdoor venues with more than 10,000 is unlikely to have any impact on infection. Particularly when you factor in that the vaccines aren’t designed to protect people against the omicron variant.
Read more about this omnishambles on BBC News here, MailOnline here and the Telegraph here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Going into Iraq or Afganistan to throw out (or better, to destroy or disarm) the Taliban and Al Qaeda would have been justified as a defensive move following 9/11. To take over those places for decades was not justified. Indeed, in the UK the justification for Iraq2 was clearly a lie – Sadam clearly did not have WMD. No sensible justification for occupation of Afganistan or the anticipated outcomes were ever given to the British viters.
If 21yrs later you remain of the belief that 3 immensely strong steel and concrete buildings collapsed ‘into their socks’ as a result of fires started by the plane impacts (one without benefit of said impact) then you’ll definitely be interested in this bridge I have for sale!!
You also have to ignore the large number of firemen who reported hearing, feeling and observing the results of explosions in the basements and lower floors.
9/11 was the moment I realised the world was run by gangsters.
‘Back and to the left’ did it for me.
I’ll admit to only learning about WTC 7’s collapse some several years after the event. That’s what made me, well… think.
The BBC knew about it 30 minutes before it happened
This poor chap sadly died in an RTA on an open road driving a Volvo (appalling safety record, I know)
https://youtu.be/X6tikZimCQc
It’s interesting how the 9/11 scam is a red pill many otherwise sceptical people just won’t take.
Perhaps they could start here
https://www.ae911truth.org/
And then read this..
https://www.amazon.co.uk/9-11-Revealed-Unanswered-Questions/dp/0786716134
But ultimately, and apologies DS for getting so off-topic with this, the down voters gotta be either bots or shills & it don’t bother me none. I know what I know.
Big love everyone
For once I’ll admit to “down voting” and I’m not a bot or a shill.
No need to resort to complex explanations. I’m now a retired civil engineer. When I watched the collapsing towers in 2001, with my knowledge of structures and the behaviour of steel at elevated temperatures, and a ‘back of a fag packet’ estimate of the kinetic energy of the mass of the floors above the impact zone, it was no surprise to me that the pile-driving effect of that mass accelerated by gravity would cause the floors below to progressively fail spectacularly. When I later learned of the detail of how the steel beams were connected to the central support, it was consistent with my assumptions.
No complex explanation needed as to why you’re a ‘retired’ CE if that’s your summary.
Almost ‘Whittyesque’ in its emptiness, quite an achievement.
Hope you didn’t build anything round our way
Since you have reached a different conclusion please post your calculations to this forum that show that the structure beneath the impact and fire affected zone could withstand the dynamic loading of the accelerating mass of the floors above. To give you a head start, here are 2 impartial bits of information:
The maximum fire temperatures attained in the WTC fires were in the range of 1000 to 1200degC.
I attach a graph showing the effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of steel. From it you can see that even at just 800degC the residual strength is only about 10% of the room temperature value.
Also, your qualifications and membership details of an internationally accredited professional body of civil/structural engineers would be appreciated.
Strange Loop
I think that’s a clear win to me.
Glad to see another Civil Engineer pointing out the obvious facts of the matter.
Some of the loopier theorists on here are either certifiable or (more likely) are Al Queda supporters.
And I’m someone who thinks the FBI & CIA absolutely sucks (see their treatment of the last US President democratically elected.)
But, of all the bad stuff the CIA and State Department have been involved in, their negligent insouciance in allowing Khomeini and his murderous chums to take over Iran was one of the worst.
Strange all the Conspiracy Freaks never mention that…
I knew being a DS follower meant having strange bedfellows but 2:1 is seriously depressing. It’s like discovering your fellow traveler is a flat-earther.
Edumacated eejit.
Yes, strange bedfellows indeed. But we’ve been there before. A few years ago Steven Lewandowski and Cooke published an “acclaimed” paper looking at every kind of barmy conspiracy theory, including 9/11, Mooon Landing, Elvis alive and well, Kennedy assassination and (of course) “Climate Deniers”.
