Dial ‘M’ for murder
Iftekhar A Khan | The News | May 05, 2011
The US corporate media and members of US Congress and Senate have brazenly advised Obama administration to assassinate Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi and members of his extended family. Senator Lindsey Graham, member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said on CNN: “My recommendation to Nato and administration is to cut the head of the snake off. Go to Tripoli, start bombing Qaddafi’s inner circle, their compounds, their military headquarters.”
Had such dreadful advice not been given by US policymakers to Nato, without any qualms of conscience, a suitable euphemism in place of ‘murder’ in the title of this piece could have been used to make Qaddafi’s proposed murder look less gruesome. Had Senator Graham read George Orwell on how grisly acts of war were euphemised to make them palatable, he could have asked to ‘silence Qaddafi’ instead of demanding the cutting off of his head. But the Senator must have chosen his words carefully for his warning to sound as stark, spiteful, and ghastly as it did.
When the CNN host pointed out that attacks on civilian areas of Tripoli were not covered by the UN resolution 1973, the Senator retorted, “The goal is to get rid of Qaddafi. The people around Qaddafi need to wake up every day wondering ‘will this be my last?’. So I wouldn’t let the UN mandate stop what is the right thing to do.” Hubris apart, what did Qaddafi do to earn the wrath of the imperialist powers is what bewilders large populations of Muslim countries, save many of their governments. Arab leaders who are aiding and abetting Libya’s destruction will do well to remember that they might soon face the predicament Qaddafi now faces.
Desert sands are proverbially treacherous. When they shift, one feels them slipping under the feet while one wistfully looks towards the Muslim brethren for help. But the brethren in cloaks choose to remain mute; they’re grateful to live a few more years in opulence. Had atrocities of the magnitude perpetrated against Libya been committed against any tiny Christian country, the Christian world would have crowed to high heavens. The Muslim world is in a deep slumber.
Without doubt, the wars of the last 10 plus years are predatory by any definition and corporate media have played a leading role in promoting them. For instance, the editorial desks and columnists of the New York Times and the Washington Post have actually been guiding the US administration in what to do and how to proceed in Libya. The Times has advised using A-130 Hercules turbo prop armed with 105mm cannon that fires 10 high explosive shells a minute, and three 25mm cannons that fire 7500 rounds a minute on their targets. The aircraft has been described as the ‘Angel of Death’ because shrapnel from its cannon fire spread across about 1500 metres. Further, this aircraft has been used with devastating impact in Iraq and Afghanistan. Human beings caught in the orbit of fire are blown to smithereens.
Noticeably, the main media outlets leading the Libyan war on the media front are Fox News, The Sun, The Times of London, Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, and of course, the New York Times and the Washington Post. It is no surprise that the first five belong to one of the largest media conglomerates – News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian Jew and now, a naturalised US citizen. Some of us rejoicing to watch two shows for the price of one in reading the International Herald Tribune – a dwarfed version of the New York Times – along with the English daily that is locally published, may like to know the origin of the paper, its editorial policy, and what it stands for.
Wouldn’t most of us like to read balanced news and articles and not distorted facts, slanted news, and carefully crafted untruth in the guise of gospel truth?
Nevertheless, the rhetoric going around paints a great humanitarian effort to save the Libyans, Qaddafi’s own people. The world is told that his forces are mercilessly killing people, and that the three imperial powers, the UK, France, and the US are now planning to land their troops to save them. Even though the mission is humanitarian, these powers are committed to the idea of regime change. Luckily, both missions are blending beautifully in Libya.
The writer is a freelance contributor based in Lahore. Email: pinecity@gmail.com
The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event
Paul Craig Roberts | LewRockwell.com | May 5, 2011
The US government’s bin Laden story was so poorly crafted that it did not last 48 hours before being fundamentally altered. Indeed, the new story put out on Tuesday by White House press secretary Jay Carney bears little resemblance to the original Sunday evening story. The fierce firefight did not occur. Osama bin Laden did not hide behind a woman. Indeed, bin Laden, Carney said, “was not armed.”
The firefight story was instantly suspicious as not a single SEAL got a scratch, despite being up against al Qaeda, described by former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld as “the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.”
Every original story detail has been changed. It wasn’t bin Laden’s wife who was murdered by the Navy SEALs , but the wife of an aide. It wasn’t bin Laden’s son, Khalid, who was murdered by the Navy SEALs, but son Hamza.
Carney blamed the changed story on “the fog of war.” But there was no firefight, so where did the “fog of war” come from?
The White House has also had to abandon the story that President Obama and his national security team watched tensely as events unfolded in real time (despite the White House having released photos of the team watching tensely), with the operation conveyed into the White House by cameras on the SEALs helmets. If Obama was watching the event as it happened, he would have noticed, one would hope, that there was no firefight and, thus, would not have told the public that bin Laden was killed in a firefight. Another reason the story had to be abandoned is that if the event was captured on video, every news service in the world would be asking for the video, but if the event was orchestrated theater, there would be no video.
