Thread by @MurdochCadell

This piece in the SMH is a good example of an ‘Information Operation’.

On the surface it reads reasonably, but there are a number of misleading subtexts ‘salted’ into the narrative, suggesting the West is under threat, but our Govts will ‘save us’.

1/

smh.com.au/politics/feder…

The main thrust is that China could attack us imminently. No evidence is offered, and the emphasis is on ‘could’. In the same way they we ‘could’ attack them.

The lawyers phrase for an unlikely event ‘can’t be ruled out’ is used.
2/

The maker of the key statement is painted as some ‘stateswoman’, here to give us the benefit of her insight’. She is given further ‘weight’ as a ‘possible future PM’. What’s not said, is that she is simply a ‘politician’, from a hugely unpopular and hypocritical party.
3/

As with the LNP here, the UK Conservatives cling to power through fanning fear in the populace. Fear of things ‘only they can protect the nation from’. ‘Communists’ ‘Terrorists’ ‘Russian/Chinese’. “We are about to be attacked! Vote Tory”.
4/

When one looks at the few facts of the article, as opposed hysterical speculation, it actually goes against what Truss says: for all her bluster, she makes it clear the UK won’t go to war to protect Ukraine. Why would they? They are not part of the Five Eyes Mafia (NATO).

5/

As for the ‘simultaneous attack’, imagine what we would say if China had newspaper headlines saying they suspected they were about to be simultaneously attacked by the UK and the US, based on nothing at all, except it would potential benefit us. Assuming we wanted to attack.
6/

Another fact is equally damning: as @Senator_Patrick has pointed out, there is no ‘sub deal’ at all. There is simply a very vague idea that they will see if they can have an agreement. The myth of the sub deal is a purely political, mirage: useful only for the politicians.
7/

That this ‘non-deal’ to make subs, in 20 years time, somehow makes China ‘nervous’, is laughable.

What makes me nervous, is that it seems so easy for political party PR hacks to place fear mongering stories in ‘papers of record’.

How long before they call for war?

8/

Both Truss and Morrison are fighting for their political lives, and like Blair and Bush, they don’t care how many people need to die for them to be elected.

Worse, the more we talk up the China and Russia threat, the less chance there is to de-escalate any future issues.

9/

The US took the West to war in Iraq, killing or displaying millions, to ensure a discredited, weak President could be re-elected. It worked. For them.

Don’t think they won’t try a ‘successful political strategy ’ again.

10/

Aust has a key role to play in preventing further pointless and amateur ‘foreign adventures’ by the US, as they need our support to maintain the illusion of ‘a quorum’ of responsible nations behind their aggressive actions. This is the purpose of AUKUS. Not subs.

The real danger of AUKUS is that it allows the US to talk as if it is speaking on behalf of others, when actually it is simply the UK and Aust speaking of behalf of the US.

The wars, and standoffs, are just a charade to appear ‘tough’ and win votes.

Using ‘war’ as a political prop, detracts from real war preparation.

If either Russia and China ever attacked the West the destruction and devastation would be immediate. We can ‘play war ’ but we can’t fight.

Remember how we we beaten by the Taliban? Our enemies haven’t

The media have an important role to play in the future of the world. Some like @RnaudBertrand fearlessly show the unpopular truth, which of course is not clear cut, or without problems.

Peter Hartcher and @smh do some great work, but this is dangerous rubbish which leads to war