The entire purpose of the paper was to “show” that people who pointed out all the lies and gross exaggerations in the “Settled Science” Glowbull Warming scam were as nutty as fruitcakes.
The likes of “Strange Loop” and his chums are either certifiable, Al Quaeda fans or Extinction Rebellion/ Ruinable energy freaks. Or maybe paid by Pfizer. There are lots of people out there VERY keen to discredit the Daily Sceptic.
I’ll take that bridge.
The two towers clearly collapse from the top down, the weight of the structure weakens by the impact and the fires resulting from tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.
I appreciate there is speculation over the other building but again I don’t believe it is in any way incredible that it collapsed from damage from the other towers.
Now I appreciate that i’ll never change your mind, fair enough, but not everything is a CIA black op.
Did I mention the CIA?
It really is a magnificent bridge. All I need is just a few bank details and it’s yours!!!
CIA’s dodgy. So are some people who have worked for the UK government, one of whom has a connection with the Falkland Islands. Doesn’t mean those islands are rightly Argentinian, contrary to what one Guardian article implied..
“The two towers clearly collapse from the top down”
I’d say that they disintegrate from the top down.
“The weight of the structure weakens by the impact”
The official explanation affords no credit to the physical impact of the planes: the towers were designed to cope with planes crashing into them
“Tens of thousands of gallons”
Nope, they wouldn’t have set off with tens of thousands of gallons. I just googled. It isn’t difficult.
But why did they did they disintegrate from the top when the fires were much lower down?
Agreed.
I trust the evidence of my own eyes.
The buildings explode, detonate, pulverised literally to dust within seconds.
And what steel remained was carted off pronto.
I suspect OBL was as surprised as anyone when they collapsed.
What I’m saying, is that ‘event’ resulted in the War on Terror, countless lives lost, many more immisered, and the cast-iron conviction of those responsible that they can do anything.
And here we are.
So what about the gazillions of people who witnessed 2 planes crashing into 2 towers? Including the many that were actually present, on the ground and in nearby buildings? What about all the people on the planes that perished? It does present a rather large caveat to your “it was an inside job done with thousands of sticks of dynamite that a team managed to plant unnoticed” theory.
I’m open to hearing alternative theories but with 9/11 you really can’t get passed the minor detail that was the planes. Or are you implying the buildings were in fact detonated just at the same nanosecond terrorists flew the planes into the buildings? That’s some impressive synchronisation, not just once but twice!
To be fair, actually starting your remarks with ‘whataboutery’ is pretty transparent, so thanks for that.
What is piquing me at the moment is the standard (i.e rubbish) counters being dredged from years ago, like they’re on an old disk drive somewhere.
I recognise your handle, but can’t recall your comment slant on topics, but I have new insight now and will be paying more attention.
Ta!!
Merely asking how the planes tie in to your theory that the towers were detonated. I’m missing the part where you’re expecting people to reasonably believe that this landmark could be both blown up with God knows how much explosive ( which happened to be placed and gone undetected for how long? ) and have 2 jumbo jets flown into it in the space of a couple of hours.
It always intrigues me that some people can’t get their head around the idea that insiders could pull off crashing three planes and demolishing three buildings within a few hours, but have no problem believing that a Saudi Arabian freedom fighter living in a cave in Afghanistan can orchestrate something similar.
Hello Mogwai. It is possible for both the planes to have hit and the towers to have been intentionally demolished, approximately one and a half hours later. A perfect cover for some very shady goings on.
The collapse of the seventh tower (which was never hit by a plane) was what made me sit up and think. It was so obviously a demolition. Please research what the building (WTC7) contained.
Nothing is as they say it is. There are soooo many unanswered questions. Questions which are met only with derision and denunciation and ad hominem. Good questions asked by very many very well credentialed people.
Ah so the explosives had already been put in situ, all under people’s noses, ready to be detonated on some special date, but a couple of planes just happened to be highjacked and a group of pesky terrorists end up unwittingly aiming for the same target and stealing the thunder of these shady and mass-murdering ‘Insiders’? Now that is the coincidence to end all coincidences. Man, those towers really were unpopular and destined to come down by hook or by crook.