No explanation has been provided for why an unarmed bin Laden, in the absence of a firefight, was murdered by the SEALs with a shot to the head. For those who believe the government’s story that “we got bin Laden,” the operation can only appear as the most botched operation in history. What kind of incompetence does it require to senselessly and needlessly kill the most valuable intelligence asset on the planet?
According to the US government, the terrorist movements of the world operated through bin Laden, “the mastermind.” Thanks to a trigger-happy stupid SEAL, a bullet destroyed the most valuable terrorist information on the planet. Perhaps the SEAL was thinking that he could put a notch on his gun and brag for the rest of his life about being the macho tough guy who killed Osama bin Laden, the most dangerous man on the planet, who outwitted the US and its European and Israeli allies and inflicted humiliation on the “world’s only superpower” on 9/11.
When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged “discrepancies” that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place. The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex.
There is no doubt that the US is sufficiently incompetent to have needlessly killed bin Laden instead of capturing him. But who can believe that the US would quickly dispose of the evidence that bin Laden had been terminated? The government’s story is not believable that the government dumped the proof of its success into the ocean, but has some photos that might be released, someday.
As one reader put it in an email to me: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of their ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”
Governments have known from the beginning of time that they can always deceive citizens and subjects by playing the patriot card. “Remember the Maine,” the “Gulf of Tonkin,” “weapons of mass destruction,” “the Reichstag fire”–the staged events and bogus evidence are endless. If Americans knew any history, they would not be so gullible.
The real question before us is: What agenda or agendas is the “death of bin Laden” designed to further?
There are many answers to this question. Many have noticed that Obama was facing re-election with poor approval ratings. Is anyone surprised that the New York Times/CBS Poll finds a strong rise in Obama’s poll numbers after the bin Laden raid? As the New York Times reported, “the glow of national pride” rose “above partisan politics, as support for the president rose significantly among both Republicans and independents. In all, 57 percent said they now approved of the president’s job performance, up from 46 percent.”
In Washington-think, an 11% rise in approval rating justifies a staged event.
Another possibility is that Obama realized that the the budget deficit and the dollar’s rescue from collapse require the end of the expensive Afghan war and occupation and spillover war into Pakistan. As the purpose of the war was to get bin Laden, success in this objective allows the US to withdraw without loss of face, thus making it possible to reduce the US budget deficit by several hundred billion dollars annually–an easy way to have a major spending cut.
If this is the agenda, then more power to it. However, if this was Obama’s agenda, the military/security complex has quickly moved against it. CIA director Leon Panetta opened the door to false flag attacks to keep the war going by declaring that al Qaeda would avenge bin Laden’s killing. Secretary of State Clinton declared that success in killing bin Laden justified more war and more success. Homeland Security declared that the killing of bin Laden would motivate “homegrown violent extremists” into making terrorist attacks. “Homegrown violent extremists” is an undefined term, but this newly created bogyman seems to include environmentalists and war protesters. Like “suspect,” the term will include anyone the government wants to pick up.
Various parts of the government quickly seized on the success in killing bin Laden to defend and advance their own agendas, such as torture. Americans were told that bin Laden was found as a result of information gleaned from torturing detainees held in Eastern European CIA secret prisons years ago.
This listing of possible agendas and add-on agendas is far from complete, but for those capable of skepticism and independent thought, it can serve as a starting point. The agendas behind the theater will reveal themselves as time goes on. All you have to do is to pay attention and to realize that most of what you hear from the mainstream media is designed to advance the agendas.
US not to publish dead bin Laden photos, Pakistanis doubt death account
Press TV – May 4, 2011
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
The US administration says it will not release photos of Osama bin Laden’s corpse, deepening suspicions over Washington’s claim of killing the notorious terrorist.
In a prerecorded interview with CBS on Wednesday, US President Barack Obama said he has decided not to publish the disturbing images purportedly of al-Qaeda chief’s dead body, because of concerns that they might become “a propaganda tool”, AFP reported.
“I think that given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk,” Obama stated.
“There is no doubt that bin Laden is dead. Certainly there is… no doubt among al-Qaeda members that he is dead. And so we don’t think that a photograph in and of itself is going to make any difference.” White House spokesman Jay Carney quoted Obama as saying, as he read an excerpt of the president’s interview to the reporters. […]
Obama’s decision not to offer any photographic evidence of the killing has thrown doubt on the reported US operation, with many analysts saying that that bin Laden is either still alive or had been dead several years ago. … Full article
Also from Press TV:
‘No trust in Osama death account’
The Pakistani people say they do not believe US reports that Osama bin Laden had lived in a compound near a Pakistani military base in Abbottabad since 2005. […]
Some analysts say there is a possibility that the al-Qaeda militants were living in the compound under the surveillance of ISI when the US military carried out the operation. They say the operation was a show prearranged between the US and ISI and that bin Laden was not in the house as he had already been killed. […]
Meanwhile, contradictory stories are emerging from the White House about the military operation. One of the contradictions includes comments that bin Laden was unarmed but put up resistance.
