Tuesday 8 September 2015


I expect, in reality, Cameron wants a war. 

Things aren't looking good for him.

Business confidence is down; there's outrage over IDS killing thousands of people; the SNP has 56 seats in their parliament and is working as a real opposition to his tiny majority; he's had to withdraw Bills and last night he was defeated; the row over top people's paedophiles won't go away; he's been wrong-footed over refugees, by everyone; polls show the English will vote to take Britain out of the EU... and on and on goes the list.

A war will take all the bad news off the front pages and get him praise from the cheapo tabloids, the Mail, Express, Sun and Telegraph. 

He'll be victorious and be photographed sitting astride a tank in the desert and everyone will proclaim him a hero...

Because it always works out for the best when Britain goes to war and kills loads of foreign people.

Doesn't it?


  1. Dinnae like to say this Tris but given he has just blown up two people in Syria using a drone without permission of Parliament, is he no at war? I expect that we shall see calls for Mr Cameron to join Tony Blair etc at the Hague before long. I think the most depressing thing is that the number of people who do not question what government gets up to and still believes anything they are told. Any way one of those people was a Taffy and the other a Jock so no real British folk involved really.
    Funny how all the really bad men who must be punished had oil, though Mr Assad doesn't have or not much anyway?

    1. Without questioning what they are saying about the men they killed... and I always distrust anything Westminster lot say... I'm a bit frightened that someone like Cameron can order the death of someone HE THINKS is a terrorist and was possibly plotting to blow up the queen.

      Now he may be right, and anyone who is planning to blow up anyone has to be punished. That I agree with. But I thought they had law in England; I thought that English law said that everyone was entitled to a trial. I mean Mr Jenner gets a trial, although he is accused of horrendous crimes.

      It's the thin end of the wedge that Cameron can order an execution.

      The evil dictators who rule Saudi, Bahrain for example, who run what we might think of as barbaric states, are friends of the Saxe Coburgs AND spend billions on arms. No matter what they do, it OK by Westminster.

      If they do go to war, have they worked out which side they are on?

    2. Helena - nail on the head...that depresses me too. And there seems little sign of change. Perhaps the intelligence came from the same people who told us there were WMDs in Iraq.

    3. They were probably busy Brian. There was a lot of paperwork to destroy on so much of the establishment. It's a big job making sure none of it gets out.

    4. Don't think for one minute that the death of the British lad was planned. If it was, it would have been victorious front page news the day it happened rather than 14 days later. Those 14 days gave them time to get some troops on the ground, pick over the wreckage, find the guys ID/passport and then use this as the "self defence" BS that we saw in the paper yesterday. Cameron, like Blair before him, believes he and his cronies are above the law. Don't expect them to follow the same rules as the rest of us!

    5. Of course, in a way, with a country with no real constitution, they are above the law.

      Given that they act in most ways in foreign affairs on instructions from the USA, they are also untouchable in international matters.

      I've no problems in terrorists being shot if they are in the middle of, or on the verge of committing a terrorist act. That's the risk they take. But it seems to me that they weren't.

      Of course, as you say it could well have been one of these accidents that happen when you bomb... sometimes you hit a school or hospital by mistake, sometimes a wedding p[arty, and on one occasion in Bosnia (I think), the Chinese Embassy...

      Additionally isn't this the second time they killed him?

  2. Listening to a Professor from the University of Buckingham (?) who was asked if the action taken by the drone was legal and he said that in his opinion that it was. When asked on what legal grounds he based his opinion he replied that the Prime Minister had said it was legal!. Where do they find such idiots?

    1. For heaven's sake.

      He wasn't an Old Etonian was he?

      Part of their creed to stick together no matter what, and of course, to believe that they are infallible.

      What was he a professor of...Tory Sycophancy?

    2. This is one of the many problems in our pseudo democracy which is really feudalism at core.
      Westminster can do what it likes and within that structure,Prime Ministers likewise.
      Has the Blair government been brought to book for acting "illegally" over Iraq and will it ever be?
      Not a chance as this would threaten the undemocratic structures that rule the UK.

    3. Ah yeah, the conveniently unwritten constitution that allows you to make it up as you go along, and change it at your will.

      The prime minister is acting, in this case, on royal prerogative. In effect the crown can do what it likes, and these rights are delegated to the prime minister by the queen.

      I imagine that any examination will find that he has operated under the law, even though as Craig Murray pointed out, there was an alternative to killing these men. There was no immediate threat. The queen wasn't about to be blown sky high. Killing them prevented no atrocity.