I’ve never heard of a seventh tower. But until somebody explains to me, with convincing rationale, where the planes come into it this theory just sounds like a bad Hollywood movie plot to me.
Yes, just imagine what might have happened if the gunpowder plot had been successful. And if someone had got Leonardo’s helicopter to work!
You’ve never heard of the seventh tower. Go look it up. Prepare to have your world view bent a little.
Absolutely right. And you don’t initiate a structural collapse (a blow down) with “thousands of sticks of dynamite”, nor place the explosive or cutting charges half way up a structure!
Absolute horse manure.
And one must admit that what was going on between the so-called United States and “Saudi” Arabia was, well, quite provocative.
“American” cultural (and economic) imperialism was surely annoying (and continues to annoy) quite a lot of people, regardless of anything those nice people at the CIA might have done.
Thank God.
Someone else with sense.
How much difference would it have actually made if it was just the planes (or “aeroplanes” – Douglas Bader) rather than whatever you are suggesting?
Seriously???
Just as ‘back and to the left’ utterly destroys the Warren Commission conclusion of a lone assassin and confirms conspiracy, so does the collapse of the 3 WTC buildings – fires started by the plane impacts could never achieve that.
The NIST report is an early stab at Scientism, with data manipulation and lies, much like the Covid Inqury will be
Hugh, is it?
Got a little list now
Oliver Stone has no more credibility as an amateur forensics expert than Ivan Katchanovski, and it’s no wonder he featured Katchanovski in one of his silly films. What do you imagine happens when a bullet hits the spine or brain? People don’t just go limp, in fact they tend to “plank” – i.e., they stiffen up. You can see this in innumerable instances of US police bodycam footage (see Donut Operator’s channel). JFK was hit through the right hemisphere, from the occipital pole to the front, causing massive damage and causing his motor nerves to go haywire, hence the movement seen. Plus it’s naive is to think that bodies move in the direction of travel of the bullet when struck, which they don’t because relatively little momentum is imparted. There was a good documentary discussing this which is unfortunately only available via BitTorrent.
As to WTC7, yes it was highly unusual in that this was the first instance of a fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed building. I don’t think it’s wrong or peculiar to be sceptical of the official explanation, since it was so strange. For a very long time I was baffled by what seemed like something very similar to a controlled demolition, but the NIST report is credible and it’s not good enough to simply dismiss it, especially when the alternative explanation – that the building was secretly rigged with explosives – is really very far-fetched. And especially when the sound of explosives wasn’t picked up on any videos, etc.
I used to be very keen on conspiracy theories of the sort being discussed here, such as JFK, the moon landings, 9/11, etc. I even subscribed to Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review for a time. But in each instance, after examination I found the “official story” to be true. The opposite is the case when it comes to climate change and the dangers of Covid and the safety/efficacy of the vaccines, but that’s the core issue here: whether it’s possible to keep an open mind and not allow groupthink, prejudice or sheer ignorance to inform one’s belief on highly important matters like 9/11.
And there is a lot of groupthink going on with conspiracy theorists – I see them come up with the same talking points again and again, and they always assume everyone else is just stupid or unaware, but for these “conspiracy theorists” (and yes, I know it’s a term coined by the CIA) they don’t see that they’re being herded just as much as those who blindly accept whatever narrative their own government tells them. And as is quite often the case, the conspiracy version of history is actually being promoted by a foreign government, so really they’re just being herded by a different government. That’s totally the case with Russia-Ukraine, by the way – Katchanovski, Baud, Maté and others are just parroting the official Kremlin line. I’d be embarrassed if my mind were being controlled in that way by Kremlin propagandists, but as P.T. Barnum put it, “there’s a sucker born every minute”.
Hi Ian,
Soz for hijacking your article, but it wasn’t that great, let’s be honest.
Like I said, the standard tropes of whataboutery and random connections btl here (Falklands? Da Vinci? Douglas Bader?? What planes?) are classic diversionary nonsense.
Your previous articles clearly illustrate your stance and views – I suspect you’re presence protects DS from accusations of bias at the very least. So kudos for sticking to it.
