Arab Man = Militant or Terrorist

This seems to be the formula most widely accepted by the western media and the US/US's Puppy (Englerica? Ameriland?) governments. Lets take a recent Associated Press article, regarding civilian casualties (being a woman or a child under 10 still counts as a "civilian," at least for now):

BAGHDAD -- U.S. soldiers destroyed two buildings being used by insurgents in a town in the western Anbar province, killing six militants, two women and a boy believed to be under 2, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Now, out of curiosity, what legally recognised court passed the guilty verdict on these six individuals that there was sufficiently binding evidence that they must fall into a legally recognised category of illegal "militants" pursuant to civil and international law?

Or was simply being an Arab man enough to justify their death sentence?

------------------------------------------------
Also, Al Jazeera reports that Kofi Annan (previously scared to call a duck a duck and admit that the civil war in Iraq is a civil war) today did muster the courage to say what Iraqis have been thinking for years and openly articulating without qualification of late:

Annan said he agreed with Iraqis who say that life is worse now than it was under Saddam.

"I think they are right in the sense of the average Iraqi's life," he said.

"If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison - that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?" Annan said.

So, the UN Secretary General comes out and finally tacitly admits that the US (whose UN Mandate on Iraq was just renewed in the past week or so) has created a civil war in Iraq.

Yet the rest of the world stands by and does nothing.

Why?

Israel's Peace Offer?

Recently there has been much news coverage of the "ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel (which Condi Rice was in Israel trying to "shore up" on Thursday) and the magnanamous offer by Ehud Olmert of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact that the ceasefire has been anything-but aside (monday, for example, after the ceasefire took effect sunday, Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel and the IDF shot and killed a "militant" and a 50 year old woman they claimed tried to "run off" with his weapon. I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard of a 50 year old woman running...), Israel's "offer of peace" has been on the table now since 1947.

Peace is offered to Palestine in return for the wholesale removal of all palestinians and the creation of a Jewish-Zionist state that runs from the mediterranean to the Jordan river. Okay, I exaggerate (a little). The best offer made by Israel at the Camp David negotiations still included a 12 percent reduction in the then-current territory under direct control of the Palestinian Authority, which didn't include of course any area that is still legally part of Palestine but under de-facto Israeli control. All current offers by Israel include taking Palestinian territory that cuts straight through the center of the west bank to the Jordan river, thus dividing the West Bank into walled-in enclaves with no inter-regional transportation (due to the Israeli "security fence" and buffer zone).

Palestine's offer (from Hamas and Fatah and Al-Aqsa etc.), which was made with much less publicity just a few months back, is that Israel withdraw to their pre-1967 borders (internationally viewed as the legal boundries of Israel and referred to as the "green line") and cease all military operations in Palestine. However, we don't hear about Palestine's offer in the West, although it has stood fairly unchanged since the early 1970s.

Yet, the western media gleefully reports every action by Olmert as a "major policy shift" that is obviously him taking the high road in looking for peace. He echos the offer of a "Palestinian State" but fails to mention, and this is never pointed out in the media, that the "state" they offer is essentially a small number of small and impossible to leave communes, all surrounded by the "State" of Israel and cut off from access to water or arable land, which technically (by international law) belongs to Palestine now but is part of the self-declared state of Israel in reality.

Olmert's offer is that some "suspected militants", thousands of whom are being detained without charge or trial by Israel, will be released after a kidnapped Israeli soldier is returned to Israel. They have already begun by releasing one Palestinian government minister who was kidnapped just a few weeks ago. Yes, you read that correctly: their graciousness has been displayed by releasing a kidnapped Palestinian government minister.

They also consistantly claim that Israel was planning to "unilaterally withdraw" from the west bank. But that is misleading. Israel offered to withdraw from the sections of the west bank it does not wish to keep, but maintains its claims on the farmlands and water supplies that are legally in the West Bank but viewed (only by the US and Israel and their puppy... what's it called again? Bushtain? Blairtain? Britrael?) as part of "Israeli territory."

What doesn't get covered is the UN report that was released this week that stated Israel "violated every article" of a crossings agreement they made last year regarding entry and exit from Palestinian areas. You need look no further than the blog of "A Mother From Gaza" who, as we speak, is waiting to get back into Palestine. She has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... The effects of this de-facto blockade are disasterous for the Palestinians, left with no livelyhood, no food, and no water. So, as the report just linked to explains, while Israelis freely water their lawns with sprinklers, Palestinians are left having to pray for Red Cross water shipments... which are usually blocked by the IDF from entering Palestinian areas anyway.

Meanwhile, Palestine suffers from a whopping 40% unemployment rate; simultaneously, the US has historically provided unconditional aid to Israel to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars, and it continues to increase to this day.

The Human Rights Situation in Palestine is a travesty, and it has been inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel for decades. Additionally, those familiar with the situation are well aware of the disasterous effects that America's unconditional support for Israel has on the US's standing in the world, as evidenced by a letter from 50 retired American diplomats to George Bush on the subject. However, we in the west cannot say anything negative about Israel.

To give an example, a well known and very knowledgeable diplomat and former US president intricately familiar with the subject recently published a book called "Peace not Apartheid" which is naturally critical of Israel's actions towards Palestine.

Upon the book's release, the "new breed" of democrats who are taking over the US Congress in january were chomping at the bit to condemn the book as anti-semetic. Among those who came out against the book were Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

The formula is nothing new. Anything that is anti-Zionist (Zionism meaning building a Jewish state in the holy land, by UN terms it was a code-name for racism for 20 years lets not forget) and disagrees with Israel's murderous policies (much like 62 percent of the Israeli population disagreed with Ehud Olmert's actions in Lebanon this summer) must therefore be anti-semetic.

