by Kit

Cast your mind back to 2013, I know it’s been a while, but try. It was a different time. Miley Cyrus was riding a wrecking ball and World War Z was tearing up the box office and David Cameron wanted to bomb Assad. It was truly a wondrous age.

…but now the BBC wants to flush it all away.

Sadly, this doesn’t include Miley Cyrus. Or World War Z.

John Humprhys, veteran propaganda peddler and all-round swell guy, took out his scissors and pritt-stik and got to work editing our history. This is what he said on the BBC Radio 4’s Today Program (135 minutes in):

Well its more than 2 years since the Government, our Government asked the House of Commons to approve military action against Islamic State in Syria and MPs said no, it was a devastating defeat. It seemed to proved the end of David Cameron’s plans to for British war Planes to join other Western forces in attacking them in Syria as well as in Iraq. The Foreign affairs select committee produced a report that seemed to put the seal on it a few weeks ago: There should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating IS and of ending the civil war in Syria.”

A statement of fact with which it is only possible to have one objection. Namely, that it is not true. Parliament never voted on attacking ISIS, and Cameron never wanted to attack ISIS. The vote was about declaring war on Assad’s government. As the BBC, and the whole rest of the world, reported at the time:

MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.

In the event that the motion had passed, we actually would have been fighting ON THE SAME SIDE as ISIS. A pretty important distinction, as military entanglements go. In the wake of the Paris attacks this week a renewed effort is being made to generate hype for intervention in Syria, and the media are trying to conflate – in the public’s mind – Assad and ISIS.

To quote the reader, to whom we are very grateful, that brought his information to our attention: