If you don't understand how everything can have gone so wrong in the world in recent years, you need to spend an hour watching this movie. . .
Update: I used to have an imbedded YouTube video here, but it has been squashed, probably because so many people are watching it, so here's the place to go to watch it. Just paste this address in your browser's address window:
http://new.hulu.com/watch/392812
Go watch it quick before it gets squashed there, too.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Faking War
It isn't enough to just MAKE war. Now our government and media and those of complicit western countries are just blatantly making stuff up to try to justify an attack on Syria. Well, actually, that's been going on for a while, as I noted in this post back in March, when a young liar known as "Syria Danny" and CNNs Anderson Cooper did an interview where they made it look like the violence in Syria was worse than it actually was.
Now we're down to bad Photoshop jobs. Here's an image from Gizmodo:
On the left is the article, from an Austrian newspaper, which plays up the impact of recent violence in Syria on "mothers." On the right is the real photo, from which the left's scene of utter devastation is created with a rather obvious paste job.
I wonder why they want to attack Syria so badly that they'll fake the reasons to do it? Hmmm.
Now we're down to bad Photoshop jobs. Here's an image from Gizmodo:
On the left is the article, from an Austrian newspaper, which plays up the impact of recent violence in Syria on "mothers." On the right is the real photo, from which the left's scene of utter devastation is created with a rather obvious paste job.
I wonder why they want to attack Syria so badly that they'll fake the reasons to do it? Hmmm.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Not On the News
Seems that there's a rather big something out there that the news isn't telling us about. Surprise! After you see what it is, and no matter where you stand on the substance of the matter, maybe you can tell me, WHY is it not being reported?
The something is House Concurrent Resolution 107, introduced March 7, 2012, by Rep. Walter B. Jones, R, NC.
The resolution's purpose is to express, "the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,' except when there's been an actual attack on American territory, or there's an imminent attack. In other words, if passed, this resolution could form the basis for impeachment of President Obama for using military force (in Egypt and Syria, for example) without Congressional approval.
Now, I've been rather clear about my liberal leanings, and I'll even cop to having voted for the President with high hopes that he'd operate differently than his predecessors. But I'm going on record now--the House and the Senate should pass this resolution, because:
A) The Constitution pretty clearly and expressly requires exactly what the resolution says; and
B) What Obama, and Bush before him, and a whole line before them, have been doing is systematically usurping authority to such an extent that by the order of one person, the entire nation can be tossed into war, for years or decades; can be required to pay back the debt financing of the same; and can be forced to live with the economic and practice consequences of war (as we have been for some time), without that person ever having to convince another human that it's necessary or a good idea. That illegal and immoral process is killing this country, and it should stop now.
It's just a pity they didn't do the same thing years ago.
The something is House Concurrent Resolution 107, introduced March 7, 2012, by Rep. Walter B. Jones, R, NC.
The resolution's purpose is to express, "the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,' except when there's been an actual attack on American territory, or there's an imminent attack. In other words, if passed, this resolution could form the basis for impeachment of President Obama for using military force (in Egypt and Syria, for example) without Congressional approval.
Now, I've been rather clear about my liberal leanings, and I'll even cop to having voted for the President with high hopes that he'd operate differently than his predecessors. But I'm going on record now--the House and the Senate should pass this resolution, because:
A) The Constitution pretty clearly and expressly requires exactly what the resolution says; and
B) What Obama, and Bush before him, and a whole line before them, have been doing is systematically usurping authority to such an extent that by the order of one person, the entire nation can be tossed into war, for years or decades; can be required to pay back the debt financing of the same; and can be forced to live with the economic and practice consequences of war (as we have been for some time), without that person ever having to convince another human that it's necessary or a good idea. That illegal and immoral process is killing this country, and it should stop now.
It's just a pity they didn't do the same thing years ago.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Beat Goes On
In my post of a couple of days ago, On Today's Episode... I opined that we would be in for an escalation of rhetoric drumming up animosity toward Iran with the "Iran is trying to destroy our friends in Israel" meme, in order to justify the government's desired attack on that country.
Well, here's the next measure in that song. The dust had barely cleared from the explosion before Thai officials blamed Iran for a failed bombing in Bangkok yesterday. Apparently, the would-be bombers blew the roof off the house they were staying in, and then one of them, covered in blood, tried to hail a cab, who wouldn't take him. Just to make sure to attract more attention, the thrwarted bomber threw a grenade at the cab, injuring the driver, and ran.
