Even After Mea Culpas For Horrible Iraq War Coverage, American Media Does the Same Thing With Iran
The American people are being bombarded with messages that Iran will launch an attack unless it is bombed.
For example, this is a top AP headline from today:
The headline is being parroted by virtually every media outlet:

Only upon a closer reading of the AP article can we see what Iran actually said:
In other words, Iran is saying if you attack us first, we’ll fight back.
That’s a little bit different from the misleading headline … isn’t it? As I noted in August, this is the old bully’s trick of pretending he is the victim:
Police have recently stated on the record that:
- Resisting police desires may be labeled “violence” … even if the police desires are unlawful
- Curling up in a ball to avoid police violence may be considered “active resistance” … justifying the use of more force, including baton strikes
Indeed, in modern America, even being worried that the government is acting in a bullying manner can literally get one arrested, committed to a psychiatric ward or labeled as a terrorist.
***
In other words, the government is using the age-old bully’s trick: pretending that the victim is the attacker, and the bully is merely defending himself.
The same is true in terms of our foreign policy. For example, when we accidentally kill foreigners, we pretend that they were armed or pretend that they were “militants”.
The government invaded Iraq because it claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he had a hand in 9/11 … but everyone knew that both claims were false.
In fact, the American media is always pro-war, and happily trumpets disinformation about supposed enemies to drum up support for new wars. Indeed, some think that war is fun.
The people pushing for war against Iran are the same people who pushed for war against Iraq … and said it would be a “cakewalk”.
But even after all of the mea culpas for their horrible Iraq coverage – by the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC and others – the media are doing the exact same thing with Iran.




Go back to your fucking woodshed, you stupid hick.
Are Zionists the only ones who are for mercantilism and greed? Why single them out?
You need to change your name. There is absolutely NO WAY some puke like yourself should be compared to such a great band.
+1000
thank you for saving me the trouble of writing that.
I'm pretty sure Roger Waters would demand he change his name with posts like that.
i dunno george... i've seen maps drawn by those bavaarian venetian masonic frankian jesuit masonic british banking zionists that have parallellines extending to both sides of the continent. but i am not worried because i always remember- take their compasses away from them and they are cluelessly lost !
That is a pretty sophisticated joke. It's a pity that you are getting junked for it.
You're such a dumb, blind fuck. You cite Wikipedia for points?
Wikipedia is the number one mouthpiece for Zionism.
I think every Jew in America gets marching orders from his or her Rabbi to make sure and post articles on Wikipedia that are 100 percent pro Zionism. All day long they make lists of Jews who they praise with thin accomplishments and outright lies. There are all kinds of arguments about who is the most notable, accomplished Jew. Even Jews themselves fight over who discovered this or that and should get credit for a Nobel prize. They fight like rabid dogs for this notoriety. Any Jew with a minor scratch is NOTABLE according to wikipedia.
The Zionist grunt, authors must work into the wee hours of the night if you just look at the volume of pretentious, biased, pro Jew shit they put out. No wonder they can't do any sport besides ride a bicycle, if you consider that a sport at all. They never put their fucking pens down. Blogs, Wikipedia, Amazon. Anywhere they can.
All day long Jewish authors on Wikipedia promote themselves and their biased, superficial articles, positing outright lies and reinvention of history as they document for posterity the glory of Jews in their so-called stories. You think it's not obvious to anyone paying attention?
They stink up every science and philosophy department in every university in America in pursuit of Zionist dominance and promotion of their Jew peers. They even infiltrate Christian universities, since they take any teaching job, no matter where, no matter how orthogonal their agenda.
They stink up every part of media and advertising, films, television, theater, you name it, so they can promote their bigoted, pro Jewish agenda.
America is the victim of the biggest takeover in history. The takeover of politics and the public consciousness by Zionists, who will do anything if the end is to make money, and will sacrifice any non-Jew if the purpose is to further the Jew. Look it up. It's all there, endorsed exactly like this, in the Talmud.
The Wikipedia article on Zionism was presented as a source other than me re. the U.N. declaration in favor of the Zionist state, and the subsequent Arab attack on that Zionist state. Those are historical facts, not Zionist philosophy. All the rest of what you said, I am aware of. But I was not using the Wikpedia article on Zionism to make political points.