Many believe American Special Forces could have arrested the al-Qaeda leader without having to kill him and a question raised is why bin Laden’s body was buried at sea so soon after his death.
A US official says bin Laden’s body has been buried at sea, alleging that his hasty burial was in accordance with Islamic law, which requires burial within 24 hours of death. This while burial at sea is not an Islamic practice and Islam does not determine a time-frame for burial. – Full article
Corporate Crime of the Century Portrayed as Conspiracy Theory
NPR Ombudsman Says No Response Allowed to Mass Transit Mess Up
By RUSSELL MOKHIBER | May 3, 2011
The NPR Ombudsman says that no response will be allowed to a story about mass transit in Los Angeles.
On April 21, 2011, NPR’s All Things Considered ran a story about how – after a fifty year absence – light rail is coming back to Los Angeles.
NPR reporter Mandalit Del Barco reported that eighty years ago, electric mass transit dominated the city.
“By the roaring 1920’s, more than 1,000 miles of electric trolley lines and train rails ran through the ever-expanding Los Angeles,” Del Barco reported.
But then in the middle of the century, the electric trolley cars disappeared.
Why?
“LA replaced the last of its streetcars with a web of freeways and bus lines,” Del Barco reported. “That led to conspiracy theories that the streetcars were dismantled by private companies who stood to profit – General Motors, Standard Oil and tire companies. That villainous plot figured into the 1988 movie ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit.'”
In fact, it was more than just conspiracy theories.
It was an actual federal crime that led to the destruction of the nation’s electric mass transit.
The companies involved were indicted, convicted, and fined for destroying the nation’s electric mass transit systems.
Del Barco says she was familiar with the criminal history of the case, but didn’t report it.
We asked the NPR Ombudsman’s office to investigate and issue a clarification – at least tell NPR’s listeners that it wasn’t just a conspiracy theory – that it was an indicted and convicted federal crime.
The Ombudsman office said they would look into it.
Then, late last week, we got an e-mail from the NPR Ombudsman’s office.
“Our office talked to the reporter and editor of the piece,” wrote Lori Grisham of the NPR Ombudsman’s office. “They understand your concerns, but do not believe a correction is warranted. Time is one of the main constraints when it comes to producing a radio story and they were trying to condense a great deal of history into a small amount of time.”
Grisham passed along this from Jason DeRose, NPR’s Western Bureau Chief:
“The piece makes clear there had been better public transit in LA and that it was dismantled. We chose not to describe that demise in detail. There were many, many unproven allegations of conspiracy and two official fines. We chose to characterize the numerous unproven allegations as conspiracy theories to lead into the Roger Rabbit tape.”
Grisham ends her e-mail: “I apologize that NPR will not run a correction. Thank you again for taking time to contact us.”
And thank you Lori Grisham for looking into this.
But that’s just bad form – and one reason why America is angry with NPR.
We sent you the documented proven history of the criminal activity.
And still, Jason DeRose says that there were “many, many unproven allegations of conspiracy and two official fines.”
What gives?
This was proven and convicted criminal conduct.
There was nothing unproven about it.
In fact, the destruction of the nation’s electric mass transit system was perhaps one of the most egregious – and underreported – corporate crimes of the century.
Brad Snell is also not happy with the NPR Ombudsman’s decision.
Snell is in the final stages of writing a history of General Motors.
It will be published in 2013 by Knopf.
“Under our celebrated system of laws, the US Justice Department’s allegation of conspiracy by defendants General Motors, Standard Oil of California, and Firestone Tire to monopolize the sale of buses, fuel, and tires by eliminating electric transit was transformed from theory to fact upon their conviction by a Chicago jury in US District Court on March 19, 1949,” Snell told Corporate Crime Reporter. “That judgment was affirmed on appeal (186 F.2 562 (7th Cir. 1951)) and a further appeal by defendants to the US Supreme Court was denied (cert den. 341 US 916), leaving the judgment and convictions in National City Lines as final matters of settled fact and law.”
“In 1990, the Honorable George E. MacKinnon, Senior Judge of the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC, had occasion to review the entire trial record in the National City Lines case,” Snell said.
His conclusion appeared in the Washington Legal Times on May 7, 1990.
“That Chicago trial resulted in criminal conspiracy convictions of the General Motors Corp., Standard Oil of California, and the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. for their concerted effort to replace electric streetcars with buses in numerous large and small cities,” Judge MacKinnon wrote.
“It is not a theory,” Snell said. “These are not ‘unproven allegations of conspiracy.’ It has been settled judicial fact for more than half a century. Beyond a reasonable doubt, as affirmed by the federal courts, and after denial of further review by the Supreme Court of the United States, it is an established and incontrovertible fact that General Motors, Standard Oil of California, and Firestone Tire conspired to replace electric transit in cities throughout America in order to effect a monopoly in the sale of buses and related products.”