I think this kind of fear-and-hate mongering insults the intelligence and the morality of Jews and Gentiles everywhere. One does not have to support murder to be jewish, as those who are so quick to throw out the anti-semetic label would like you to believe, and one does not hate jews just because they disagree with the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. The whole issue is so asinine I can't believe it even has to be addressed.

In 2002 Counterpunch published an interesting article on "anti-semitism." It's worth a read.

As far as Israel's "peace offer" goes, I would like to reiterate my take on the issue. Once the following conditions are met, I'm sure peace will soon follow.

• The US needs to cut off its unconditional military aid to Israel, instead offering such aid only on the condition that murderous incursions by the IDF into foreign territories is ended immediately and finally.


• Israel must withdraw from occupied territories back to the internationally agreed 1967 borders, and tear down its illegal perimeter wall.


• The US must at once re-evaluate its position of unconditional support for Israeli policies and cease using its Security Council Veto to stymie any international attempt at mediation.


• Iran must exert its influence on Hamas and Hizballah to stop targeting civilian areas, as it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.


• Israel must cease aggressive posturing against Iran that encourages the Iranian leadership to encourage Hamas and Hizballah to continue to provoke the IDF into attacks.

Al Jazeera

American cable providers thus far have refused to carry the new channel, which will be available only online in the United States.

That quote comes from the "Jewish Telegraphic Agency" and exemplifies the exact reason why I am excited to report (for those that somehow might not know) that:

Today, November 15, 2006, Al Jazeera will officially launch its worldwide english-language news network.

For those of you who have been living in a hut in Montana and have not heard of Al Jazeera, it is a Quatar based Arabic language news channel that is viewed by roughly 40 million people per day. They gained notoriety in the west by being willing to broadcast taped messages from Osama Bin Ladin shortly after 9/11 (back before his statements were useful to the US government for instilling fear in their population, which eventually led to US news organisations being more than willing to broadcast anything remotely attributable to him). At the time, and still to today, the channel is labeled by nervous western news agencies as sympathetic towards al qaeda. I should note, however, that upon having received the first tape from Bin Ladin, Al Jazeera contacted the Bush administration and offered George himself airtime on their channel. The offer was refused.

In fact, the Bush administration is so angry at the fact that Al Jazeera is willing to broadcast facts that reflect poorly on the Bush adminstration and their policies, that Al Jazeera's headquarters in Afghanistan and Iraq were targeted by the US military. Also, immediately prior to the Iraqi elections, Al Jazeeras offices in Iraq were forcibly closed by the US military and the channel was banned from reporting from Iraq.

It is not only the Bush administration that does not like Al Jazeera. Al Zarqawi, prior to his death, posted a statement on a website accusing Al Jazeera of being a "mouthpiece for the Americans."

Here is what BBC News has to say about Al Jazeera:

Arab governments have recalled diplomats because of it, the USA has allegedly targeted its offices with bombs, but over 40 million Arabs watch it.
...
Coverage unprecedented in the Arab media, ranging from pictures of a Palestinian boy being shot dead by Israeli soldiers in his father's arms to interviews with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, have all added to its popularity and credibility.

BBC-trained al-Jazeera editor-in-chief Ahmad al-Sheikh summed up his channel's journalistic ethos in this way: "Be accurate, factual, be there first - that's not necessarily most important - and be with the human being all the time - you don't stay at the top getting the views of politicians and diplomats."
...
Al-Jazeera's impact and popularity pressured several state-run television stations to update output to compete. Several Arab governments were forced to lift, if only partially, media controls.

Analysts believe al-Jazeera is responsible for politically educating ordinary Arabs and for raising awareness and political knowledge of both Arab and world affairs. It is also credited with raising the expectations of the masses from their governments.

However, its reporting has made it unpopular with Arab and Western governments.

And this is how it is covered in the Los Angeles Times, as posted online at The Moscow Times:

Al-Jazeera, the Arab news channel that began a decade ago as an upstart, has became a thorn in the side of every dictator in the region and the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Now, the network, which turned 10 on Nov. 1, is looking to extend its sphere of influence beyond the Arab world. On Wednesday, it will start the English-language Al-Jazeera International, its most ambitious initiative yet, which will go on the air from Asia to the United States.

The channel will broadcast from network hubs in Qatar, London, Washington and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, offering news, talk and documentaries that its managing director, Nigel Parsons, said would have a decidedly different tone than on established Western channels.

In effect, Al-Jazeera International intends to become for the developing world what Al-Jazeera became to the Arab World: a champion of forgotten causes, a news organization willing to take the contrarian view and to risk being controversial.

"We want to be a channel that covers the untold stories," Parsons said. "We would be anchored in the Middle East, but we intend to cover the developing world fully."

To do that, he said, Al-Jazeera will use Asian reporters to cover Asia, and will have Africans talking about Africa, "rather than having instant experts land there and tell us a story."

The channel has signed prominent journalists, including host and commentator David Frost, former BBC correspondent Rageh Omar, and a one-time CNN anchor, Riz Khan, as well as numbers of producers and reporters from Western networks and some unknowns with a decidedly international look.

"We will carry on the tradition of showing the ugly side of conflict," Parsons said. "War has been too sanitized in the media."

In the words posted on the current english.aljazeera.net website:

Al Jazeera English all set to launch
Tuesday 14 November 2006, 14:30 Makka Time, 11:30 GMT

Al Jazeera's English-language television news channel is all set to reach 80 million homes worldwide.


At 1200 GMT on Wednesday, Al Jazeera English will begin broadcasting from the network's main studios in Doha, Qatar.

