<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11478816\x26blogName\x3dWinds+of+Change+in+the+Middle+East?\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://marsden.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-1649184724542363484', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Media Bias

Again, this one too is in favour of "Israel" and other enemies of Lebanon (need I name them? No, I shall not; I will leave that to individuals' tastes).

Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz immediately (both at 6:03 pm ) reported on the explosion, even before Al Jazeera (I wonder how that works... Do the two "Israeli" newspapers have reporters or offices in Lebanon? Or perhaps they publish information provided to them by "unnamed sources"?)

Even more disturbing is how these people (add BBC to the list) used this sick assassination attempt to advance their anti-Syrian propaganda.

Jerusalem Post puts it this way:

"A prominent journalist working for an anti-Syrian television station was seriously wounded Sunday when a bomb placed under her car exploded, Lebanese security officials said."

Continuing,

"The explosion recalls a similar one on June 2, when anti-Syrian journalist Samir Kassir was killed by a bomb placed under the seat of his car."

(How about the explosion reminding us of similar bombs planted by "Israeli" pure-of-arms "defense" forces in Beirut, or ones planted by "Israel's" proxy militias with the explosives provided by none other than the pure-of-arms "Israelis"?)

And lest we forget, Jerusalem Post concludes this "journalistic" report with the following reminder:

"
LBC, a Christian TV station, is among the most prominent of anti-Syrian media outlets."

I see, I see. We have the verdict before trying the suspect. Must be fun. Reminds me of the first rain (sic) in Gaza... And lest we forget, calibrating weapons by firing them on Gaza is, indeed, one of the "
usual practice[s] of refraining from harming civilians." Orwell is turning in his grave.

Quoting from Ha'aretz:

The prime minister said that israel had embarked on "an ongoing operation, whose aim is to hit terrorists, and not to relent from this. All means are fit for this. Apart from our usual practice of refraining from harming civilians, all means should be used to halt this phenomenon."

Yup (no more comments from me).

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Occupying Forces Planting Bombs and Blaming it on the Sunni Resistance

The US and British occupiers of Iraq want a civil war to happen, this is the only way they can maintain their occupation and keep the Iraqis divided. The US occupatoin is now siding with the Shia political leadership and acting like they are protecting them against the Sunnis. The US is playing the typical colonialist method of divide and conquer. All of the attacks that happen in Iraq are being blamed on the sunnis, the resistance, the ghost Zarqawi, sometimes Syria but we do not really know who are carrying out these attacks and the only group that benefits from these attacks are the occupiers of Iraq, i'm not saying attacks on occupying forces and collaborators are benefiting the occupiers but attacks against shia civilians are definitely benefiting the occupation and keeps the sunni and shia Iraqis divided and mistrustful of each other that is why it is very much possible that the US, Britain and the Mossad are carrying out these attacks. The US is trying to do the same thing in Lebanon, the US wants the Sunni and Shia Lebanese to fight each other. The US is not counting on the maronite political leadership anymore because they know there is no winning in Lebanon if a civil war happens between muslims and christians like before, so the US is trying to create civil strife and mistrust between the sunnis and shia of Lebanon but Hizballah is a smart organization and is not falling for the sectarian divide. Israel will benifit tremendously if the Lebanese shia and sunni fight each other because it will distract the Lebanese resistance in the south and it will weaken the resistance but Lebanon is not Iraq, the sunni and the shia of Lebanon have not oppressed each other in the past and have fought together in the past and the sunni of Lebanon highly respect Hizballah and all of its accomplishments, it has made all Lebanese proud.


Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition's Best Friend
Iraqi police recently caught two terrorists with a car full of explosives. Would it surprise you to learn they were British Special Forces?
By Matt Hutaff Sep 20, 2005


The story sounds amazing, almost fantastical.