“To suggest otherwise is to debase and mock our revered and time-honored system of American jurisprudence,” Snell said.
It is unconscionable that the NPR Ombudsman will not even consider running a response.
Russell Mokhiber edits the Corporate Crime Reporter.
Al-Aqsa spokesman denies bin Laden statement
Ma’an – 03/05/2011
GAZA CITY — The spokesman of Fatah’s military wing on Tuesday denied issuing a statement marking Osama bin Laden’s death.
Abu Uday of the Al-Aqsa Brigades said the group did not and had no plans to comment because bin Laden’s death was unrelated to Palestine.
He said a statement received by Ma’an’s Gaza City office must have been forced as the armed group “doesn’t know anything about it.”
The statement issued in Al-Aqsa’s name said the group was “shocked with the news that bin Laden had been killed by the non-believers.” “The fighters in Palestine and around the world … did not stop their mission,” it said.
Palestinian reactions to the death of bin Laden have been mixed.
Salam Fayyad, the premier in Ramallah, said it increased chances for peace, while Gaza-based prime minister Ismail Haniyeh condemned it as an extension of American’s foreign policy based on killing.
Osama bin Laden’s Second Death
By Paul Craig Roberts | Lew Rockwell | May 2, 2011
If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool’s joke this morning’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans.
Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?
Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that “bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.” That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?
This morning’s headline has the odor of a staged event. The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting “USA USA.” Could something else be going on?
No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory. He committed the fool’s error of restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat. The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake. And re-election time is approaching.
The various lies and deceptions, such as “weapons of mass destruction,” of the last several administrations had terrible consequences for the US and the world. But not all deceptions are the same. Remember, the entire reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden. Now that President Obama has declared bin Laden to have been shot in the head by US special forces operating in an independent country and buried at sea, there is no reason for continuing the war.
Perhaps the precipitous decline in the US dollar in foreign exchange markets has forced some real budget reductions, which can only come from stopping the open-ended wars. Until the decline of the dollar reached the breaking point, Osama bin Laden, who many experts believe to have been dead for years, was a useful bogeyman to use to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.
Copyright © 2011 Paul Craig Roberts
Please See Your Doctor Should Viagra Lead to Rape
By Kathleen Wallace Peine / Dissident Voice / May 2nd, 2011
It has been evident for years that the American MSM has been sliding into the dark role of government policy facilitator, but at least until recently there was something of a muddled attempt to feign credibility. That pretense is now completely gone. Hell, forget journalistic credibility; we’ve entered an era of storytelling freakery that knows no bounds.
This weekend, in particular, a breathless story was circulated for consumption; it was derived from the Reuters syndicate. One of the “progressive” sites out there presented the story as such: “HORROR: US Envoys Say Gaddafi Troops Raping, Issued Viagra”. This is a perfect example why I could never be an editor for a beard faux progressive site. I would insist the article be “WTF: US Envoys Say Gaddafi Troops Raping, Issued Viagra” because that’s what that nonsense merits.
I am in no way trying to diminish or trivialize the sickening pathology of sexual assault in wartime or anytime; it is a hideous companion to the basketful of horrors that we see during times of fighting. The fact that we are somehow not too startled by stories of maimed bombing victims shows how numb we’ve let the hawks make us. For some reason, though, rape still has a bit of shock value so I suspect that is why it’s power was tapped into for this story.
It was said that Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, made the bizarre allegation during a closed-door Security Council meeting. It has also been noted that there was no response to her statement. Now that I believe. Of course these types of stories make their way out into the world as they are intended.
The story is incredibly reminiscent of the babies being thrown from incubators tale which was remarkably effective in moving public opinion to enter into Gulf War I. As I’m sure most of the readers here have heard, that story was later proven to be fabricated. I wonder how much of the general population knows the real story in regard to this incident, however. If you don’t recall, this tale of dying babies was told by a 15 year old member of the Kuwaiti Royal family posing as an onlooker to the treachery. She was presented in an anonymous manner; it was said, so as to protect her family still in Kuwait. The girl was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador. She struck out with a breakthrough performance as she told of witnessing Iraqi soldiers tossing babies onto the cold floor to perish. Babies and Rape-they both pack a punch, especially if you aren’t a particularly creative PR strategist. Hey, if it works…
If you are like me, you recall the incident as being part of a Congressional hearing, quite official. At least that is how it plays out in my mind’s eye. The thing is, that spectacle was actually organized under a group called The Human Rights Caucus. It had all the appearance of an official Congressional hearing but none of the tedious details like “laws” against lying under oath to the actual body of Congress. This was pure performance art. Don’t feel bad if you were fooled, so was Amnesty International as they had to issue an apologetic retraction after being duped as well. The damage was done, and suddenly the girl was no longer available for questions.