Be careful though, Cognitive Dissonance can really mess you up long term
Hi Strange Loop,
Nah, don’t worry I’m not bothered about the comments here going off on a tangent – I take it as something of a backhand compliment that nobody’s really taking issue with specific points in the article, and anyway I’m very much at home talking about conspiracy theories and all manner of strange things – I’ve spent a lot of my life researching such things.
I don’t know how many people, like me, went down a Delingpolesque “rabbit hole” with these sorts of things and then came up again the other side, but if I suffer from cognitive dissonance then it’s a strange type of cognitive dissonance, given that I still have very unconventional and non-conformist views on a number of topics (e.g., I’m a researcher and proponent of psi phenomena, currently working on morphic resonance which I think is a fascinating theory but never properly tested in the lab because it’s “heresy”) while at the same time holding conventional views when the evidence supports them. I suppose that’s why I hate it when people try to censor unconventional speech, because there’s no topic so outlandish that it doesn’t deserve serious attention. So by all means, go full JFK and 9/11, I can take it
Another feature of diversionary/destructive tropes is the Ad Hominem attacks.
I haven’t mentioned Oliver Stone or Ivan Kickab***akov or anyone else for that matter.
The only film director I’ve an appreciation of is Abraham Zapruder.
Your explanation of the former president’s movement after the head shot is… interesting.
I think Jackie’s behaviour is at least as telling – instinctively reaching to the the rear of the car to recover fragments of her husband’s skull and brains, where they had ended up following a shot FROM THE FRONT AND RIGHT – sorry, hit caps by mistake.
Enough of this.
Enjoy the weather everyone (don’t start!)
I assumed when you quoted “back and to the left” you knew that’s the most famous line from Oliver Stone’s film JFK. On that point, I’d really recommend the PBS Nova Cold Case JFK documentary, which includes what was really the first proper firearm forensics examination of the case. There were also some papers written by the forensics team – look up Luke Haag on afte.org. I won’t link to it, but you can find the documentary on the Pirate Bay.
“Like I said, the standard tropes of whataboutery and random connections btl here (Falklands? Da Vinci? Douglas Bader?? What planes?) are classic diversionary nonsense.”
And while we’re at it, an “Arabian fighter living in a cave in Afghanistan”. Seriously? I seem to remember a Guiness book of Records article in the 80s or 90s about the biggest terrorist organisation in the world. Something to do with the Arab world I think. It wasn’t just a few men in caves but a well funded, well organised operation. Did you ever see that Bond film where the Mujahideen were the good guys? The Mujahideen kept their “American” weapons when the Soviets left and their organisation led directly to Al-Qaeda. The so-called States (among others) were annoying quite a lot of people with their cultural and economic imperialism and interference in various governments well before 2001, and continue to do so today. Certainly there is plenty the CIA could do (and indeed have done), but plenty of people had reason to be angry with “America” at the time. That gun attack on a “US” warship? The previous failed attack on the WTC? There was plenty of anger in some places about the various highly provocative “US” actions.
How much help if any such groups may (or may not) have had from the CIA I don’t know (and certainly that organisation will try and manipulate things, I seem to remember a story about a plan they had to fake the second coming of Christ for the benefit of the Cubans), but “American” policy was always going to create a backlash.
Eh? Sorry Hugh, that’s a C-minus from me – not sure what you’re really on about TBH, but perhaps that’s yourshtick.
Occams Razor for me, every time
“Must try harder”, eh?
In any case, what exactly is your point (if any)?
If we take as a starting point the proposition that some people linked to a well organised terrorist group with a grudge against the “US” (see above) hi-jacked some aeroplanes (remembering that security with internal “US” flights was pretty lax in those days) and flew them into some buildings in New York (and apparently the Pentagon), what needs adding or subtracting from this account of events?
I don’t doubt that the CIA and others are capable of some pretty shady stuff and manipulating things to suit their agenda, but equally this “one man in a cave” stuff is rather far from what the situation actually was (and is for that matter, look at Northern Nigeria for just one example)
Sympathies. I know its Sunday and hard to get the best peeps in, but I’d assumed you’d read the thread, soz.