A car driving through the outskirts of a besieged city opens fire on a police checkpoint, killing one. In pursuit, the police surround and detain the drivers and find the vehicle packed with explosives – perhaps part of an insurgent's plan to destroy lives and cripple property. If that isn't enough, when the suspects are thrown in prison their allies drive right up to the walls of the jail, break through them and brave petroleum bombs and burning clothes to rescue their comrades. 150 other prisoners break free in the ensuing melee.

Incredible, no? Yet this story took place in the southern Iraqi city of Basra recently. Violence continues to escalate in the breakout's aftermath... just not for the reasons you think.

You see, the drivers of the explosive-laden car were not members of an insurgency group – they were British Special Forces. Their rescuers? British soldiers driving British tanks.

That's right – two members of the British Armed forces disguised as Arab civilians killed a member of the Iraqi police while evading capture. When the people of Basra rightfully refused to turn the murderers over to the British government, per Coalition "mandate," they sent their own men in and released over 100 prisoners in the process.

Winning the hearts and minds, aren't we?

Sadly, this story is really not all that surprising. After hearing countless accounts of using napalm and torture against innocent civilians in addition to the other daily abuses dished out by American overseers, the thought of British scheming seems perfectly reasonable.

So what we have here is a clear instance of a foreign power attempting to fabricate a terrorist attack. Why else would the soldiers be dressed as Arabs if not to frame them? Why have a car laden with explosives if you don't plan to use them for destructive purposes? Iraq is headed towards civil war, and this operation was meant to accelerate the process by killing people and blaming others. Nothing more, nothing less. That the British army staged an over-the-top escape when it could rely on normal diplomatic channels to recover its people proves that.

Such extreme methods highlight the need to keep secrets.

There have been a number of insurgent bombings in Iraq recently. Who really is responsible for the bloodshed and destruction? The only tangible benefit of the bombings is justification for Coalition forces maintaining the peace in Iraq. Who benefits from that? Certainly not the Iraqis – they already believe most suicide bombings are done by the United States to prompt religious war. After reading about this incident, I'm not inclined to disagree.

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0961_fake_terrorism_coalition_best_friend.html

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Why is it that we and America wish civil war on Iraq?

The Independent
Thursday, 15th September 2005, by Robert Fisk

There will not be a civil war in Iraq. There never has been a civil war in Iraq. In 1920, Lloyd George warned of civil war in Iraq if the British Army left. Just as the Americans now threaten the Iraqis with civil war if they leave. As early as 2003, American spokesmen warned that there would be civil war if US forces left.

What the imperial, colonial powers will not learn - let us use their real names - and cannot learn, is that Iraq is not a sectarian state but a tribal nation. Iraqi men and women marry by religion rather than by affiliation.

A year ago, I sat by a doctor whose brother had just been killed by gunmen, killers who, I had no doubt, were Shias enraged that the brother had objected to the building of a Shia mosque at the end of his road. I turned to the brother at the funeral lunch and asked if there would be a civil war in Iraq.
"Why do you and the Americans want us to have a civil war?" he asked. "I am a Sunni married to a Shia woman. "Do you want me to kill my wife?"

There are plenty of journalists and writers and White House spokesmen who would like to threaten Iraq with civil war. But why? Two years ago, the official US spokesman made just such a threat. "Al-Qa’ida’," he said - he meant Sunnis, of course - wanted a civil war. But the Shias declined to provide the Americans with their civil war and Iraq remained unhappily quiescent. Why? Why on earth did they decide not to have a civil war? Because the Imam Ali once told his people that "when you see another man, he is either your brother in religion or he is your brother in humanity".

In Lebanon, it’s easy to symbolise civil war. The Sunnis and Shias fought against the Christian Maronites - the conflict was Maronites versus the rest - and the Americans, Israelis, Syrians and others came in on whichever side they wished. Even now, the US government warns of the dangers of civil war again - as if the Lebanese need it. Alas, the Lebanese have endured a civil war at a cost of 150,000 dead. The Iraqis do not need that terrible conflict. Why do we wish it upon them?