When clownery like 15 year old best supporting actress performances can help goad a nation to war, I suppose the participants in future ad campaigns want to see how far they can go next time. You almost wonder if there is a competition among the PR firms to see how ridiculous the stories can get.
I would certainly advance the Viagra rapin’ maniacs as one of the goofiest attempts ever. Kermit Roosevelt they ain’t! They certainly couldn’t be accused of any finesse, but they’ve seen clumsy plots work out just fine in the past.
Of course rational people realize that it is highly unlikely that an erectile dysfunction medication would facilitate rape. If this theory holds water then I have great suspicions that those retired professional type guys … the ones who go around and ride motorcycles on weekends with pristine leather jackets. … you know- the ones who always have a trip to the vineyards planned…. Come on, you’ve seen them on the commercials! These are the guys who thought Dennis Hopper was still cool even after he did Ameritrade commercials. Well, they are all probably rapists.
I almost feel sorry for Pfizer Inc. (almost).
On the absolutely, insanely improbable (did I say minuscule) chance that this has any basis in fact — suppose one bat-shit crazy commander did hand out some Viagra — I can find no plausible way this could be a widespread issue of note. Of course sexual assault is a horrible issue, but I suspect PR guys decided to piggyback on that volatile and scary topic with some mayhem and nonsense to get attention. I do think they finally miscalculated this time, however.
This propaganda is so completely over the top that even the comments following the article seemed to show a glimmer of critical thinking on the part of the readers. This is amazing and rare these days. Overwhelmingly the story was rejected and mocked. We are seeing our media slide into a Soviet era TASS irrelevance. The readers may not know the real story, but they know they are being fed nonsense.
The purveyors of these tales seem to have no agenda other than to incite support for this latest war. They are not hindered by the fact finding that tainted yesterday’s quaint journalism. One is thankful that North Korean style radios haven’t been placed in all of our homes. You can turn down the propaganda but never turn it off. I’m sure our policy jackals view that setup with lust.
If only this jaded disbelief could have been present the last decade or so. It seems to have taken personal lifestyle threats to question the legitimacy of continuous war and that is a very sad commentary on the American soul. You take what you can get though, and for whatever reason, every day more Americans seem to be seeing through the adolescent war propaganda machine.
The startling revelation that bin Laden is dead should be treated with similar skeptical consideration. This comes at a time when support is certainly waning in regard to these military escapades. Early indications seem to paint a bit of a giddy celebratory sense in the average American, but it will be fascinating to see if this translates over into any enhanced support of the multi-platform wars. At this point we truly only know what they are telling us, and little has dripped out as far as detailed facts. They do claim to have a body– we’ll have to see what is released, but one thing is for certain: this is the big one in the arsenal, possibly held until truly needed to goad and frenzy up the population again. I’m sure the best PR team is handling this one!
There’s truly no way to know if bin Laden’s location was verified long ago, but the kill was not ordered until this time. The long standing bizarre audio releases certainly made his death seem likely many years ago, though. None of this is seamless. Hopefully some of the skepticism beginning to show in regard to idiotic stories like the Viagra rape tales will at least translate over into a lack of blanket support for increased worldwide “interventions” even in the atmosphere surrounding this latest announcement.
Sadly this growing awareness does not seem to indicate a groundswell of activism that is just around the corner. This is all new to those of us living during the imperial overreach of the day and it will be up to us to determine how best to channel this growing distrust Americans are incubating. These clumsy propaganda attempts may actually do more good than we can know if they open the eyes of those previously in a trance.
Kathleen Wallace Peine can be reached at: kathypeine@gmail.com
Drone ‘Debate’ Breaks Out at Washington Post
By Peter Hart | FAIR | April 25, 2011
Readers of the Washington Post can see this headline in today’s edition (4/25/11) about the U.S. drone airstrikes:
Debates Underway on Combat Drones
But there is no actual debate in the article. Reporter Walter Pincus cites a British military study that calls the use of missile-firing drones “a genuine revolution in military affairs,” adding that the “use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified.”
Pincus goes on to explain:
At a Washington conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) last week, the issue of drones was also widely discussed.
That ‘wide discussion’ would seem to have involved drone proponents from the CIA and the military. Those quoted by the Post were:
–“Lt. Col. Bruce Black, program manager for the Air Force Predator and Reaper aircraft.”
–“former CIA director Michael V. Hayden,” who explained that drone pilots “can call up computer maps that show the potential effects of each weapon.” Hayden explained that teams can ask for an attack’s likely impact on the ground– which is apparently called “the bug splat.”
–“Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” who apparently talked about “potential problems with public perceptions.”
–“Col. Dean Bushey, deputy director of the Air Force Joint Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center,” who explained that drone pilots train like conventional pilots.
There are plenty of questions to ask about a government policy of assassination by remote control drone aircraft– including whether or not this is even legal. The Post’s “debate” would seem to exclude anyone who doesn’t think this is a sound policy.