I made my point (checks thread) 16hrs ago, everything else is bunce, most fun I’ve had in weeks, thank you
Not really, no, and I’m not counting the links which I don’t have time to read. Your point, as I understand it, is that the CIA (or some such) dynamited the WTC buildings because flying aeroplanes into them, killing many people and probably condemning the buildings they hit, wasn’t enough. And possibly that the CIA organised the hijackings too. Why were both aeroplanes and dynamite needed? Why wouldn’t a terrorist group who regards the “US” as evil carry out such attacks (as indeed they have in other places, unless those were the CIA too)? And why would the CIA consider it worth pursuing such a high risk and frankly indefensible strategy as you seem to suggest. More questions raised than answers given. I’m still not convinced that that is how the CIA works.
Yes the dynamite was already there then the CIA had to find some kamikaze pilots and incentivize them to sacrifice their lives whilst being willing to kill countless others ( are their families living in the lap of luxury since this infamous date?? ), but the agreement was that they would be blamed for the destruction of the twin towers and their names forever blackened. Thats quite the job description. So hired hit men on steroids then. The timing was imperative, the jumbo jets had to hit then shortly after ( because only a very small window was available otherwise peeps wouldn’t fall for the terrorism line ) it was somebody’s responsibility to detonate shit loads of explosive, which had lain dormant and undetected for months, very soon after so as to say “look, terrorists did it!” When really it was the shady ‘insiders’, and for why? “Let’s kill a shit tonne of fellow American civilians just because we can and blame it on terrorists”, said no-one ever. Yep I’m gonna need more than somebody’s over-zealous belief in something before I’m convinced, personally.
Yes the planes, which you are inferring are a figment of our imaginations. Please explain. Because all I see is terrorism. Prove me wrong.
Oh you mean it was “an insider job from start to finish”? So the ‘Insiders’in the US had to lay explosives undetected then go on a recruitment of Muslims who were willing to sacrifice their lives plus countless other innocent civilian lives whom they would murder to accomplish their goals, and they also needed the ability to fly a jumbo jet. Okay, so far so implausible.
I’m afraid you’re gonna have to explain to regular peeps like me how on earth such a feat was doable and what the M.O was. Until then it just smacks of cock and bull!
So a Saudi jihadist orchestrating the simultaneous hijacking and crashing of 4 commercial planes from a cave in Afghanistan is not far fetched but insiders secretly rigging up three buildings with explosives is.
Ok.
Osama bin Laden wasn’t in a cave at the time, he had the support of the Taliban government and had a camp where he trained the guys who went to Hamburg to organise things. The “stupid jihadis in a cave” talking point is just empty rhetoric.
I’m not sure any of those details change anything much.
If Osama Bin Laden can do it with the “support of the Taliban government” (whatever that actually means), then I don’t see why some insiders couldn’t do the same thing or something similar.
I wouldn’t claim to know what happened or who did it. And you don’t know either.
What is very clear to me is that you need to believe some pretty implausible things for the official story to add up.
For example, that there were cameras everywhere around the Pentagon and yet there is no footage available of a plane approaching and crashing into the Pentagon. Only a few frames showing nothing and then an explosion.
One’s credulity needs to be off the charts to believe that there is no footage or that the footage cannot be released for legitimate national security reasons.
There are many of those highly unlikely bits to the story. And the fact that someone can come up with explanations for each of them doesn’t mean the explanations are true, or reasonable or even plausible.
The security camera footage shows the plane quite clearly. It was travelling at roughly 460 knots, which is ~230m/s, or likely 115 metres for every frame of footage (I’m guessing that camera was running at 2fps, quite a common frame rate at the time), so it’s actually a little surprising we can see the plane as clearly as we do, although obviously it’s a little blurry.
Please send link to footage. I am intrigued. I’ve never seen a plane.
I wonder if the Madrid train and London tube bombings were the CIA as well?
I for one don’t find it particularly implausible that a successful terrorist group, probably with military experience, can carry out these relatively small scale operations (I’m just glad they haven’t managed to set off a dirty bomb).