The first such international news and current affairs channel with its headquarters in the Middle East, it will far exceed the original launch target of 40 million cable and satellite households.

Wadah Khanfar, the director-general of Al Jazeera network, said: "Our launch figure is over double the original target we set for ourselves.

"This is unprecedented in the broadcasting industry - no other international news channel has launched with such a high number of homes across the world.

"We will continue to build on this figure after launch and will be looking to expand our reach significantly. This is another reflection of the strength of Al Jazeera brand."

In addition to cable and satellite, it will be available on broadband, IPTV, ADSL, terrestrial and mobile phone platforms.

Lindsey Oliver, the commercial director of Al Jazeera English, said: "We particularly appreciate the support that has been shown far and wide with distributors signing up to carry Al Jazeera English on the reputation of the Al Jazeera brand, our stated goals, our on air and off air teams, and without having seen the channel on air."

In addition to cable, ADSL, mobile platforms and satellite, Al Jazeera English will be available as a live stream to the one billion users of the internet worldwide.

Al Jazeera's English website, aljazeera.net/english will also be re-launched on Wednesday at 12 GMT to reflect the television's look and editorial content.

It will provide live streams of the channel, together with RSS feeds, e-mail newsletters and interactive discussion boards.

So where will this Anti-Christ of news channels be available in your area? (this does not apply to the US, where people will need to contact their cable providers and demand that it be made available)

Al Jazeera English platforms:

Afghanistan: Tolo TV Australia: Transact, UBI TV Belguim: TV Vlaanderen Bosnia & Herzegovina: Dzemo, H & S, Bulgaria: MSAT, SKAT Croatia: Vodatel Cyprus: Primetel Denmark: Canal Digitaal Estonia: Elion Ettevotted AS, AS STV, Teleset AS, City TV Finland: Canal Digitaal, TTV/Elisa Co-operation Pool France: TPS, Canal Sat, Neuf/Cegetel, Free, T Online, Tele 2, NOOS Germany: KDG, Premiere Subscribers, DNMG, Kabel BW - Land Baden-Wuerttemberg, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH - Hamburg, netcologne GmbH - Cologne, Kabel Kiosk (Eutelsat), Telecolumbus - Berlin, and other areas Ghana: Metro TV Greece: Nova, Teledome DSL Honduras: Cable Sula Hong Kong: HK Broadband Indonesia: XL, Ireland: Digital satellite Israel: YES, Pelephone, Cellcom, Orange Italy: Sky Italia Jordan: Jump TV Kenya: Nation TV Kuwait: United Network Company Latvia: Baltkom, IZZI Lebanon: Cablevision Lithuania: Balticum Malaysia: ASTRO, Maldives: Media Net Malta: Multiplus Middle East: NileSat (including subscribers to the Showtime network), ArabSat New Zealand: ORCUS Norway: Canal Digitaal, Consoll IPTV, Next GenTel Poland: Cyfra Plus, Cyfrowy Polsat, Toya (Lodz) Portugal: Novis Qatar: Qatar Cable Romania: iNES Group, DTH Group South Africa: Vodacom, Spain: Jazztelia TV, Orange TV, ZTV-Marina Sweden: Com Hem, Canal Digitaal Switzerland: NAXOO Thailand: Buddy TV The Netherlands: Canal Digitaal, Essent, Xtra Televisie Turkey: Turksat UAE: Etisalat, Evision UK: Digital satellite (Sky Guide 514), Vingo US: Globecast, Fision, Jump TV, VDC Uganda: Nation TV

Without Further Ado...


-----------------------------------------------

Now, some may ask "Why, Misneach, on a website with no advertisements are you running what is basically a full page advertisement for Al Jazeera?"

The answer is simple. In the west we are generally limited to a very small number of news agencies and news wires that all are entirely too willing to unquestioningly pass along whatever propaganda the government wishes to disseminate. I find this physically repulsive.

I believe it is the duty of the news media in a democracy to provide unbiased factual information to the public. Our media fail us on that count consistantly.

As such, I cannot express in words how excited I am to hear that one of my online news favorites is launching their TV news, in english, into the western world. I think it will be a breath of fresh air for a suffocating public.

The following is the Al Jazeera "Code of Ethics"

Being a globally oriented media service, Aljazeera shall determinedly adopt the following code of ethics in pursuance of the vision and mission it has set for itself:


1. Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones.


2. Endeavour to get to the truth and declare it in our dispatches, programmes and news bulletins unequivocally in a manner which leaves no doubt about its validity and accuracy.


3. Treat our audiences with due respect and address every issue or story with due attention to present a clear, factual and accurate picture while giving full consideration to the feelings of victims of crime, war, persecution and disaster, their relatives and our viewers, and to individual privacy and public decorum.


4. Welcome fair and honest media competition without allowing it to affect adversely our standards of performance so that getting a "scoop" will not become an end in itself.


5. Present diverse points of view and opinions without bias or partiality.


6. Recognise diversity in human societies with all their races, cultures and beliefs and their values and intrinsic individualities in order to present unbiased and faithful reflection of them.


7. Acknowledge a mistake when it occurs, promptly correct it and ensure it does not recur.


8. Observe transparency in dealing with news and news sources while adhering to internationally established practices concerning the rights of these sources.


9. Distinguish between news material, opinion and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and propaganda.


10. Stand by colleagues in the profession and offer them support when required, particularly in light of the acts of aggression and harassment to which journalists are subjected at times. Cooperate with Arab and international journalistic unions and associations to defend freedom of the press.


Aljazeera

The Media

In my last entry I discussed a blog post that I interpreted as being an expression of tacit support for the illegal detention and torture policies of the American regime. It was also, however, an expression of displeasure with the western media.