Freedom of Information Act Reveals Files Suggesting FDR’s Role in Pearl Harbor
Alexis Bonari | Activist Post | April 22, 2011
September 11th is hardly the first “day of infamy” to undergo public scrutiny and accusations of government conspiracy. President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the phrase on December 7th after the Japanese “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The attack, according to author and WWII Navy veteran, Robert B. Stinnett, however, had been no surprise at all for Roosevelt.
It was only at the author’s insistent calls on the Freedom of Information Act that the U.S. Navy at last released formerly hidden evidence that led Stinnett to conclude: FDR knew and had the power to avert disaster on December 7th.
Interview with Stinnett
The government’s claims that Japan’s codes had yet to be broken in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor have been met with questions and skepticism since 1945’s September issue of Life magazine. Stinnett himself, in an interview featured on The Independent Institute’s website, says that he believed the article to be an anti-Roosevelt tract at the time. After reading At Dawn We Slept
The likes of Gore Vidal and John Toland, Pulitzer Prize-winner and author of Infamy
Because the American public still ached from the appalling death toll of the First World War (and because FDR had already promised his people, “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars”), FDR focused most of his energy on coming up with a reason for the nation to change its mind. In November 1941, all US military commanders received the order: “The United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act.” That would explain why, according to Lynne Olson’s research published in Citizens of London, Churchill and Governor John G. Winant practically danced at the news in December that America would be joining the European campaign, forgetting that over 2,000 Americans were already dead.
Cracking the Code
According to Stinnett’s research, the US Navy had in fact cracked Japanese naval codes and even intercepted eighty-three messages from Admiral Yamamoto to his warships. A message from November 25 read:
…the task force, keeping its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow.
Even Thomas Dewey, Roosevelt’s competitor in the 1944 presidential elections, had heard whispers of FDR’s role in arranging the massacre. Although Dewey planned speeches to charge FDR with foreknowledge of the attack, General George Marshall (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) convinced Dewey that he would risk American security in doing so, since Japan’s navy had yet to realize their codes had been cracked. Dewey kept his silence, and nearly everyone else has since, too—until Stinnett.
Day of Deceit has received much criticism (predictably) from conventional historians and readers as well as notable acclaim from revisionists. Still others disapprove of Stinnett’s ubiquitous tone that suggests throughout the book that FDR had no choice but to arrange for the deaths of over 2,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor. Stinnet most notably fails to mention FDR’s refusal to meet Prime Minister Konoye for peace talks in late 1941.
Stinnett seems to have broken ground, but it is still only the surface.
Libya and Gaza: Double Standards in Conflict Reporting at The New York Times
By Ed Moloney | The Broken Elbow | April 20, 2011
Excerpts:
Hats off to The New York Times for being one of the first, if not the first, to report last Friday that Col. Gaddafi’s forces in Libya have been firing cluster bombs into residential neighborhoods of Misurata, the sole city in western Libya still in rebel hands, thereby escalating the possibility of major civilian carnage.
Deployment of the weapon, along with ground-to-ground rockets, represents a significant intensification in the two-month old crisis in Libya sparked by the so-called Arab Spring of democratic rebellions that have surged through the Middle East.
The Libyan uprising, however, is the only one of these insurrections that has seen direct Western military involvement and it was the apparent threat to civilian life of the sort reported this weekend by the NYTimes and other media outlets that brought that about. Following an allegedly bloodcurdling threat from Gaddafi in early March to exact revenge against the citizens of Benghazi, the eastern city that has been the epicenter of the revolt, the United Nations Security Council authorised the use of force to protect civilians.
Justifying US involvement in the NATO-led bombing campaign against Gaddafi’s forces that followed, President Barack Obama said: “If we waited one more day, Benghazi . . . could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.’’
Gaddafi’s use of cluster bombs clearly increases the danger to Libya’s civilian population. The munitions, which contain many smaller, shrapnel-packed bomblets are designed to shower wide areas with deadly explosives. On the battlefield they can cut down scores of soldiers at a time but in heavily populated urban neighborhoods the weapon can kill and maim on a massive scale. As The NYTimes put it, describing the deployment of the weapon along with rockets:
Both of these so-called indiscriminate weapons, which strike areas with a dense succession of high-explosive munitions, by their nature cannot be fired precisely. When fired into populated areas, they place civilians at grave risk.
The dangers were evident beside one of the impact craters on Friday (in Misurata), where eight people had been killed while standing in a bread-line. Where a crowd had assembled for food, bits of human flesh had been blasted against a cinder-block wall.