      I could well understand a situation where criminals or terrorists are shot in order to avert an atrocity. I didn't think it was one of Britain's much vaunted values to simply murder a suspected terrorist without making any effort to arrest and try him/her.

      Craig puts it far better than I.


      And I've just noticed that Paul has written something about this on Wee Ginger Dog, although I've not read it yet.. ==> (side bar).

      I've no time for terrorists. I've no time for murderers. No matter which side they are on.

  3. First time poster.

    Cameron doesn't know what he wants, do you relly consider him to be a leader of men? (Sorry ladies)
    He is told what to do and say by the US and Trilateral comission etc etc.
    For sure the exodus appears to be well organised, at least to the doorstep of Europe.
    Has anyone seen the map for the 'Greater Israel'?


    Check out Craig Murray's assesment of Murdoch's news angle.
    This issue runs very deep!

    Tang Mo.

    1. Hello Tang Mo. Welcome to Munguin's Republic.

      I'd actually never heard of Greater Israel, but interestingly I was reading about how Israel is now exploring for oil on the occupied Golan heights. I thought they had been ordered by the UN to return them to the Syrians.

    2. Thanks Tris,
      I was a wee bit bit nervous, expecting a bit of a abuse to be honest (not from you), happily I was wrong.
      I know this blog is Scottish/UK orientated, however global events, planned and unplanned are to me far more relevant just now. Folks need to look at the broader picture.
      Thankfully most of your readers realise that the traditional mouthpieces are pretty incorrect in their reporting. Of course I have an opinion that may differ from yours but I always welcome suggestions of informative websites to browse.
      If you don't mind I would suggest your readers look at Martin Armstrong's blog and listen to something Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has to say.


      Best Wishes,
      Tang Mo.

    3. Tang Mo: We encourage people to agree and disagree as they see fit, without abuse.

      Thanks for your links.

  4. Do you think he's (Cameron) taking a leaf out of Thatcher's (spit) book, after all her second term didn't go well either; that is until the Argentine junta invaded a small group of islands no one had heard of.

    1. Forgot to add, I like Aubrey Bailey's explanation. Sums it up nicely.

    2. Well, I think that every prime minister seems to want a war, presumably since the Falklands managed to save Thatcher's bacon.

      It seems not to have occurred to them that most of us are sick of war, but the newspapers love it, and it does wonders for the arms industry. As I said, it keeps pesky stories like the DWP campaign of terror against the poor and sick, or the Westminster/Establishment weirdos' sexual crimes, or other government folly's off the front page as editors froth over "our boys".

      I think they may have failed to grasp the fact that fewer and fewer people get their news from newspaper front pages these days.

  5. Aubrey should have added

    and our pals are selling arms to both sides and making pots of money. We get a wee slice by way of "donations" to the party, and the GDP figures look much better.

    Understand now?

    1. Oh yes. A lot of it is about the money it brings to arms manufacturers, and party donations.

  6. Tris

    I kinda agree with Anon above that Cameron doesn't know what he wants but this is mainly because Obama hasn't told him yet. I don't think we will be going to war, there is no appetite for it, the armed forces are the weakest it has ever been and the MPs just won't go for it. The drone thing is stupid, probably illegal and it will not be allowed to rest. The opposition should go for him, no matter how inept most of them are. I have no doubt those two scumbags deserved all they got but I suspect that if it's illegal for the USA to use drones then it probably is for us as well. Cameron is testing the water but he is weak and he knows it. The EU ref is about to take everything over whether he likes it or not. I would not be surprised if this Government falls even if it is more difficult for that to happen under the fixed term parliament act.

    Cameron is a loser in the long run. Things will get worse then we will probably have the second vote.


    1. Of course he is waiting for instructions from head office Bruce,

      Bit it's hard to know what the objective could be.

      If he bombs ISIS side he's helping Assad; if he bombs Assad, he's helping the rebels which consist of various groups including ISIS.

      He thinks they are all bad guys, although apparently he likes the Kings of Saudi and Bahrain, who are worse than Assad ever was.

      No wonder he's a mess.

      As for killing the terrorists, I'm with Paul and Craig.

      They are, if we are to believe what the state says about them, despicable, I may not like the queen much but I don;t think blowing her, or anyone else, up, is a good idea.

      But unless their finger was on the button at that time, there was no need to murder them.

      Specially not on the words of people who told us that WMD's with a 40 minute fuse were sitting ready to strike us.

      As for Cameron, if he came out of a building with flames licking up his legs and shouted Fire, I wouldn't believe him.

      Roll on the second vote. I'm so sick of the UK.

  7. "Do you understand now?"
    can you run that by me again?

    1. Oh dear... some people just never catch on.

      It's quite simple really... erm, I think...