I agree with the premise of the increasing worthlessness of the western media, and as such I thought I might highlight some other worldly news sources I have been compiling on another website, affectionately named the Misneach Homepage. My resource of news sites (that I'm trying to ensure provide a different perspective from the western media) is here , and any comments or suggestions are always welcome.

The news story I like the most so far today is from The Iran Daily:

ARAK, Markazi,
May 19--President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday global problems should be resolved by honoring justice.
Addressing a public gathering in Komijan, the president said if attention is paid to justice, the world would be free from tyranny and oppression, IRNA reported.
“The grave problem of today’s humanity is that some big powers have distanced themselves from justice,“ he said.[...]

[there's more to the story here.]

A different perspective (from the one that tells us we should hate him) indeed.

---------------------
I was reminded of this while reading a post on the American liberal discussion forum My Left Wing in an article entitled:

Dial Up Your Bullshit Detectors: Neocon DisInfo Campaign on Iran

I have discussed the Iran issue in detail on this blog, including (but not limited to) the following posts:

War Mongering America

Iran

Iran, U.S. Lies...

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

---------------
I was also quite perturbed to note when reading an article on the Chinese State-run news agency Xinhua how the threat of the U.S. using Nuclear Weapons was a very real possibility. Does it worry anyone else that China sees America as being that dangerous and demented? Or am I the only one who thinks lowering the threshold for use of nuclear weapons is a Very Bad Idea.

The Story.

The disturbing bit:

"Over a long period of time, Washington called Libya, together with Iran and others, a "rogue nation," which allegedly supported terrorism, and was one of the seven countries that could be subject to possible US nuclear strikes."

Is such a threat so widely accepted as possible that it can be mentioned in such a way (by the Chinese State Run news agency) without so much as a little discussion?

IRAN, U.S. LIES, IDIOTS AT CNN, WMD

Sadly the IAEA report on Iran that was released today was realeased ONLY to Diplomats of the countries on the Security Council, and is not available to the public. We can, however, look towards the U.S. Ambassador's own statement on the report after he had seen it, wherein he stated, about the assertion by the U.S. that Iran's program is for weapons, the report "doesn't make any conclusions in that regard."
In it's own push to remind the world that we should all fear Iran, the U.S. State Department released their own report today (to coincide with the IAEA's statements) about the "State Sponsors of Terror," which somehow NEVER includes the United States, even though America fits the American definition of "state sponsor of terror."

[To step away from Iran to talk about the U.S. as the worlds leading "State sponsor of terror," lets look at the words of President Bush:
"If you harbor terrorists, you are [a] terrorist. If you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist, and will be treated like one."
Just to mention a couple of the terrorists "harbored" in America today (not including the actions of the american military and how they fit the definition of "terrorism," as that would take too long and I don't have the patience), we should really mention: (1)Luis Posada Carilles (Miami), (2)Jorge Mas Canosa (Miami), (3)Emmanuel Constant (New York), etc.
(1) Nicaragua, (2) Cuba, and (3) Haiti should all (theoretically) be flattening America with carpet-bombing as we speak, but enough about that.]


Today's report on "State Sponsors of Terror" by the State Department was accepted as Fact by countless "news" organisations, including CNN Europe, who seem to have never heard of the U.S. State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs (quote from their site: "IIP informs, engages, and influences international audiences about U.S. policy and society to advance America's interests"), Advisory Commision on Public Diplomacy, or any of the other countless Executive Branch departments that specialize in providing propaganda to the people of the world. So anyway, this piece of [insert appropriate noun here] was presented today as honest Fact on CNN, coinciding with the (non-public) release of the IAEA's findings on the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The U.S. would like the world to know:

"Iran remained the leading state sponsor of terror." (they were last year as well apparently? Ok, if that's what you believe, then fine). What are the specific reasons given for why Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror? As follows: Iran's continued support for terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the PLO, including support through rhetoric, and providing them with funding and weapons. "Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003." Bringing to justice is defined as "transfer custody of detainees... to third countries for interrigation and/or trial." "Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the transitional government and the Multi-National Forces in Iraq." I don't honestly see how this could possibly put Iran ahead of America as the Leading State Sponsor of Terror. First of all, the actions of Hizbollah, Hamas, AAMB and the PLO all fall within the confines of International Law as it relates to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and a state or region's ability to protect its land and its people from a foreign invasion force, that invasion force namely being the Israeli Defence forces regarding their occupation of what is by law land that belongs to Lebanon and Palestine. Therefore, supporting them is actually more in line with international law than the support that France gave to the rebels in the English Colonies during the time of the "American Revolution" and is not an action that could be defined as "sponsoring terror" in the honest definition of the phrase. What is in violation of international law is the continuing incursions by the IDF into foreign territory, and they are using U.S. supplied Apache helicopter gunships and U.S. supplied bulldozers, which is the same kind of thing that the U.S. is trying to pin on Iran. In psychology we call that "displacement." America's definition of "bringing to justice" is that these Al-Qaida suspects are to be turned over to the U.S. for interrogation. However, the U.S. interrogation practices are in violation of international law as it relates to the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, so for Iran to turn over these suspects to the U.S. (the third party, or "third country" as phrased in this report) would be for them to willingly aid in the violation of International Law and treaties. So their actions in attempting to stymie additional violations of international law are apparently "terrorist" actions. Right. Iran's policies in Iraq "appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the Multi-National Forces." And, of course, the puppet "transitional" government put in to place by these multi national forces. So, Iran's policies in an invaded territory are inconsistant with those of the people who violated international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, again) when they invaded the country anyway? And that makes Iran the sponsors of terrorism? I don't see how ANY of these accusations are supported by ANY real evidence WHATSOEVER, but yet it's all accepted as truth by "journalists" who are supposed to be "unbiased" and "objective" but yet have somehow lost the ability to reason for themselves. The report is topped off with a great statement trying to pin WMD's on Iran as well (it worked so well in Iraq, lets try it on Iran!): "State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD threat." How? "A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organisation to aquire advanced WMD." Ok, but where did you come up with the factual basis for Iran having ANY WMD's AT ALL? "Nations that fail to live up to international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism." So if a nation fails to live up to its international obligations, then they must have WMDs that they're going to give to terrorists. What defines failure to live up to international obligations? Maybe attacking a defenseless country on the grounds that it may possibly somehow in the future develop WMDs or could possibly have WMDs or would like to know where to get WMDs, or what? We heard this about Iraq, and we're still waiting for these WMDs to be found. Are you actually coming forward now to give evidence that Iran has some sort of WMDs? "Iran is capable of producing biological or chemical agents or weapons." WHAT?!?!?! "Iran could support terrorist organisations seeking to aquire WMD." WHAT?!?!?!?! ARE YOU MAKING BASELESS WMD ACCUSATIONS AGAIN?!?!? HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO FEED THE WORLD SHIT AND TELL EVERYONE ITS CHOCOLATE?!?! WHEN ARE YOU GONNA STOP WITH YOUR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PARANOID OBSESSION WITH WMD?!?!?! ENOUGH ALREADY, GET A FUCKING SHRINK!!!!!!!