The NYTimes’ report came just as other media outlets, such as The Boston Globe, were beginning to offer a platform to more skeptical analyses of the rationale for war in Libya. These pointed out that not only did Gaddafi not threaten a civilian massacre in Benghazi – this claim was made instead by rebels – he had offered an amnesty to those who threw their weapons away and even offered rebels an escape route to Egypt. The use of cluster bombs, however, tilts the balance the other way, strengthening the view that Gaddafi is prepared to kill his own people in order to survive. […]
So how did The New York Times cover the deployment of white phosphorous by the IDF in Gaza? Again by way of contrast, the best way to start answering that question is perhaps to look at how one its European rivals covered the same story. The paper in question is The Times of London. […]
The Times can sometimes rise majestically to the occasion. Its coverage of Israel’s deployment of white phosphorous was one such instance. The paper’s first story appeared on January 5th [2009] under the headline ‘Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorous shells’ and two days later, on January 8th, followed that up with a story about the horrifying injuries caused by WP, while noting that the IDF’s official denials that the weapon was in use and identifying the shells as being of US origin: “There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorous against civilians is prohibited under international law”. Another story on January 12th provided more detailed evidence of widespread civilian casualties caused by the weapon.
On January 15th, The Times reported that the UNWRA complex in Gaza had been hit by white phosphorous shells and that the UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon had protested to the Israeli government (a counter claim by Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert that his forces had been forced to reply to Hamas attacks was not supported by Goldstone). It continued in terms that left little doubt the paper believed the Israelis to be liars: “The Israeli military has denied using white phosphorous shells in the Gaza offensive, although an investigation by The Times has revealed that dozens of Palestinians in Gaza have sustained serious injuries from the substance, which burns at extremely high temperatures.”
So how did The New York Times compare to its British equivalent? I did a search of the paper’s website and archive and trawled Lexis-Nexis for references in the paper to white phosphorous during Operation Cast Lead. In total there were just five reports and with the exception of the last article, filed after the Israelis had withdrawn from Gaza, the NYT’s references to WP were perfunctory, repeated IDF and Israeli government explanations for its use and made little if any mention of the death and injury caused to Gazan civilians.
The first was a story on January 11th by Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief for the NYT since March 2008. Although the subject had been well reported by The Times of London and other European newspapers up to a week beforehand, Bronner devoted just one sentence to WP in a report that led with Israel’s warnings to Gaza residents about a planned escalation of its incursion. Although Bronner also reported signs of growing international criticism of Israeli tactics and the dangers posed to Gazan civilians, the reference to WP was a meager one that carried echoes of the IDF’s line on its use. He wrote: “Human rights groups are also concerned about the Israeli use of white phosphorous, which creates smoke on a battlefield, at low altitudes or crowded areas, because it can burn like a kind of napalm.”
The second report came on January 16th, five days later and dealt with the shelling of the UNWRA complex. The article dwelt on Israeli doubts about the UN’s neutrality and complaints about its “institutional bias”, carried the IDF claim that its shelling was in response to Hamas fire and devoted just two paragraphs in a 1600 word article to the use of White Phosphorus.
Bylined Isabel Kershner, the story had this to say about the weapon:
Citing agency representatives who were present during the attack, Mr Gunness (a UNWRA spokesman) said three white phosphorous shells had hit the compound, causing fires that raged for hours, an allegation to which the Israeli military did not respond.
White phosphorous is a standard, legal weapon in armies, long used as a way to light up an area or to create a thick white smoke to obscure troop movements. While using it against civilians, or in an area where many civilians are likely to be affected, can be a violation of international law, Israel has denied using the substance improperly. On Wednesday, Hamas fired a phosphorous mortar shell into Israel, but no-one was hurt.
On January 22nd, the day after Israel withdrew from Gaza, The New York Times carried two pieces on WP, one by Ethan Bronner and Alan Cowell which reported that Israel had established a military investigation “to look into the issue” of alleged misuse of WP following allegations reported in what an IDF spokesman called “the foreign press”. It was the first admission by the paper that Israel’s use of white phosphorous had angered and incensed international opinion.
A second piece, solely by Ethan Bronner, finally put a human face to the consequences of white phosphorous use and reported on the ordeal of the Abu Halima family. Five members of the family, four children and their father, had perished in a WP attack over two weeks earlier and the incident had been widely reported, both in The Times of London and other European outlets, but it was only now that The New York Times was giving the story any coverage.
Bronner quoted Sabah Abu Halima, the surviving widow, at length and also doctors who had treated survivors and had seen the horrific injuries up close. One doctor said that in a few cases the damage done by WP was so acute that “seemingly limited burns led to the patients’ deaths.” Sabah Abu Halima’s grief was so profound, she said she wanted to see Israel’s foreign minister and president “burn like my children burned”.
It was a good piece of reporting that well reflected the horrors visited upon Palestinian civilians by Israeli white phosphorous. But it came far too late, like the horse that bolted the stable. It also smacked of catch up by the Gray Lady, as if someone in the New York HQ had realized that the paper really ought to say something about the matter given the level of international concern over Israel’s behavior in Gaza. But by this stage the horse had galloped several fields away.
