[patriots] FW: The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis
- From: annette rose smith <annette-rose-smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <patriots@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 09:29:15 +0100
To: annette-rose-smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:51:42 +0200
From: webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis
......
Click here to view it online
24 September 2014
The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis
Tom Bradby, ITV News political editor, nutshelled the media zeitgeist in a
single tweet:
'I am not at all religious, but I can't help feeling there may be a seventh
circle of hell reserved somewhere for Jihadi John [the
killer of James Foley, Steven Sotloff and David Haines].'
For 'Jihadi John' and the West's close allies in Saudi Arabia, perhaps, where
'scheduled beheading reflects
authorities' callous disregard to human rights', according to Amnesty
International.
Bradby's comment indicates just how rapidly Isis has come to represent nothing
less than Pure Evil for the state-corporate media.
Or as Mehdi Hasan, political director of Huffington Post, commented (without
irony):
'Isis, in other words, is evil. Scum. The worst of the worst. Unique, to borrow
Obama's phrase, in its brutality.'
Traditionally, claims that an Official Enemy is uniquely
Evil rise to a deafening crescendo just prior to an attack on that enemy. In
late 2002, a former intelligence officer told John Pilger that the flood
of government terror warnings at the time were 'a softening up process' ahead
of an attack on Iraq and 'a lying game on a huge scale'. (Pilger, 'Lies,
damned lies, and government terror warnings,' Daily Mirror, December 3, 2002)
Sure enough, the US and various unsavoury allies this
week began a bombing campaign ostensibly against Isis in Syria. As Jonathan
Cook notes, the attack has taken place without a UN Security Council resolution
or any serious argument that the US is acting in
self-defence:
'That makes it a crime of aggression, defined at
Nuremberg as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war
crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the
whole".'
Compared to Obama - now embarking on his seventh war -
George W. Bush appears a paragon of virtue, having at least troubled with UN
resolutions. Bush commented in March 2003:
'The world needs [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single
question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required
by Resolution 1441? Or has it not?'
Early reports estimated that eight Syrian civilians had been killed in the
latest bombing raids by US militants. The BBC buried a
reference to the killings in a ten-word sentence in the middle of a news report:
'Eight civilians, including three children, were reported to have died.'
Bad enough that civilians 'died', but how much worse if they had been killed by
Britain's leading ally.
A September 4 search of the Nexis media database for mentions of 'Isis'
(Islamic State) and its alternative title, 'Isil', found
the following mentions:
January 1 - May 31, 2014, CNN mentioned 'Isis/Isil' 110 times.
June 1 - August 31, 2014, CNN mentioned 'Isis/Isil' 1,465 times.
Between these same dates, the New York Times mentioned 'Isis/Isil' 89 times and
389 times, respectively. (David Peterson, email to
Media Lens, September 4, 2014)
Much of this coverage has of course focused on Isis beheadings, massacres and
other crimes - self-declared and alleged - in Iraq
and Syria.
Absent from most media coverage is the recognition that these conflicts have
been characterised by appalling violence on all
sides. A curious omission, given that the same media have focused intensively
on gruesome atrocities committed, for example, by the pro-Assad 'shabiha'
militia in Syria, alleged to have been responsible for the May 2012 Houla
massacre.
In the last three years, Lexis media database finds 933 UK national newspaper
articles mentioning 'shabiha'. In the last twelve
months, there have been just 28 mentions, with 19 this year (Media Lens search,
September 15, 2014). Yet another Damascene conversion, it would seem, just as
the Western state-corporate media crosshairs moved from Assad to Isis.
Similarly, while it is true that Sunni forces, including Isis, have committed
horrific crimes in Iraq, Sunnis have also suffered terribly. A recent New York
Times headline made the point: 'Sunnis in Iraq Often See Their Government as
the Bigger Threat.' The
report explained:
'Iraq's Sunnis vividly recall how militias linked to the governing Shiite
parties staged attacks against Sunnis during the worst
years of the sectarian conflict last decade, often in cooperation with Iraq's
military and police forces, or while wearing their uniforms.
'Mr. Maliki [former Iraqi president] was criticized for his inability or
unwillingness to dismantle the groups, hardening Sunni
mistrust of the government.'
Investigative journalist Scott Peterson added some background:
'From the indiscriminate bombing of Sunni areas... to large numbers of
languishing detainees, many Sunnis say the roots of
discontent are obvious, and have resulted in support for groups as radical as
IS.'
While the tit-for-tat nature of Sunni-Shia tortures, disappearances and
massacres was extensively covered during the US-UK
occupation, it is rarely mentioned now in media condemnations of Isis.
In fact, arguing that the West should 'degrade and ultimately destroy' Isis on
the basis of its human rights
record, without mentioning the context, is like arguing that Britain and
America should have been wiped out for their conventional and atomic bombing
of cities packed with civilians in the Second World War without mentioning
German and Japanese crimes. Indeed, to be consistent, the West should be
arguing that much of the Middle East and all members of the 'coalition of the
willing' should be degraded and destroyed for committing atrocities.
In reality, of course, the attack on Isis is not about preventing atrocities.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, 'the U.S. does not bomb countries for humanitarian
objectives. Humanitarianism is the pretense, not the purpose'.
We wonder if state-corporate propagandists are able to reflect on the irony
that even before two US journalists were murdered, the
US had sent bombers half-way around the world to kill Isis fighters. And yet,
over the last three years, the West has tirelessly condemned the actions
of the Syrian government in a literal war for survival against Isis and other
foreign-backed 'rebel' groups, on Syrian soil – a war that is
alleged to have cost 190,000 lives, including 50,000 Syrian government forces.
Certainly Assad's troops have committed appalling war
crimes. But one can barely imagine the scale of the US reaction if Isis had
wreaked even a tiny fraction of this death and destruction on its homeland
and forces, much less threatened its very survival.