NOT ONCE in this WHOLE REPORT did they produce ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran has ANY sort of WMD program, but yet they're still mentioning it, trying to plant the seed. And even CNN buys this shit hook line and sinker.

[The report also made mention of the fact that the "war on terror" is probably going to last for a very very long time. If anyone who may be reading this has not read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you would be well served to give it a read.]

(If you don't believe me that I have accurately quoted the report, you may see for yourself the section of the Report on Iran, and the Full Report, both of which are in .PDF format and available on the U.S. State Department website.)

Another small bit mentioned in the terror sponsor state report was how Iran refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions to halt Uranium Enrichment, which makes them a nation that will "fail to live up to international obligations." This issue is far simpler than it's being made out to be, and one of the things making it much more complicated in the news is, as usual, INACCURATE REPORTING.

First of all, if you listen to CNN you would be likely to believe that there was a UN Security Council Resolution 30 days ago that demanded that Iran halt all enrichment activity or be held in violation of international law. As are most things reported in the "news" these days, that is simply not true. What happened 30 days ago was in fact a Presidential Statement calling on the IAEA to look in to unresolved questions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. The statement was basically this:

“The Security Council calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlines, in this regard, the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

BUILD CONFIDENCE. The idea was that Iran was to stop what they were doing for the sake of BUILDING CONFIDENCE in their intentions of having a strictly peaceful nuclear program. This statement by the President of the Security Council for March was in response to a report by the IAEA from earlier that month, which concluded:

"The Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran´s programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran´s past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran´s current nuclear activities be restored. This is clearly in the interest both of Iran and of the international community."

If I may bring your attention back to the beginning of the second paragraph: "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." They only wanted "confidence to be built." And this was all pre-SCO-Membership for Iran (as discussed in my "Conspicuously Absent from Western Media" entry) which means that China and Iran and Russia are all very close trading partners and security partners now, as they weren't when this whole posturing began by the U.S. government to try to drum up support for ANOTHER WAR to make americans feel confident in their Bullies in Office come November Congressional Midterm Elections.

America: Immigration vs. Destruction

Stated so eloquently by Michael Reese on "Sports and Politics"
Okay, all you guys and gals who had ancestors that did not have Green Cards on the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria, get out of our Country NOW!

Interesting that the Bush Administration has been able to draw the "immigration" issue into the forefront of the American consciousness while simultaneously the visit by Chinese premier Hu Juntao is pushed to the middle (unread) section of the newspapers. In fairness, there is NO American citizen whose ancestors were the rightful owners of the land that comprises the United States (I make such a bold statement based on the fact that Native Americans are not actually considered American Citizens), so it's a bit hypocritical of ANYONE in the U.S. to be making such a big issue of "illegal" immigration.
The logic behind pushing this issue to the forefront of the current political discourse in america is well demonstrated by a (right wing conservative!) economic analyst for Bloomberg who made some startling observations about the American workforce on Bloomberg news this week.
He stated that the number of people under-employed or un-employed in rural china exceeds 150Million, while the ENTIRE MANUFACTURING WORKFORCE of western europe AND the united states COMBINED is roughly 80Million people. His (logical) premise was that America AND Europe could lose ALL of their manufacturing jobs to China and China would STILL have loads of room for growth. This brings us to the state/non-state visit by Chinese Premier Hu Juntao this week.

American news (which for some strange reason is also broadcast on certain foreign channels as well) has been consistenly pointing out that the Chinese Premier made NO CONCESSIONS as far as the US/China IMMENSE trade deficit, but that's not entirely accurate.

He DID offer to take steps to level out the disparity between exports to america and imports from america (america, for those of you not up to date, imports a far far larger number of chinese goods than exports goods to china) and also offered to take steps to crack down on copyright infringement of American products in china, but only on the condition that America make some important concessions of their own. These requests were refused as quickly as they were made.