When police tried to apprehend him, the hapless bomber tried to escape by throwing a grenade at police. It bounced off a tree and rebounded on him, blowing his own legs off. These bombers really need some explosives training.
Thai officials claim the bomber, and another man later apprehended at the airport trying to flee to Malasya had Iranian passports.
Per the ABC News Article,
Israeli officials told ABC News "we don't know" what Moradi's intended target was "because he was caught." A spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry has said there is no sign yet that Moradi's alleged targets were Jewish or Israel.
Wait a minute! Israeli officials? One wonders, why is it that both these major news sources are talking to Israeli officials? If you don't know the target, wouldn't it seem likely it's the country where the bombing occurred?
Apparently, not if you're drumming. You see, in the articles linked, there is no reaction of outrage from high level officials in Thailand--barely any reaction at all--but we did get to hear paragraphs worth from everyone's favorite Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu of Israel and his minions.
Stay tuned to hear soon which low level Israeli diplomat these keystone bombers were after this time. Don't worry, I'm SURE it will be ISRAELI diplomats.
Well, here's the next measure in that song. The dust had barely cleared from the explosion before Thai officials blamed Iran for a failed bombing in Bangkok yesterday. Apparently, the would-be bombers blew the roof off the house they were staying in, and then one of them, covered in blood, tried to hail a cab, who wouldn't take him. Just to make sure to attract more attention, the thrwarted bomber threw a grenade at the cab, injuring the driver, and ran.
When police tried to apprehend him, the hapless bomber tried to escape by throwing a grenade at police. It bounced off a tree and rebounded on him, blowing his own legs off. These bombers really need some explosives training.
Thai officials claim the bomber, and another man later apprehended at the airport trying to flee to Malasya had Iranian passports.
Per the ABC News Article,
Israeli officials told ABC News "we don't know" what Moradi's intended target was "because he was caught." A spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry has said there is no sign yet that Moradi's alleged targets were Jewish or Israel.
Wait a minute! Israeli officials? One wonders, why is it that both these major news sources are talking to Israeli officials? If you don't know the target, wouldn't it seem likely it's the country where the bombing occurred?
Apparently, not if you're drumming. You see, in the articles linked, there is no reaction of outrage from high level officials in Thailand--barely any reaction at all--but we did get to hear paragraphs worth from everyone's favorite Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu of Israel and his minions.
Stay tuned to hear soon which low level Israeli diplomat these keystone bombers were after this time. Don't worry, I'm SURE it will be ISRAELI diplomats.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
On Today's Episode ...
In the last several months, you'd have to be living under a rock to not hear the loud and consistent drumbeat urging us on to an attack of Iran. They're building THE BOMB, we're told. They're EVIL, they say. They're bent on the destruction of ISRAEL, the story goes. Every day, in every medium. And I'm here to ask you to think-- a little more deeply than the average American--about what it means.
December 20, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told 60 Minutes that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within a year, or maybe quicker. Just nineteen days later, on January 8, Panetta admitted that Iran is not even trying to build a nuclear weapon. He said, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know they are trying to develop a nuclear capability."
But of course truth being no deterrent, we returned shortly thereafter to the drums of war. For example, last week, the New York Times referred to the November, 2011, IAEA report as "showing 'research, development and testing activities' on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon."
It's rather hard to take it too seriously, if you've been paying attention. It seems those pesky Iranians have been right on the verge of developing The Bomb (!) for quite a while now. In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, we were earnestly assured that all the way back in November of 2008,
Events are moving quickly. The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission has estimated that Iran will have produced enough highly enriched uranium by the end of next year to produce a nuclear bomb. Next year is widely regarded in Israel as year zero for the strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why is Iran always on the brink of getting the Bomb, but it never does? Why do we keep murdering their scientists and sending ships over and applying economic sanctions, and we keep just staying here, on the brink?
I wonder...
I wonder if maybe it's all a just a put up job to try to get enough people scared that they'll not throw a complete hissy if we attack Iran--you know, to achieve a plausible justification for attacking and occupying another Middle Eastern country, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and like we're trying in Syria and Pakistan and Egypt . I know, I know, it sounds crazy. Except that it's been talked about, seriously, in real foreign policy circles--for years.
For example, a 2009 Analysis Paper of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution (sounds positively respectable, doesn't it?) stated,
For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
Which Path to Persia? pp. 84-85.
