all about syria...

John Pilger and Stephen Lendman

Once Again, War is Prime Time and Journalism’s Role is Taboo

By John Pilger

December 02, 2011

On 22 May 2007, the Guardian’s front page announced: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/22/iraq.topstories3 Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq." The writer, Simon Tisdall, claimed that Iran had secret plans to defeat American troops in Iraq, which included "forging ties with al-Qaeda elements." The coming "showdown" was an Iranian plot to influence a vote in the US Congress. Based entirely on briefings by anonymous US officials, Tisdall’s "exclusive" rippled with lurid tales of Iran’s "murder cells" and "daily acts of war against US and British forces." His 1,200 words included just 20 for Iran’s flat denial.

It was a load of rubbish: in effect a Pentagon press release presented

as journalism and reminiscent of the notorious fiction that justified

the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among Tisdall’s sources were

"senior advisers" to General David Petraeus, the US military commander

who in 2006 described his strategy of waging a "war of perceptions …

conducted continuously through the news media."

The media war against Iran began in 1979 when the west’s placeman

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a tyrant, was overthrown in a popular

Islamic revolution. The "loss" of Iran, which under the shah was

regarded as the "fourth pillar" of western control of the Middle East,

has never been forgiven in Washington and London.

Last month, the Guardian’s front page carried another "exclusive": "MoD

prepares to take part in US strikes against Iran." Again, anonymous

officials were quoted. This time the theme was the "threat" posed by the

prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The latest "evidence" was

warmed-over documents obtained from a laptop in 2004 by US intelligence

and passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Numerous

authorities have cast doubt on these suspected forgeries, including a

former IAEA chief weapons inspector. A US diplomatic cable released by

WikiLeaks describes the new head of the IAEA, Yukiuya Amano, as "solidly

in the US court" and "ready for prime time."

The Guardian’s 3 November "exclusive" and the speed with which its

propaganda spread across the media were also prime time. This is known

as "information dominance" by the media trainers at the Ministry of

Defense’s psyops (psychological warfare) establishment at Chicksands,

Bedfordshire, who share premises with the instructors of the

interrogation methods that have led to a public enquiry into British

military torture in Iraq. Disinformation and the barbarity of colonial

warfare have historically had much in common.

Having beckoned a criminal assault on Iran, the Guardian opined that

this "would of course be madness." Similar arse-covering was deployed

when Tony Blair, once a "mystical" hero in polite liberal circles,

plotted with George W. Bush and caused a bloodbath in Iraq. With Libya

recently dealt with ("It worked," said the Guardian), Iran is next, it

seems.

The role of respectable journalism in western state crimes — from Iraq

to Iran, Afghanistan to Libya — remains taboo. It is currently deflected

by the media theater of the Leveson enquiry into phone hacking, which

Daily Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan describes as "a useful stress test."

Blame Rupert Murdoch and the tabloids for everything and business can

continue as usual. As disturbing as the stories are from Lord Leveson’s

witness stand, they do not compare with the suffering of the countless

victims of journalism’s warmongering.

The lawyer Phil Shiner, who has forced a public inquiry into the British

military’s criminal behavior in Iraq, says that embedded journalism

provides the cover for the killing of "the hundreds of civilians killed

by British forces when they had custody of them, [often subjecting them]

to the most extraordinary, brutal things, involving sexual acts …

embedded journalism is never ever going to get close to hearing their

story." It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Defense, in a

2000-page document leaked to WikiLeaks, describes investigative

journalists — journalists who do their job — as a "threat" greater than

terrorism.

In the week the Guardian published its "exclusive" about the Ministry of

Defense planning for an attack on Iran, General Sir David Richards,

Britain’s military chief, went on a secret visit to Israel, which is a

genuine nuclear weapons outlaw and exempt from media opprobrium.

Richards is a highly political general who, like Petraeus, has worked

the media to considerable advantage. No journalist in Britain revealed

that he went to Israel to discuss an attack on Iran.

Honorable exceptions aside — such as the tenacious work of the

Guardian’s Ian Cobain and Richard Norton-Taylor — our increasingly

militarized society is reflected in much of our media culture. Two of

Blair’s most important functionaries in his mendacious, blood-drenched

adventure in Iraq, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, enjoy a cozy

relationship with the liberal media, their opinions sought on worthy

subjects while the blood in Iraq never dries. For their vicarious

admirers, as Harold Pinter put it, the appalling consequences of their

actions "never happened."

On 24 November, International Day for the Elimination of Violence

Against Women, the feminist scholars Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley

attacked what they called "certain widespread masculine traits and

behaviors." They demanded that the "culture of masculinity should be

addressed as a policy issue." Testosterone was the problem. They made no

mention of a system of rampant state violence that has rehabilitated

empire, creating 740,000 widows in Iraq and threatening whole societies,

from Iran to China. Is this not a "culture," too? Their limited though

not untypical indignation says much about how media-friendly identity

and issues politics distract from the systemic exploitation and war that

remain the primary source of violence against both women and men.

