Thursday, July 24, 2014
   
Text Size

Site Search powered by Ajax

Stoking False Threats

Share Link: Share Link: Bookmark Google Yahoo MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Myspace Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Stumble Upon Newsvine

AIPAC, US CongressFearmongering, propaganda, deception, and hidden truths are weapons of war. They're used to convince people they're justified, righteous and vital.

When enemies don't exist they're created. No one threatened America since WW II. No one threatens Israel now. Both countries spurn peace. They manufacture threats to wage wars.

AIPAC is a dagger at humanity's heart. It represents lawless Israeli interests. It wields enormous influence in Washington and across America. It pressures Congress to get its way. It menaces global security. It lies to generate fear and regional wars.

It claims Syria threatens Israel. It says its government "continues to brutally crush the growing protest movement within the country while maintaining its support for terrorist groups."

It cites its chemical weapons. It warns about an alleged "illicit nuclear program."

It calls Iran "the world's leading sponsor of terror and is racing toward a nuclear weapons capability."

"Through its proxy armies of Hizballah in Southern Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian regime is supporting terrorists carrying out daily attacks on American troops and Israeli civilians."

Accusations like these and others come straight from its propaganda 101 handbook. Waging war depends first on selling it. Enlisting public support is key. Mind manipulation engineers consent.

Enemies are invented. Truth is suppressed. Fear is stoked. National security issues are raised. Patriotism and democratic values are stressed.

Dovish voices are silenced. Hawks are featured prominently. All wars are based on lies. Truth promotes peace.

Campaigns now call for attacking Syria and Iran. Conquest alone matters. Catastrophic consequences aren't considered. Most people haven't a clue what's at stake.

Media scoundrels build momentum for war. An August 2 Washington Post editorial headlined "The lessons of failure in Syria," saying:

Assad "was never serious about peace...." He remains "determined to crush the opposition...." Russian President Vladimir Putin backs him. Diplomacy failed.

Assad "matched his father's record of despotism: He is willing to slaughter an unlimited number of his own people in order to cling to power."

(It's) time for the Obama administration to consider measures that stand a real chance of accelerating his downfall...."

Without saying so, the Post endorses war. Daily propaganda sells it. Disinformation is featured. Truth is turned on its head. Readers are betrayed.

Instead of denouncing imperial wars, media scoundrels endorse them. The New York Times marches in lockstep. Its August 6 editorial headlined "If Assad Falls in Syria," saying:

His "security forces are continuing to kill Syrians in huge numbers....(America) and its partners (must) step up the pressure (and) prepare for a (new) Syria."

The Times stops short of endorsing war. It creeps incrementally toward doing so. So does failure to urge peace. Legal and moral issues aren't raised. Imperial priorities matter most. Blaming victims supports them.

Fingers point often at Iran. False threats are raised. Haaretz is more hawkish than dovish. On August 7, its dark side was featured. One article headlined "New intelligence reveals Iranian military program advancing faster than previously thought."

Alleged "new intelligence" is claimed. Unnamed Israeli and Western officials say so. The usual suspect countries are involved.

According to an unnamed source, current thinking "began to take shape in February when Iran refused to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to visit the base at Parchin, where it is believed Iran is carrying out part of the research and development of its military nuclear program."

Fact check

Annually, US intelligence finds no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Western and Israeli leaders know there's none. It doesn't deter their false accusations.

No country matches Iran's willingness to cooperate with IAEA inspectors. It's nuclear sites are the world's most intensively inspected ones. Panchin is a military site. It has nothing to do with nuclear activities.

Israel, America, and other Western nations don't permit spying on their military facilities. Satellites maintain constant surveillance on strategic Iranian sites.

Imagery showed Panchin construction activity. Heavy machinery and "earth displacement" activities were claimed. Iran was falsely accused of removing contaminated soil and destroying evidence.

Charges made were baseless. New facilities replace old ones or expand and/or renovate existing ones. Wherever nuclear activities exist, remediating contaminated soil entirely is impossible. Easily detected residues remain.

Charges nonetheless persist. Old ones get regurgitated. Iran has something to hide, critics claim. Evidence never backs up charges because there is none.

Haaretz cited a July London Daily Telegraph report. It said Iran "established a new team of 60 nuclear scientists to develop (its) military nuclear program."

So called information came from "the Iranian opposition group Mujahideen al-Khalq (MeK)." It's been previously linked to Mossad. Israeli operatives train its cadre to carry out anti-Iranian assassinations and other subversive and disruptive activities.

Its "information" is propaganda, not fact. New charges repeat old ones. All lack credibility.

Another August 7 Haaretz article headlined, "Before attacking Iran, Israel should stop shooting itself in the foot."

Instead of denouncing what's lawless and unjustified, Haaretz said Israel should enlist international support before striking.

Whether Israel an/or America attack, world public opinion will blame Israel, it said.

"So you would reckon that while the military commanders are formulating plans and replenishing stockpiles, Israel’s political leaders would be busy gathering international support and accumulating reserves of goodwill in advance of an upcoming campaign."

"And you would conclude that the enormity of the dangers and the challenges that lay ahead" requires Israel to prepare for what's called "the most formidable challenge" in its history.

"Well, you might think all of the above, but you would be wrong."

Israeli policy-makers don't care what other leaders or world public opinion think. They act the same way about militarized occupation, settlements, Gaza's siege, and other lawless practices.

Israeli officials falsely claim Iran is the "greate(st) threat to Western civilization."

Israel is hostile to countries sharing other views. Doing so makes more enemies than friends. Haaretz stopped short of calling its charges baseless.

Another Haaretz article headlined "The secret behind an Iran war order," saying:

Israeli strategy goes as follows, it said. It thinks it can delay, not destroy, Iran's nuclear facilities. Only America has that capability. Doing so means total war. Obama won't risk it pre-election.

Romney is more hawkish. Netanyahu favors him. Polls suggest a close race. Attacking Iran pre-election forces Obama's hand. Tehran's response assures extensive Israeli casualties and damage. America will have to respond.

"Netanyahu is gambling" that Obama has to or risk electoral defeat. Haaretz doesn't oppose war. It's concerned about having enough support for victory. Issues of law and righteousness don't matter. Winning is the only bottom line that counts.

Israel's longstanding strategy calls for eliminating regional rivals. Two essential premises are followed:

(1) To survive, Israel must dominate the region and become a world power.

(2) Success depends on balkanizing regional nations along ethnic and sectarian lines. It's modeled after the Ottoman Empire's Millet system. Local authorities governed confessional communities with separate ethnic identities.

Strategy calls for waging winnable wars by exploiting sectarian and ethnic differences. In the 1980s, dividing Iraq into Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish areas was envisioned.

Syrian strategy called for dividing it into a Shiite Alawite coastal state, an Aleppo area Sunni one, another in Damascus, and for Druze to set up their own.

Dividing Iran into multiple provinces was planned. The same held for the entire region. Decades ago, divide and dominate became Israel's strategy to survive. It may self-destruct by trying.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe via RSS or Email:

Make a donation to MWC News

Enter Amount:

Featured_Author

Login






Login reminder Forgot login?
Register Register

Comments

Subscribe to MWC News Alert

Email Address

Subscribe in a reader Facebok page Twitter page