Did you notice that? The people in the know about US Foreign Policy--people at the freaking Brookings Institution--say it would be "far more preferable" if an "outrageous," "deadly" attack by Iran occurred to justify airstrikes that the government wants carry out. You might also take note that they propose "goading" Iraq into attacking and then lying about it, portraying it as an "unprovoked act of Iranian aggression."
And just in case you think that can't be--they couldn't be that cynical--you might be interested in the pros and cons they discuss. Among the "advantages" of this strategy, with my snarky comments in italics:
- American casualties would be "minimal," only "dozens" of American young people would be killed. Well, their families shouldn't mind.
- While there would be "collateral damage in the form of Iranian civilian deaths...it is unlikely that huge numbers would be killed. And who cares about them, anyway? They're only human beings.
- It might even work. There is "some chance (albeit not high)" that this approach could delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for 5 to 7 years.
The "disadvantages" include:
- It would likely only delay the development of weapons by a year or two.
- It might increase Iran's determination to get the weapon.
- It might radicalize Iran and other anti-US folks even further.
- It might cause Iran to retaliate, shutting off the oil spigot by closing the Straits of Hormuz.
Which Path to Persia? pp. 88-89.
They don't even list among the disadvantages that it requires lying to the American people and the world, or that those lies would get people killed on both sides. I'm not kidding here--go read it for yourself.
Now that you understand the folks we're talking about, think about this little gem, from a January 9, 2012, article in the Jerusalem Post.
Watching the Sunday talk shows on American TV, the experts were all of the opinion that neither the US nor Israel will embark on attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012. I tend to agree. Neither the US nor Israel will initiate an attack on Iran. Still, I believe that these experts were off by a million miles.
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.
Unlike the latest attempt at an Iranian revolution, this time the US would not shy away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. The Iranian people would respond in numbers.
Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East - this time with the direct support of the US.
Notice how the author, Avi Perry, who is an Israeli intelligence expert and former professor at Northwestern University, puts "surprise" in quotes in his use of the term "surprise attack." That's because it wouldn't be a surprise at all--he's at least talking about a situation where the US knows it's coming and doesn't prevent it (just like Pearl Harbor, which he references). Or maybe he's even talking about something more nefarious still. He might even be referring to a false-flag attack that's blamed on the Iranians. Who knows--maybe one where we get a little 'help' from our friends in Israel?
It wouldn't be the first time that such a plan was considered by our beloved government. Clear back in 2008, it was reported that the feds wanted to drum up support for a war against Iran with a false flag attack. Seymour Hersh reported on a meeting in which then VP Dick Cheney and others discussed sending out American ships disguised to look like Iranian PT boats to fire on other American ships and "start a shootup." Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
Just something to keep in mind, as you watch the drama (I mean that very literally--it's all a performance for us mindless sheep) unfold.
I've never asked before, but I'm going to this time. People need to think. Will you please link this post to your Facebook page, email links to your friends, and otherwise tell folks about it? Our government, for some reason, seems determined to start this war, on false pretenses if necessary. China and Russia have stated they'll get in to protect Iran if we attack them, because they know it's phony as a three dollar bill. And people who don't actually want World War III to begin should probably know about it and stop them.
December 20, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told 60 Minutes that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within a year, or maybe quicker. Just nineteen days later, on January 8, Panetta admitted that Iran is not even trying to build a nuclear weapon. He said, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know they are trying to develop a nuclear capability."
But of course truth being no deterrent, we returned shortly thereafter to the drums of war. For example, last week, the New York Times referred to the November, 2011, IAEA report as "showing 'research, development and testing activities' on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon."
It's rather hard to take it too seriously, if you've been paying attention. It seems those pesky Iranians have been right on the verge of developing The Bomb (!) for quite a while now. In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, we were earnestly assured that all the way back in November of 2008,
Events are moving quickly. The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission has estimated that Iran will have produced enough highly enriched uranium by the end of next year to produce a nuclear bomb. Next year is widely regarded in Israel as year zero for the strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why is Iran always on the brink of getting the Bomb, but it never does? Why do we keep murdering their scientists and sending ships over and applying economic sanctions, and we keep just staying here, on the brink?
I wonder...
I wonder if maybe it's all a just a put up job to try to get enough people scared that they'll not throw a complete hissy if we attack Iran--you know, to achieve a plausible justification for attacking and occupying another Middle Eastern country, like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and like we're trying in Syria and Pakistan and Egypt . I know, I know, it sounds crazy. Except that it's been talked about, seriously, in real foreign policy circles--for years.