It could be said in the paper’s defense that The New York Times was hampered, as was all the media, by Israeli government restrictions on media access to the Gaza war zone. Reporters like Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner couldn’t actually report from the ground, could not see the evidence or lack thereof for themselves and couldn’t get to speak to victims like Sabah Abu Halima, much less look into her eyes as she voiced her allegations. All their reports, bar the second Bronner piece on January 22nd, carried the Jerusalem dateline. Only when the IDF had evacuated could Ethan Bronner get into Gaza to speak to Palestinians.
That all sounds reasonable except for one thing. Like the NYT, The Times of London’s reports were all datelined Jersualem and for its detailed coverage of events on the ground in Gaza the paper seemingly relied on local stringers. And it managed to report in considerable detail both the use of WP and the devastating injuries being caused. So what about The New York Times? Did the paper have someone on the ground in Gaza and if so, why didn’t its coverage match its English counterpart?
Well yes, the paper did have someone on the ground in Gaza. Her name was Taghreed El-Khodary, a Palestinian journalist and she was the paper’s local correspondent, able to go places and speak to people inaccessible to Bronner and Kershner. On January 19th, 2009, she featured in a lengthy readers’ Q&A session reported in the Lede blog on the NYT website where she was asked about evidence that she had seen about the use of WP. She replied, inter alia: “I could find evidence of the use of white phosphorus bombs……As a result, we wrote about the use of the phosphorus. Israel used white phosphorus in densely populated areas.”
Ms El-Khodary may well have written about white phosphorous but if so, her reports about its use, the evidence she had found and her assertion that the weapon was used in “densely populated areas” never appeared in her paper, at least no edition available in any archive that I could search.
In all of this, it may entirely be a coincidence that the NYT’s Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner has what many would see as a major conflict of interest. He is married to an Israeli citizen and his son is a soldier in the Israeli army. Philip Weiss in his Mondoweiss blog reported on The New York Times response when Bronner’s background became known: “When it broke the news last year, Electronic Intifada said that it was a conflict of interest; and the newspaper’s public editor concurred; he said that Bronner should be reassigned to some other beat. The Times’ executive editor, Bill Keller, has kept Bronner in Jerusalem, presumably hoping that the issue dies down and no one says anything about it.” (Taghreed El-Khodary resigned when the NYT refused to reassign Bronner and spoke of her “disappointment” at the paper’s decision). The NYT’s other Jerusalem-based correspondent Isabel Kershner is an Israeli citizen.
Perhaps it is unfair to suggest that such considerations would or could affect how a journalist covers a particular story or how a newspaper should regard his or her stories. But put it this way. If CJ Chivers was a Libyan citizen, or was married to one, and had a son who was fighting for the rebels in Benghazi and all this was known to the world, would The New York Times have been just as quick to publish his story about Gaddafi’s use of cluster bombs, just as confident that it could weather the inevitable controversy?
Featured Video
“Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archive
How Ukraine Tortured and Slaughtered Donbass
By Kit Klarenberg | Al Mayadeen | July 11, 2024
Almost immediately after the proxy war erupted, ISIS-tier footage of the torture and murder of Russians in Ukrainian custody emerged.
On July 6th, the New York Times published an astonishing investigation: In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit. The article documents in grim detail how Chosen Company, an international volunteer battalion for Kiev, routinely executes Russian prisoners of war. It is the very first mainstream admission that this practice – a brazen breach of the Geneva Conventions, and a grave war crime – is widespread among Ukraine’s fighters, both foreign and homegrown. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Peace in Ukraine: the easy way – or the hard way
- Trump & the Rrrrussians
- US taxpayer money laundered back through Ukraine – Musk
- Before COVID, an NIH lab chief proposed making a SARS-like bat virus more infectious
- Gates, Bourla on Trial in Netherlands Accused of ‘Great Reset’ Scheme at Vaccine Injury Hearing
- BRITAIN’S WARNING: PREPARE FOR WAR
- “Historic Russia”: The Land Putin Will Not Give Back
- How the Cambridge Analytica scandal still haunts Mark Zuckerberg
- The Ongoing Cancellation Campaign Against a Dissenting Academic in Norway
- Yemen and ‘the Houthis’: Challenging Sami Hamdi’s Narrative
- If Americans Knew
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Damning report shows the media must confront its failures on Gaza
- BBC senior broadcaster speaks out on Gaza coverage
- Netanyahu vows vast West Bank invasion in response to 20-minute skirmish that left 2 Israeli soldiers and 2 Palestinian fighters dead
- Tied up and tortured: Israel using US-made electroshock weapons on Palestinian detainees
- The outsourced risk: how newsrooms rely on Gaza’s freelancers without protecting them
- Gaza bakeries forced to shut as Israel blocks flour shipments
- Gaza’s breast cancer patients face a deadly wait for treatment amid Israel’s genocide
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- The Israel Lobby’s Changing Fortunes
- No Tricks Zone
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