Eat shit - tool.
@Precious
Your post - ++ The USSA's national debt !
tellin' it like it is
Should have taken the Arab state when it was offered. I repeat my point from above: fighting over territory and driving people off their land is something natural that has been going on since land was invented. The following is from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
In 1947, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that western Palestine should be partitioned into a Jewish state, an Arab state and a UN-controlled territory, Corpus separatum, around Jerusalem.[43] This partition plan was adopted on November 29, 1947 with UN GA Resolution 181, 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The vote led to celebrations in the streets of Jewish cities.[44] However, the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states rejected the UN decision, demanding a single state and removal of Jewish migrants, leading to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
On May 14, 1948, at the end of the British mandate, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, declared the creation of the State of Israel, and the same day the armies of seven Arab countries invaded Israel. The conflict led to an exodus of about 711,000 Arab Palestinians,[45] known to Palestinians as Al Nakba (the "catastrophe"), and the exodus of 850,000 Jews from the Arab world, mostly to Israel. Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Palestinians from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[46][47] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been widely, and controversially, described as having involved "ethnic cleansing".[48][49]
RichardP - I always get a sad little laugh when I see you and your zino-homies make the might-makes-right argument. Aren't you on shakey ground here?
lf you believe might makes right, like you claim up thread, robbing and murdering the Palestinians was 'OK', was justified simply because you could, then why all the whining about acts you attribute to the Germans in WWII?
Making a statement of fact does not equal expressing a philosophy of life. I have not intentionally made any might-makes-right claims in this thread. Saying "fighting over territory and driving people off their land is something natural that has been going on since land was invented" is a statement of historical fact, not an expression of personal philosophy - if that is what you are referring to.
I did indirectly pose a question: If it was OK for the Muslims to conquer Palestine when other people were living there, why is it logical for anyone to complain if/when someone else comes along and conquers them? Again, that is only a question of logic for consideration. No need to respond. It is not an expression of a philosophy of life.
The stronger group wins out over the weaker group (statement of historical fact). The stronger group then gets to do whatever it wants to to the weaker group (statement of historical fact). One of the distinguishing characteristics between civilized and barbaric is how the stronger group treats the weaker group. But that works only up to the point where the weaker group is trying to overthrow the stronger group. If the stronger group does not act in a barbaric way, it stands a chance of being defeated. You may want to classify that as a value judgement, but it is also a historical fact, applied to that narrow realm of consideration (weak trying to overthrow strong).
So tell me - how were the European Jews a threat to overthrowing Nazi Germany, that treating them barbarically should be justified?
Man....you're just like a pesky little mosquito. Sucking the life blood out of everyone on this site. Just like a certain 'tribe" I know of.
Please........ land on my arm. I'm waiting for you.
Yeah. Usually I ignore the illogic that permeates this place. But tonight I decided to confront it. Daughter is at the Dodgers ballgame, wife is out shopping, and I'm sitting here talking sense to nonsense.
So - can you answer my question, based on the logic I developed in my post: how were the European Jews a threat to overthrowing Nazi Germany, that treating them barbarically should be justified?
So you and Bibi get to spend a quiet night together sodomizing.
No. It was just me and my dogs. But the Dodgers won.
Here's a question RichardP...
Why were the people of Palestine made to pay for the sins of Nazi Germany?
European (nonsemitic)Ashkenazi Jews had no ancestral claim to that land. All they had was religious myth...a religion that they had converted to in the 8th Century A.D.
See The Thirteenth Tribe by Koestler...among other sources.
Why were the people of Palestine made to pay for the sins of Nazi Germany?
As I stated above in this thread, a different question must be answered first if your question is to have any legitimacy:
Why think Crusades? Why not think the Muslim conquest of Palestine and further Muslim attacks against the Byzantine Empire? ... What historical claim did the Muslims have to Palestine that they should overrun and conquer it against the objections of the people who had lived there for thousands of years?
Zionest attempts to establish a homeland pre-dates Nazi Germany. From the Wikipedia article on Zionism:
Nonetheless, individual efforts supported the emigration of groups of Jews to Palestine, pre-Zionist Aliyah, even before 1897, the year considered as the start of practical Zionism.