For example, a 2009 Analysis Paper of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution (sounds positively respectable, doesn't it?) stated,
For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
Which Path to Persia? pp. 84-85.
Did you notice that? The people in the know about US Foreign Policy--people at the freaking Brookings Institution--say it would be "far more preferable" if an "outrageous," "deadly" attack by Iran occurred to justify airstrikes that the government wants carry out. You might also take note that they propose "goading" Iraq into attacking and then lying about it, portraying it as an "unprovoked act of Iranian aggression."
And just in case you think that can't be--they couldn't be that cynical--you might be interested in the pros and cons they discuss. Among the "advantages" of this strategy, with my snarky comments in italics:
- American casualties would be "minimal," only "dozens" of American young people would be killed. Well, their families shouldn't mind.
- While there would be "collateral damage in the form of Iranian civilian deaths...it is unlikely that huge numbers would be killed. And who cares about them, anyway? They're only human beings.
- It might even work. There is "some chance (albeit not high)" that this approach could delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for 5 to 7 years.
The "disadvantages" include:
- It would likely only delay the development of weapons by a year or two.
- It might increase Iran's determination to get the weapon.
- It might radicalize Iran and other anti-US folks even further.
- It might cause Iran to retaliate, shutting off the oil spigot by closing the Straits of Hormuz.
Which Path to Persia? pp. 88-89.
They don't even list among the disadvantages that it requires lying to the American people and the world, or that those lies would get people killed on both sides. I'm not kidding here--go read it for yourself.
Now that you understand the folks we're talking about, think about this little gem, from a January 9, 2012, article in the Jerusalem Post.
Watching the Sunday talk shows on American TV, the experts were all of the opinion that neither the US nor Israel will embark on attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012. I tend to agree. Neither the US nor Israel will initiate an attack on Iran. Still, I believe that these experts were off by a million miles.
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian attack on an American military vessel will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the Strait of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself.
Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand finale. It might have been the major target, had the US initiated the attack. However, under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, in which Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to finish them off, to put an end to this ugly game.
Unlike the latest attempt at an Iranian revolution, this time the US would not shy away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. The Iranian people would respond in numbers.
Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East - this time with the direct support of the US.
Notice how the author, Avi Perry, who is an Israeli intelligence expert and former professor at Northwestern University, puts "surprise" in quotes in his use of the term "surprise attack." That's because it wouldn't be a surprise at all--he's at least talking about a situation where the US knows it's coming and doesn't prevent it (just like Pearl Harbor, which he references). Or maybe he's even talking about something more nefarious still. He might even be referring to a false-flag attack that's blamed on the Iranians. Who knows--maybe one where we get a little 'help' from our friends in Israel?
It wouldn't be the first time that such a plan was considered by our beloved government. Clear back in 2008, it was reported that the feds wanted to drum up support for a war against Iran with a false flag attack. Seymour Hersh reported on a meeting in which then VP Dick Cheney and others discussed sending out American ships disguised to look like Iranian PT boats to fire on other American ships and "start a shootup." Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?
Just something to keep in mind, as you watch the drama (I mean that very literally--it's all a performance for us mindless sheep) unfold.
I've never asked before, but I'm going to this time. People need to think. Will you please link this post to your Facebook page, email links to your friends, and otherwise tell folks about it? Our government, for some reason, seems determined to start this war, on false pretenses if necessary. China and Russia have stated they'll get in to protect Iran if we attack them, because they know it's phony as a three dollar bill. And people who don't actually want World War III to begin should probably know about it and stop them.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A Break From the Lies, for a Moment of Truth
Big news--a representative of the government has told a tiny bit of truth--that the government of Iran is NOT TRYING TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted Sunday on Meet the Press that Iran is not building the bomb. One is then led to the obvious question, "then how come we're massing troops over there and threatening them with battleships?" But that's only if you are a rational human...
He does go on to say that they're trying to develop "nuclear capability." You know, that's the totally safe, clean energy source that they've been telling us for the last three decades or so that we should have more of, notwithstanding Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. :-)
Here's the clip, and next time, Part Four of Their Lips Are Moving:
He does go on to say that they're trying to develop "nuclear capability." You know, that's the totally safe, clean energy source that they've been telling us for the last three decades or so that we should have more of, notwithstanding Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. :-)
Here's the clip, and next time, Part Four of Their Lips Are Moving:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)