Among them:

• America needs to allow the UNITED NATIONS to take the lead in international issues, security issues, dealing with threats to world peace, etc.
• America needs to stick to the obligations they made when they signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, wherein all Nuclear armed countries agreed to discontinue creation of additional Nuclear Warheads and also agreed to NOT sell/give nuclear weapons to other countries, etc.
• America needs to USE DIPLOMATIC MEANS TO SETTLE THE NUCLEAR SITUATION IN IRAN. He was very specific when he said this, and even paused when he mentioned Nuclear Situation; he did not say Iranian nuclear threat, nor nuclear power situation, nor uranium enrichment conundrum, he specifically called it a Nuclear Situation. Lets not forget that Bush has not ruled out using Nuclear Weapons against Iran, and that China has VERY close economic ties with Iran, and as such would (logically) seek to protect their assets and economic interests: NUCLEAR SITUATION is a very ominous statement to make by the worlds #2 superpower to the worlds most dangerous regime.

It is also important to note that countless (I honestly lost count at like 10) times he reiterated Chinas commitment to World Peace. So these days the communists are more commited to peace than their "moral" (fucking newsweek calls Bush's murderous agression a quest to spread morality, yet try to call themselves objective news) American counterparts.

Lets also remember the issue of the DULY ELECTED PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT, which most of the world (INCLUDING CHINA) recognizes due to the fair nature of the elections, but which america (which professes to be scouring the world for opportunities to advance the cause of "freedom and democracy") refuses to recognize. Its kind've funny that people genuinely believe in the moral nature of the "american quest to bring democracy" but yet don't see the disconnect when america fails to recognize a democratically elected government due strictly to the fact that their views are not in line with those of the ruling elite in washington. (Can you hear the starving palestinian children laughing?)

Yet the american press is pre-occupied with the CIA press-leak story, the New Orleans mayoral election, and the fucking Miss USA pageant.

THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!

THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!!


But yet he's STILL HERE...

Open Letter to Reuters

Reuters has long been a news favorite of mine based on objectivity and attention to detail, however I am very worried regarding your recent coverage of events unfolding in the Middle East and Asia. Most notably absent is an announcement by the Shanghai Cooperative Organization (SCO Background) that was run in a front page article in the Asia Times that Iran, India, and Pakistan would all be welcomed as full members. The fact that Pakistan and India would share membership in this energy cooperative notwithstanding, I think it's quite important to note that India and Iran will both be full members of this organization whose members also include China and Russia. I think it's irresponsible for Reuters to run comments about George Bush's reluctance to rule out Nuclear Strikes on Iran and NOT mention that Iran has joined in this organization (as both events happened on the same day). Here's why.

• Firstly, well known in the western media is the fact that America has been courting India for closer ties for some time, based primarily on a fear of India developing closer ties with China (an American rival these days apparently). If George Bush offering Nuclear technology to India (specifically to try to thwart the above-mentioned increase in diplomatic ties with China) is newsworthy, the fact that India has instead gone and joined the SCO is more than newsworthy.
• Secondly, with the other full members of the SCO (an interGOVERNMENTAL organization) including Russia and China, it should be MORE THAN newsworthy that Iran has been accepted as a full member. Much has been said recently about Russia's reluctance to agree to sanctions against Iran, so as such the announcement that Iran and Russia are now both in an energy consortium is an IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT. Additionally, (and definitely not the least important issue at hand, not by a long shot) the fact that CHINA is now a close (very close if you do some reasearch into the SCO) partner to Iran economically would make it in China's best interest to defend (with military force if necessary) their economic interests in the country. The U.S. is threatening (implicitly) nuclear strikes on Iran, and somehow the fact that Iran and China are now close partners doesn't get mentioned?

I honestly believe that your lack of due diligence in investigating such matters is an irresponsible blunder. I genuinely hope it is nothing more than a blunder, but what (for me) was once an impressive reputation of Reuters for providing all the things one needs to know is quickly washing down the drain.If there is some specific reason that the country America is threatening nuclear strikes against entering into an exclusive organization with Russia and China (not to mention Pakistan and India) is not newsworthy, then please, let me know what it might be.

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

misneach: Conspicuously Absent from Western Media: The Beijing announcement that India, Pakistan, and IRAN were all now to be accepted in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperative, members including china and Russia) which basically means that China and Russia have thrown their weight into the Iranian debate, and they've gone in behind Iran, not with the U.S., STILL hasn't been mentioned ANYWHERE in the western media. Can you find it? Anywhere?

"It's frightening to Washington, and likely to be marginalized (or unknown) in the US media" -Noam Chomsky

Even the BBC

I would expect this from the American news agencies, as their parent companies have alot to gain from America's aggressive foreign policy (also known as colonialism, theft, pillaging, inhumanity, aggression, etc.), but not from the BBC. I've been quite impressed by the BBC and their strict adherence to the facts and objectivity through the years, but I fear they are going the way of Viacom's CBS (Dan Rather you poor soul, 30 years with the network, you run one anti-bush story and your ass is out the door) or GE's NBC. Honestly, I always held them in high regard what with programs like Panorama and even their World News was generally the spot to find news the American media was hiding. In the words of a famous folk singer, "the times, they are a-changin."

In an article run monday on the front page of BBC News, regarding the Tel Aviv Bombing and Israel's response to it, they said:
"Israel holds Hamas responsible for a deadly suicide bombing in Tel Aviv but will not hit back against the Palestinian Authority, officials say.
A special cabinet meeting ended with agreement to increase security efforts but not launch a military strike. "

That is simply not true. Within hours Israel had launched a military strike, several in fact, sending troops in to the Gaza strip, Nablus, Qalqilia, Jenin, and Gaza City. The operation involved more than 80 military vehicles, including BULLDOZERS (and they aren't for anything to do with clearing away Palistinian settlements to make way for Israeli settlements, they are strictly to "fight terror" my Israeli sources tell me. They swear to this.) and the ubiquitous (American) Apache Helicopter Gunships. It's in print if BBC would get off their lazy asses and check it out.