'Before We All
Get Killed' - Pressing The Panic Button
To his credit, CNN's Brian Stelter asked recently whether journalists are
'letting their fears get the best of them, or their ideological agendas',
commenting:
'I myself am very concerned about the press provoking panic about ISIS...
Bottom line, we journalists cannot let fear-mongering
get in the way of facts.'
Peter Bergen and David Sterman, also of CNN, wrote an article titled, 'ISIS
threat to U.S. mostly hype.'
A report in the New York Times commented (September 10) of Isis:
'American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate
threat to the United States. Some officials and
terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been
distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by
politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the
unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the
Middle East.'
And:
'Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department's top counterterrorism
adviser during Mr. Obama's first term, said the public
discussion about the ISIS threat has been a "farce," with "members of the
cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat
in lurid terms that are not justified."
'"It's pretty clear that upping our involvement in Iraq and Syria makes it more
likely that we will be targeted by the people we
are attacking," said Andrew Liepman, a former deputy director at the National
Counterterrorism Center who is now a senior policy analyst at the RAND
Corporation.'
Glenn Greenwald adds:
'[T]he U.S. has known for years that what fuels and strengthens anti-American
sentiment (and thus anti-American extremism) is
exactly what they keep doing: aggression in the region. If you know that, then
they know that... Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a
feature, not a bug. It is what justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable
and power-vesting machine of Endless War.'
The US media watch site FAIR also offered a rare dose of sanity putting the
Isis 'threat' in perspective:
'They have executed people they have taken hostage in violent, war-torn
countries. This is criminal behavior, to be sure, but the
idea that they constitute a danger to "national security" doesn't add up.'
By contrast, in an interview conducted by CBS's Face the Nation host Bob
Schieffer, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham commented of Obama:
'This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back
here at home.'
In the same programme, Schieffer asked another guest:
'Seeing this video yesterday [of the beheading of British aid worker David
Haines] leads me to believe that if we ever had any
doubt about these people posing a threat to the United States, these videos
would remove that. Are they a threat to our national security?'
Schieffer concluded:
'Yes, America is wary of war, but when fires break out, we fight them before
they spread, not when it is convenient. We have no
choice now.
'Whatever it takes and, as the president said, however long it takes, this evil
must be eradicated. These forces must be
destroyed.'
FAIR commented with its usual self-restraint:
'When the host of a discussion show says, "We have no choice now," that doesn't
bode well for the show having a discussion that
presents a full range of choices.'
Unsurprisingly, a September 8 poll by CNN found that 75% of Americans support
additional bombing raids on Isis (with 23% opposed). Remarkably, on the eve of
the 13th anniversary of
the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the perceived threat of Isis actually
rivalled that of al Qaeda in 2003. The CNN/ORC Polls showed that 45%
of Americans saw Isis as a 'very serious threat to the U.S,' while 49% thought
the same of al Qaeda 11 years ago.
Jon Sopel, the BBC's North America editor, interpreted this 'mainstream'
media-inspired hysteria thus:
'The American people demanded action. Two weeks ago [Obama] said he had no
strategy. The American people told him to go and get
one... All the American people care about is that the threat is dealt with. And
- maybe reluctantly - that is the task the president is now
undertaking.'
Media activist John Leach offered an alternative formulation on Twitter:
'We poured sewage into this hole and Yougov [pollsters] have confirmed that it
is indeed mostly full of sewage.'
A glimmer of hope for anyone opposed to Perpetual War is found in the fact that
a majority of Americans, 61%-38%, oppose the use
of US state militant ground forces in Iraq and Syria to fight Isis.
In the UK, over half the public (52%) would approve the bombing of Isis
fighters by RAF militants – a dramatic 15-point shift from three weeks prior,
when 37% backed the
move.
Why should we view public fears and support for war with extreme scepticism?
Because we have very recent experiences of
state-corporate propaganda successfully deceiving the public in Iraq, Libya and
elsewhere. In September 2003, a Time/CNN survey found:
'Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11
attacks.'
The claim was entirely bogus, counter-intuitive and in fact fabricated. The US
population had simply been deceived by
state-corporate lies.
What these latest events reveal is the truly stunning ability of modern
high-tech communications to very quickly influence the
public mind. The lesson seems blindingly clear – the corporate media 'watchdog'
works seamlessly with the state power it is supposed to hold to
account to wage one war after another. Exposure of previous lie-based campaigns
has little impact – the state-corporate propaganda machine is
simply activated to demonise yet another target, to generate more benevolent
rationalisations for yet more killing.
DE
This Alert is Archived here:
The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis
Contact Us:
editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Share this media alert:
| |
Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook
The second Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century' by David Edwards and
David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto
Press. John Pilger writes of the book:
"Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed
in the cause of truth." Find it in the Media Lens Bookshop
In September 2012, Zero Books published 'Why Are We The Good Guys?' by David
Cromwell. Mark Curtis, author of 'Web of Deceit' and 'Unpeople', says:
'This book is truly essential reading, focusing on one of the key issues, if
not THE issue, of our age: how to recognise the deep,
everyday brainwashing to which we are subjected, and how to escape from it.
This book brilliantly exposes the extent of media disinformation, and does
so in a compelling and engaging way.'
Donate...
In July 2013, we reached our 12th anniversary. We would like to thank all those
who have supported and encouraged us along the
way. Media Lens relies on donations for its funding. If you currently support
the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens
instead?
The email address we have for you is annette-rose-smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, you can
change it
here
Would you like to stop receiving our Media Alerts? Unsubscribe here >>
www.medialens.org
......
Other related posts:
- » [patriots] FW: The Purpose And The Pretence - Bombing Isis - annette rose smith