I said, when the first crack-pot suggestions (or, more likely, vicious anti-American poison) showed up, not long after 9/11, I pointed out that the claim that jet planes crashing into skyscrapers couldn’t lead to collapse, couldn’t even be dignified as a credible hypothesis, usually reliant on the point that melting of structural steel needed higher temperatures.
But, as anyone whose IQ score is greater than their hat size might realise, you don’t need to melt steel, only to weaken it significantly.
That’s how a blacksmith does his job.
You obviously have no conception how the steel frame of a skyscraper is designed, nor of the then deficiencies of the US fire protection codes, nor even the foggiest idea about explosive demolition. I have actual, real life qualifications and experience in many of these areas, as a Chartered Engineer.
If you want to live in your little dream world ascribing the disaster and massacre to those naughty Jews or horrible Americans then I can’t stop you, other than to point out that you are deluded to the point that you should seek medical help.
Talking of blacksmiths, here’s a good two-minute video demonstration. And a more serious look.
Talking of fire protection codes, Grenfell. And the EU (Christopher Booker).
Discuss…
Hugh. you’re correct. But Grenfell didn’t collapse did it?
I should have been clearer.
The ‘fire protection codes’ I referred to weren’t directly about protecting inhabitants, but about giving a reasonable time of exposure to a vigorous fire before the structural steel joints were liable to fail. Relevant to the design of the structure.
It didn’t help the general situation that the cladding around the steelwork was apparently asbestos based. Nothing to do with the collapse, asbestos just as good as modern replacements. But the clouds of asbestos dust helped no-one.
Grenfall was many types of disaster (and I am sceptical that those blatantly in the wrong will ever get their deserved punishment – including the idiots who imagined the “insulation” installed, even if correctly specified and installed, would help save money – let alone the Planet) but not even the loonies on here have blamed the USA.
Yet.
Your argument boils down to
a trust me I’m an engineer, I know.
For every expert engineer claiming it’s perfectly possible for the WTC to collapse as it is claimed it did I can find an equally accomplished one that says it can’t.
b. U.S. building codes are very lax
I’m no expert but it seems rather unlikely to me that US building codes allow tall buildings to be built that would collapse if there was a fire on the upper floors.
The strawmen – naughty Jews, horrible Americans – suggest you don’t always think your arguments through very carefully.
OK, Stewart. You volunteered.
Give us a link to a credible Engineering / Demolition expert who supports the ‘thousands of sticks of dynamite’ theory.
The ‘strawmen’ are precisely the people that the ‘dynamite’ enthusiasts always trott out and have been doing for 20 years.
Neither Governments were waging war on the USA.
I think we get it – you two disagree. Neither sides argument can be proven, so perhaps time to put this one to bed.
Surely a robust debate between people with differing viewpoints where both sides try to make a logical case and address each other’s points is better than what we have in the MSM – one sided, name calling, censorship, hysteria. Same goes for Covid.
100%. It’s just that this now feels like a spat being made through a series of articles – doesn’t work for me. A better format would be a podcast where the two can directly debate and share their views.
Yes, that’s a fair point
Sorry, the idea that the twin towers were demolished using explosive charges is absolute bollocks.
No-one with any serious experience of demolition design and practice could believe that, for a drug induced microsecond.
Wrong thread my friend
What’s your hat size again?
The author seems to have conveniently overlooked the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US and UK, a completely flagrant breach of international law.
Though technically not carried out by NATO, that will appear of little difference to an adversary eg Putin, since the US is the dominant partner of NATO, and the UK it’s sidekick.
We may choose to regard the ensuing war and chaos as history, but others don’t.
The invasion of Afghanistan wasn’t a defensive operation because Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.
Ian Rons’ worldview seems to show up rather clearly in his article
Arguments and explanatios put forward by the US for its actions are reasonable, consistent and can be taken at face value.
Those put forward by Russia are unreasonable, contradictory and insincere.
Or to put it in an analogy, if you are having a conversation with someone who happens to be pointing a gun at you and that person claims they’re only pointing the gun for defence, just in case, then if it’s an American, you can believe him and needn’t worry, if it’s a Russian, he’s lying.
Brilliant!