Examples

1. "troops did roll into Nablus moments after Monday's attack. The army will also likely consider targeting the Palestinian Authority" -Jerusalem Post
2. "the IDF attacked targets in Gaza yesterday and last night" -Arutz Sheva, Israel National News
3. "Israel Responds with Military Raids" (that was the TITLE, need I say more?) - Al Jazeera
4. "Other decisions were taken about actual operation in the territories, which were not released for publication. It seems security forces will carry out pinpoint operation in reaction to the terror attack. " Is what Y-Net News (Yedioth, Israel's largest media company) said about the 80 vehicles they sent in to Palestine. That statement was after their bit about the revoking the travel priviledges of Hamas ministers living in Israeli occupied (but legally Palistinian) lands.
5. "Israeli troops raided a West Bank village near Jenin " -Israel Insider

I think it would be superfluous for me to continue, but you get the idea. Additionally, nearly every article mentioned that the Israeli cabinet had decided to revoke the residency of some Hamas MPs that were living in Israeli occupied territories. No mention that it was occupied territory that they were to be removed from, simply that they were to be removed from "Israeli Territory." And of course, no mention of the fact that "the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law". -(2004 judgement by the International Court of Justice at the Hague)

Thank you BBC. Thank you very much. You have proved once again that western media is worthless.

Conspicuously Absent from Western Media

There was a HUGE STORY that broke from Beijing early this morning that's been conspicuously absent from the western media, I can't find even a reference to it on yahoo or google news but it is (I think) going to have a HUGE impact on the current international relations dynamic.

Background wise America has been trying to court India into it's corner with offers of important Nuclear technology, and of course everyone is aware of the war of words between the U.S. and Iran recently, but China has trumped the U.S. diplomats by announcing (on the eve of a state visit to Washington) that Mongolia, PAKISTAN, INDIA, AND IRAN will all be joining an energy cooperative with China and Russia.
Yes folks you heard right and you heard it here first, China + Russia + Iran (not to mention India AND Pakistan, surprising as they've been fighting with each other over Kashmir for ages)(and that will really throw a wrench into the U.S.'s plans as they've been trying so hard to court India that they went so far as to have Henry Kissinger write propaganda op-ed's in the Khaleej Times) = DANGEROUS TIMES (see, for reference, my listings on Nuclear Chess, and see also Noam Chomsky (chomsky.info) articles relating to "new world order" and Dangerous Times.). I was wondering why all of a sudden Iran was basically saying to the U.S. "bring it on" but now I'm gettin the impression that this deal has been in the works for some time.

All this on the eve of what the Chinese government is calling a "State Visit" to Washington but that Bush is dismissively describing as just a visit.

Sadly the bush administration is trying it's best to push the world into Nuclear War, what with his statements (TODAY) when asked if preventive (not pre-emptive, preventive is the jargon used today; preemptive strikes fall within the boundries of international law, PREVENTIVE strikes do not) Nuclear Strikes were in the works against Iran, he responded by saying "all options are on the table."

Just to re-cap, the U.S. is threatening NUCLEAR STRIKES against a country that is ENTERING a cooperation package with RUSSIA and CHINA and INDIA and PAKISTAN (all nuclear armed countries), but this somehow DOESN'T WARRANT WESTERN PRESS COVERAGE?!?!?!?!?!?!?! They seem to be too busy doing their part in the anti-Iran-Nuclear Propaganda Campaign, instead running a story about the Chernobyl Death Toll in the Associated Press.

The looming war that could escalate into a full fledged Nuclear showdown doesn't warrant news coverage. Does this not worry anyone else?

Trying to calm down...

AlJazeera ran a front page headline on their website today regarding the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed 9 people. The 18 people killed in recent attacks by the Israeli military on Northern Gaza get one sentence buried deep in the article about the Tel Aviv bombing, and a search on AlJazeera.net for "Gaza Attack" gets 11 hits, the most recent of which is from JULY OF 2005. And people think Aljazeera has an arab bias.

The Pope's statements during his easter mass yesterday being misstated or completely absent from the media (what he actually said was something along the lines of asking the world community to "assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live, and to build their future, moving toward the constitution of a state that is truly their own.") could EASILY be construed as part of a systematic misrepresentation and manipulation of news stories by international media. As what he ACTUALLY said does not fit with the current propaganda model and what appears to be a push to relegate the lives of Arabs to the status of nothing more than "collateral damage" as opposed to "human lives." It doesn't fit, so it gets left out.
Perhaps that's why Palestine is so bullied. Honestly, can you think of ANY OTHER WORD to describe Palestine or the Palestinian people OTHER THAN bullied? All over the news today are statements by Iran and Quatar pledging aid to Palestine, and WHY are the U.S. and E.U. WITHOLDING their aid? Because Hamas won't recognize the Israeli state?! OF COURSE THEY WON'T RECOGNIZE ISRAEL YOU MORONS, TO DO SO WOULD BE TO SURRENDER THE PALISTINIAN TERRITORIES BEING ILLEGALLY ADDED TO THE TERRITORY OF ISRAEL BY THEIR FUCKING WALL! THE WALL THE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT AT THE HAGUE RULED WAS ILLEGAL TWO YEARS AGO BUT THAT IS STILL BEING BUILT! WHERE ARE THE FUCKING SANCTIONS AND WITHHOLDING OF AID FOR ISRAEL OVER THAT?!?!?!?!
Fucking Twats.

THE LYING NEWS AGENCIES

Example 1: (about the Pope's Easter Mass)
"The Pope called for serious and honest negotiations to resolve the nuclear standoff with Iran, peace between Israel and the Palestinians and in Iraq and an end to the week-long impasse over the election result in Italy."

