If you insist the West is entirely truthful about this war, why do think Julian Assange is in prison?
Why does Snowden have to live in Russia, when his only crime was to assert that senior US officials lied to their own people in major public statements, and carried out other illegal and immoral acts in the name of ‘National Security’?
Nothing Assange and Snowden made public has been proved to be untrue.

If you shout ‘they are traitors!’, it’s suggests you value extreme nationalism over truth.
There is one other possibility, admittedly, and that would be: despite our many lies and cover-ups in the past; despite the millions we spend on ‘PR’, despite Assange & Snowden, everything the West says about ‘Ukraine’ is true, and all contrary opinion is false.
It’s possible.
It’s still worth remembering the following: the WMD lies. Powell’s speech to the UNSC; Fox News role in creating public support for war; Abu Ghraib; Bagram; the creation of ISIS; the destruction of Libya, Mosul, etc. The allegations of false flag ‘Gas’ attacks. War crimes.
The fact that any dissent against the Western State narrative in this war is met with anger and personal abuse is indicative of how dangerous things have become.
I hear people shout ‘how dare you collaborate with the enemy!?’

They think they sound like Churchill, but to me they seem more like the mob on Kristallnacht.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David McBride

David McBride Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MurdochCadell

Mar 20
Remember how the Russians kidnapped innocent people off the street without an arrest warrant, took them to countries without laws, and tortured them to death, and claimed they had done nothing wrong?
Remember how the Russians got around the prohibition on torture by the in-house lawyers for the FSB simply changing the definition of ‘torture’, or sometimes simply saying ‘Russians don’t torture, so if we did it, it can’t be torture?’
Remember how the Russians did nothing at all after they heard the Saudi Arabians had chopped a journalist into tiny pieces, even though it went against every principle they espoused at great volume around the world?
Read 9 tweets
Feb 25
‘Ukraine’ is why ‘Iraq’ mattered.

If we play fast and loose with the truth and the law, why wouldn’t our enemies?

We reap what we sow.

#Assange tried to point this out. He was jailed for it, instead of Blair and Bush.
The US doesn’t care anymore for the people of Ukraine than they did the people of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The situation is simply an opportunity for them to destabilise a major rival. When they have done so, they will abandon Ukraine like they did Afghanistan.
It’s not the ‘invasion’ which is bad, because we know that some invasions, like ‘Iraq’, are ‘good’ (according to the West).
Read 6 tweets
Jan 22
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/
Read 14 tweets
Jan 3
Rupert Murdoch’s @newscorpaus is fighting against a Royal Commission into media ownership (and political influence), claiming it is a ‘witch-hunt’.

However a look at today’s headlines from @australian show it is anything but.

#MurdochRoyalCommission
Todays story’s have the following subtexts:
1. China is a bad totalitarian Govt than even harms Aust share prices (not mentioning the boom they created for the past 20 years).

2. Renewables are bad. And Zero Emissions targets cause ruin for countries who adopt them (No evidence)
3. ‘COVID Crisis will soon be over’

4. The PM is a ‘calming influence’ and cutting through the ‘BS’ on COVID numbers.

5. These two likeable ‘Aussie Farmer Couple’ were Saved by the LNP Govts bailout plan. (Don’t mention ‘Hawaii’ or ‘Black Summer’)
Read 8 tweets
Dec 31, 2021
Seymour Hersh is right. For various reasons, which I will explain in this thread, Wikileaks did more to keep the US safe than those failed institutions of the CIA, FBI, and the corporate media.

If there had been a #Wikileaks in the 1980s and 1990s, there may never have been 9/11
As @StateDept knows, the US will eventual fail if it’s reputation around the world as corrupt and duplicitous reaches a critical mass. Powerful as they are, the US needs allies and markets to survive. Like ‘fossil fuels’, they are vulnerable to popular and progressive opinion.
In this regard the US at times needs protection from its own worst self: rapacious and unchecked nationalism and capitalism. In the 1960s & 70s this check came from mainstream journalism. Today it comes from independent journos with info from insider sources. like #Wikileaks
Read 21 tweets
Nov 3, 2021
The US Military thinks it’s been ‘clever’ with this verdict but actually shows how lost they have become.

If it’s ‘acceptable’ to target people without evidence they are dangerous, it means their ROE must allow for indiscriminate killing. For ‘show’.
I’ll explain..
The one ‘out’ the US had is this disgraceful incident would be if the weapon system misfired, or operator failed to hit the target he was aiming for.

But by admitting they hit the ‘correct’ target, it shows that their ID standards are not based on the necessary high standards..
Missile strikes are justified only in either ‘self-defence’ or if the target as positively identified as a Member of an Organised Armed Group.

Otherwise it’s murder under both US and Afghan law…
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(