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary

film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's

top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and

the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger

came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger,"

wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy

truth. I salute him.

Making Sense of Syria: Libya's model is the template
By - Stephen Lendman

From: Paul de Burgh-Day <pdeburgh@harboursat.com.au> Date: Sun, 9 Oct

2011 23:54:17 +1100

Making Sense of Syria

by Stephen Lendman

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/10/09/making-sense-of-syria

Last March, Syria's externally generated uprisings began. Despite

legitimate grievances, Washington orchestrated change there like

elsewhere in the region.

It's part of its imperial "New Middle East" project to control North

Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia to Russia's borders.

For over a decade, regime change plans targeted Iraq, Afghanistan,

Lebanon, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and other countries outside

the region.

Libya's model is the template for future Washington aggression. Whether

it's employed in Syria remains to be seen.

So far, heavily armed insurgents entered from regional countries.

Anti-government demonstrations have been disruptive and violent. Trapped

between warring sides, civilian casualties keep mounting.

Washington and other Western nations blame Syria. Its security forces,

in fact, confronted an armed insurrection. Conflict keeps raging unresolved.

Russia and China blocked America's (Western supported) Security Council

resolution. If passed, it  would have been a first against Syria,

perhaps opening the way for greater conflict or war like against Libya.

Despite watered down language, both countries opposed options, including

the UN Charter's Article 41 provisions, stating:

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of

armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decision, and it

may call upon (UN members) to apply such measures."

"These may include complete or partial interruption of economic

relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other

means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

In other words, stiff sanctions harming Syria's weakened economy further

might topple it.

On October 4, New York Times writer Neil MacFarquhar headlined, "UN

Resolution on Syria Blocked by Russia and China," saying:

"Nine nations, including the United States and its Western allies voted

for the measure, while Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon abstained."

France's Gerard Araud called the veto "disdain(ful) for the legitimate

interests that have been fought for in Syria by protesters since March."

Britain's Mark Grant said vetoing the resolution "will be a great

disappointment to the people of Syria and the wider region that some

members of the council could not show their support for their struggle

for basic human rights."

Washington's Susan Rice said:

"Those who oppose this resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will

have to answer to the Syrian people - and, indeed, to people across the

region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations. The crisis in

Syria will stay before the security council and we will not rest until

this council rises to meet its responsibilities."

Russia's Vitaly Churkin and China's Li Boadong expressed concern about

the resolution's thinly veiled regime change scheme. Both were adamant

about Syria not becoming another Libya.

Churkin said it reflected a "philosophy of confrontation," knowing full

well how Britain, France, and especially Washington operate.

This evil troika's lawlessness is transparent and appalling.

Against Libya, Washington, Britain and France led NATO's killing

machine, turning the country into a charnel house. A peaceful country

lies ruined. Corpses pile up daily on others. Human misery levels are

horrific.

Libyans know their friends and foes. They understand supportive and

hostile nations. They despise imperial Washington and Western allies.

So do Syrians. They want no part of foreign intervention in their

internal affairs, especially if Washington, Britain, France, and Israel

are involved.

They know what happened to Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan awaits them if

NATO's "humanitarian intervention" targets them.

In December 2008, Susan Rice became UN ambassador. She was chosen for

supporting unilateral use of military force against any US target for

any reason or none at all.

She and other Obama war cabinet picks then and now represent extreme

imperial lawlessness, arrogance and hypocrisy.

She continues that tradition, supporting America's worst crimes of war

and against humanity, perhaps targeting Syria like Libya.

On October 6, <http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/>NSNBC's Christof Lehmann

addressed the issue of America's unconventional warfare, involving:

"freedom fighter" insurgents;

recruited homegrown and/or US Special Forces death squads;

color revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere; and/or

the "modified Chechnyan model," involving "Arab Spring Subversion" and

financial warfare sanctions.

A rogue network of "think tanks, endowments, funds and foundations" are

involved. So are CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other

congressional funded groups. Internal figures are bribed to defect.

Other tactics are also used. They including enlisting support from human

rights organizations, corrupted NGOs and the UN. Major media scoundrels

support them and administration policy.

The clear message to targeted regimes is "go or be gone." End results

aim for "post-modern coup d'etat(s)."

A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established, similar to Libya's

puppet Transitional National Council (TNC).

Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in

Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition

elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.

It called for a Libyan-style "no-fly zone" and foreign intervention. It

supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If

unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.

Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide

anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon's Saad al Hariri were

implicated in financing and arming insurgents. Israel, Jordan and Turkey

are also believed to be involved. ...

Western intervention fueled violence for regime change. Once initiated,

it's hard shutting it off. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies,

including the New York Times on its Syria page.

Ignoring a Western backed insurgency, it accused Assad of

"launching....a series of withering crackdowns, sending tanks into

restive cities as security forces opened fire on demonstrators."

"Syria's crackdown has been condemned internationally, as has Assad...."

As explained above, Assad responded to well-armed insurgents brought in

from outside Syria to stoke violence and reject mediation efforts to

stop it. ...

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.