He did not call for "peace between israel and palestine." He called for "support for the Palistinians" and a "Free Palistinian State." IT WAS ON MY TELEVISION YESTERDAY! DON'T LIE TO ME ABOUT IT TODAY!

Lies, Nuclear Chess, and George Orwell

Every day it is painfully obvious that the American leaders are so out of touch with reality that their words and actions could be based on an inept bad-guy from a third rate fictional crime thriller. It's even more obvious that human lives have no meaning to an administration that is more concerned with what their stock options will be worth when they leave office. The sad part is that, not only are they putting their own people in danger by drastically increasing the threat of terrorist attacks on their soil, but they are putting innocent people ALL OVER THE WORLD in danger; and lying CONSTANTLY to EVERYONE. I cannot express in words (well, maybe I can) the sorrow that good hearted well informed people throughout the world feel for the unnecessary slaughter of countless thousands of civilians, and I must confess also how much I genuinely pity the american people who are assaulted constantly by the administration's propaganda and who honestly don't know what's going on in the world. Really, they just don't know any better, like small children who haven't been told that their parents are getting a divorce, they just don't know and they've never been encouraged to ask questions.
Q: "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?"
A: They honestly don't know any better and are too proud to change.
Let's take what Disney's ABC News would call "a closer look." First, the dangerous game of Nuclear Chess that's being played between The U.S., Iran, India, Russia, and China, while the lives of the worlds population hang in the balance. In recent weeks bush made his way to India to work out a deal wherein the U.S. will supply parts for nuclear reactors and refinement technology to india in return for closer ties, as america is quite afraid of how close India and China are becoming these days. Ok, first of all, India DOES have nuclear weapons and are VERY MUCH AT ODDS with one of america's "close allies in the war on terror" (george bush's words) Pakistan (a military dictatorship with a human rights record that's not exactly the best in the world). So america is basically assisting a country they should logically (the enemy of my friend is my enemy) be working against, but yet somehow don't see this as a double standard as far as Iran announcing that they had successfully enriched a MINISCULE AMOUNT of uranium for the purpose of using in a nuclear power plant (they know where the money is: selling oil; they don't want to waste a product they can make alot of money selling on providing electricity to their people when they could produce more electricity in a nuclear power plant) and america wanting to use that as an excuse to attack them.
Enter (China and) Russia:
China supplies arms and technology to Iran in return for crude oil. We'll get back to them in a second. Russia has built (/is building) a nuclear reactor in Iran for the purpose of producing electricity. This reactor is russian owned and russian operated; the disturbing thing is that it would be one of the first targets of american bombing in the event of an attack on Iran, which brings us to the bit that's awfully worrysome, and that is one of the factors (and just ONE OF) making this game of nuclear chess so dangerous-- Vladimir Putin has welcomed america's overt aggression as far as "ensuring uninhibited access to key markets" and announced on a number of different occasions that Russia (now a close american ally on the "war on terror," which is a concept straight out of George Orwells 1984 but we'll get to that later) would pursue the same policies. If Russia has publicly stated that they will not hesitate to use military force to protect their interests, and they will be making alot of money from an iranian nuclear reactor, does it not make logic sense that they will use military force to defend the Russian/Iranian plant? Putin came out last week saying that Iran's grand announcements that they had successfully enriched uranium were irresponsible and dangerous; but for whom? He has to understand that an American attack on Russian interests in Iran would inevitably lead to Russian deployment to protect those assets, and nuclear armed russia DOES NOT WANT a confrontation with trigger-happy nuclear armed america, and I honestly don't think that the average World Citizen (we are all citizens of the world) wants a repeat of the cuban missle crisis that BROUGHT THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF DESTRUCTION. This is not liberal (being a European Moderate makes me an ultra left wing liberal by american standards) hype, this is fact; large scale nuclear war would bring about an end to our species.
Enter China.
To step back for a moment, lets bear in mind that The American People (YOU HAVE POWER IF YOU CHOOSE TO FUCKING USE IT!!!!) do not like long protracted costly wars, they want quick decisive victories. Although Iraq's military was quite weak (which The Insurgents, whom by U.S.A. ca. 1776 standards would have been called Freedom Fighters, have proved NOT to be), Iran's military IS NOT. Back to China.
China has been providing weapons to Iran in return for oil for quite a while. Described below in the Khaleej Times by Noam Chomsky, citing The Wall Street Journal:
" In January, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia visited Beijing, which is expected to lead to a Sino-Saudi memorandum of understanding calling for "increased cooperation and investment between the two countries in oil, natural gas and investment," The Wall Street Journal reports. Already, much of Iran's oil goes to China, and China is providing Iran with weapons that both states presumably regard as deterrent to US designs. India also has options. India may choose to be a US client, or it may prefer to join the more independent Asian bloc that is taking shape, with ever more ties to Middle East oil producers. Siddarth Varadarajan, deputy editor of The Hindu, observes that "if the 21st century is to be an 'Asian century,' Asia's passivity in the energy sector has to end." "
Back to elementary logic (American's don't begin to learn this until Secondary school, but we'll still call it elementary): If chinas economic interests are directly threatened by american aggression, would they not use whatever force is necessary to protect those interests, as China has repeatedly shown that they will not be bullied by america the way that many countries (including in europe, where the VAST majority of the people are wholeheartedly AGAINST america's colonialist aggression) constantly are? And does this bode well for the personal safety of every single individual on this planet to have the worlds superpowers playing a very dangerous game of Nuclear Chess where all of us are the pawns and the Kings are the very survival of our species?