"Some war crimes" and selective HUMANity (Jew-only)

On "Israel's" relations with "black African countries that were in the process of gaining independence from colonial rule", Avi Shlaim, supposedly the scholar of the "left", writes:

"The fact that Israel was a small and young state, untainted by the brush of colonialism, made it more acceptable to other Third World countries." (The Iron Wall, p. 197)

Mr. Shlaim, the darling of "Israelis" who claim they are leftists (note the difference between claiming one is a leftist and actually being one; not that I am particularly fond of such vague divisions as "leftist" and "rightist"..) believes that "Israel" has not been tainted by the brush of colonialism. Well, he could be right. After all, if the coloniser is the colonised then the coloniser is not really a coloniser... Well, let's give Mr. Shlaim the benefit of the doubt, shall we? Let us suppose that his statement was of an innocent nature rather than a revisionist one.

Then Mr. Shlaim applies simple "Israeli" logic (sic) to the history of other countries in the region (as written by the revisionist "Israeli" scholars [sic]), and comes up with this impressive sentence:

"Israel's links with the Maronite community [of Lebanon] stretched back to the pre-Independence period, and after independence Israel continued to encourage the trend toward Christian separatism and Christian hegemony in Lebanon." (The Iron Wall, p. 342)

Wait wait, wait! Did I read that right? Israel existed before Lebanon's independence? And continued to encourage separatism after Lebanon gained its independence? According to Lebanese records and general knowledge, Lebanon gained independence in... 1943. That's some 4 and a half years before there was even the term "State of Israel"... Surely Mr. Shlaim knows what the hell he's talking about? After all, he's the "Israeli" left's (sic) darling historian (sic).... But no, that's not all. There is still some more. Ready? Read on...

Apparently some war crimes are despicable, inhumane, immoral, and others are... well, "some war crimes". Or so says Mr. Shlaim:

"This was not one of the IDF's more effective military engagements. Most of the PLO fighters fled to the north and the civilian population bore the brunt of the Israeli invasion. Villages were destroyed, some war crimes were committed, and thousands of peaceful citizens fled in panic from their homes." (The Iron Wall, p. 370)

Right, some war crimes were committed... now can we move on? It's high time the past be put behind us... (but surely not the [one and only] Holocaust) Brilliant, Mr. Shlaim. Absolutely brilliant. And of course, cheers to the "Israeli" left (sic)!

Of course, Mr. Shlaim feels that he shouldn't end it then and there. Oh no, he has to go on and insert the mother of all statements:

"Begin did have a spark of conscience and humanity in him, at least when it came to Jewish lives, and the burden of guilt finally overcame him." (The Iron Wall, p. 419)

Pray, Mr. Shlaim, would you be so kind as to tell me how you arrived to the impressive idea that one can have humanity in them, but not towards all human beings.... only towards... Jews. Should that not be called "Jewanity" (or something of the sort, I admit I am not as creative as your superior [oh yes, I am one of the goyim] Jewish kind when it comes to naming and terminology)?

Mr. Shlaim then notes, at the beginning of his 4-page "Operation Grapes of Wrath 101" (in which the author did not condemn - in any way or to any extent, however tiny - the Qana massacre perpetrated against Lebanese civilians. He only writes that "[t]he unwritten rules brokered by the United States in July 1993 stipulated that Hizbullah would not launch missiles into Israel and that Israel would not strike civilian target beyond its security zone." (The Iron Wall, 559).

Of course, Mr. Shlaim makes no Chomsky-esque sarcastic remarks about the ironic statement that "Israel" would not strike civilian targets. Wait, someone has apparently forgotten about the Geneva Conventions.... Who might that be, I wonder? Any chance it's the so-called non-existent "Israeli" left, with the leadership of such "historians" (aka revisionists in "Israeli" dictionaries) as Avi Shlaim?

Oh, and Mr. Shlaim, will you please be kind enough to read up on the difference between the word "Islamic" and "Islamist"? Thanks.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Canon Camera