When someone has parked their tanks on your garden, its a bit late to moralise about whether their actions are justified…
Why?
Because the practical realities of the situation far outweigh any philosophical argument about who or what is to blame. Its like getting run down on a pedestrian crossing. You can argue all you like about your rights to be there and cross the road unmolested, but you got run down and when that happens stemming the bleeding and splinting the broken bones is the priority.
That sounds very good, but in practice the moral/legal implications of the situation are just as much of a priority. The driver will immediately be required to answer for his actions. In fact in a hit and run, most people will try to get a licence plate if they can before attending to the injured.
Whatever the order of things, the moral/legal implications are almost always treated by the authorities as being every bit as important as attending to the consequences.
There are rare exceptions. Like forr example when a novel virus appears in highly suspicious circumstances. The authorities don’t seem at all interested in establishing whether there are moral or legal responsibilities in that case, for some strange reason.
So ban all vehicles, or ban all pedestrians – which?
Put all men in prison to prevent any women being raped?
So we should do what – go to war with any Country – just in case?
Thanks a lot, Ian Rons, for some much needed common sense on this topic!
Drat it!!
I was going to read this article then found I couldn’t because I cant’t find my rose-tinted spectacles anywhere….can anyone help?
The west as led by our supposed leaders is not worth defending. Russia does NOT want its culture and history trashed but our governments do. Go figure.
“Russia does NOT want its culture and history trashed”
Russia certainly wishes to trash the cultural and ideological legacy of arguably the greatest writer in its history.
Leo Tolstoy (increasingly as he got older) vigorously promoted an anti-nationalist and anti-war / anti-violence agenda.
Since 24 Feb earthquake detectors have been lighting up 100 miles south of Moscow as Tolstoy spins in his Yasnya Polyana grave.
The logic ‘justifying’ NATO’s behaviour outside its remit is a pot-pourri of excuses: pre-emption, retaliation, upholding of Human Rights, doing what’s right.
On that basis NATO would have been justified in carrying our pre-emptive nuclear attack to destroy the USSR in defence of its members, and similarly ‘justified’ in attacking Iran, China, North Korea.
NATO was established to provide a command and control resource for the military forces of its members to counter an attack in Europe by the USSR.
There was nothing in NATOs remit about planning and controlling offensive operations absent immediate and present threat.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya did not attack NATO Countries, nor were they poised to strike. Russia has not attacked a NATO Country nor is it poised to strike one.
NATO has become the military wing of the EU and a proxy for US aggression to serve its own foreign policy… such as it is.
Ian, thanks for the article.
You wrote here BTL that you’re taking it as a compliment that people have gone off on tangents, hijacking the article talking about 911 etc, as evidence that people don’t have anything to attack your article about.
Well, to put the record straight regarding my opinions, at least, I think it’s a terribly written, confusing mass of over-elaborate piffle arguing technicalities, betraying your apparent refusal to recognise the world as anything other than a binary good-guy/bad-guy situation.
Here is Ian Rons claiming Russia’s excuses don’t withstand scrutiny, w/o bothering to do much, ahem, scrutiny.
May I suggest an introductory article for people still holding black and white views of the Ukraine crisis (and maybe the world)
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/02/us-state-affiliated-newsguard-targets-consortium-news/
Excellent article. The Ukrainian people have long since aligned themselves with the west. Western style military training is probably why Russia’s initial attempt at a quick invasion came a cropper. Now it’s back to the classic Russian rolling artillery meat grinder. Hopefully that will be countered by guided missiles before the whole country is destroyed.
The Ukrainian people have long since aligned themselves with the west.
that’s if you only watch BBC. The truth is, considerable part of Ukrainian population side with Russia since before the conflict. Some have changed their mind after the invasion and now side with Kiev. Some Kiev supporters have quite possibly aligned with Moscow after witnessing Ukrainian troops using civilians as a human shield, the fact which has now been confirmed by Amnesty International. And it’s only the tip of the iceberg what Amnesty International has uncovered. there are plenty of videos of independent journalists, interviewing people who say that Ukrainian armed forces were preventing evacuation and even targeting and killing civilians.
No a very good article.