Finally, the practical answer to your question is because the U.N. made it so. They offered to create a state for the Zionists and a state for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected that state and attacked Israel instead. I'm assuming you know that.
Why not think the Muslim conquest of Palestine and further Muslim attacks against the Byzantine Empire?
DO read the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe's book and you will find the answer.
Muslim conquest of the Near East involved conversion rather than mass migration and the Muslim conquerors 1400 years ago did not have any "Plan Daleth" that involved forced expulsion of existing inhabitants to make place for new immigrants.
Rather than getting your info on politicized issues from wikipedia, I recommend you read Ilan Pappe's book: The ethnic cleansing of Palestine
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine-by-ilan-pappe/
Rather than getting your info on politicized issues from wikipedia ...
Over the past several years there has been quite a number of suggested readings offered. I assume people have checked those out. I was not trying to be comprehensive. Wikipedia provided a quick statement of the UN attitude towards a two-state solution in 47-48, and the subsequent attack on Israel by the Arabs. For someone not familiar with those two facts, my link meant they didn't have to take my word for it. The Wikipedia link gives them something to research if they wish.
The Balfour Declaration (in its entirety)Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
"Dear Lord Rothschild,"
The salutation of the Balfour Declaration provided me with all the info I needed to realize who was the real force behind the creation of the modern State of Israel. Israel today is the bastard child of the world's most powerful banking family who incidentally are Ashkenazi Jews and self proclaimed Zionists.
quote from: Four Rothschilds, Wine & The State of Israel
If one is to go back in history, why stop in 1947?
Consistency requires you go BACK to the beginning of history.
Before the Arab conquest the whole middle east was populated by Jews, Christians and pagans.
Today mostly Arabs.
What happened to the less violent communities?
Hint, check what happens to the Christians in Syria and Egypt today...
Now if you insist we can discuss the present.
"Consistency requires you go BACK to the beginning of history."
"Before the Arab conquest the whole middle east was populated by Jews, Christians and pagans."
You are a few millennia off on dating the beginning of history.
Unless we're talking about Farriers to the Dinosaurs.
American Media Mega Corporations that own the meadia!
Headlines sell newspapers and blog clicks. G.W. - you know that. You also know that you are conflating the Iranian regime change issue and the Iranian nuclear weapons program issue. They are not the same. You know that. Yet you throw them together because it generates more comments and clicks for you. Which I'm sure translates into dollars.
Neither the United States nor Israel claims that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The difficult question being considered is at what point do we make certain that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapons program?
This question is being considered - not out of fear that Iran will bomb Israel (posters here state many good reasons why that likely wouldn't happen) - but out of concern that an arms race will ignite in the ME if Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program. If that arms race happens, it may well result in the use of nuclear weapons. That is a legitimate concern to many folks in many different nations.
Calmer heads than those on this blog are responsibly weighing the pros and cons of allowing things to progress, or stopping that progression now. One can make a case for either side of the argument. But a decision will be made. It will be an imperfect decision, made in the absence of complete and perfect information. Making decisions without perfect information is what grown-ups have to deal with on a daily basis.
Attacking nuclear production facilities is an issue different from attacking Iran. Israel did not start a war with Iraq when it destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities. Israel did not start a war with Syria when it destroyed Syria's nuclear facilities. No one is going to start a war with Iran if the decision is made to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.
Good reading:
http://www.iranwatch.org/ourpubs/articles/iranucleartimetable.html
"This question is being considered - not out of fear that Iran will bomb Israel (posters here state many good reasons why that likely wouldn't happen) - but out of concern that an arms race will ignite in the ME if Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program. If that arms race happens, it may well result in the use of nuclear weapons."
Israel has nuclear weapons, and is hilariously allowed to lie about it. The United States has incinerated hundreds of thousands of people with nuclear weapons. Iran should have nuclear weapons. Unless, of course, you think that Iranians are somehow genetically less capable of handling nuclear weapons. You don't think that, now, do you?
My comment that you quoted is the reason why the West and other Arab nations are concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapons program.
Israel did not start a war with Iraq when it destroyed Iraq's nuclear facilities.
Israel did not start a war with Syria when it destroyed Syria's nuclear facilities.
So, applying exatly this logic, it's therefore OK for Iran to destroy Israel's "Nuclear Facilities" - definitely NO risk of war there on the basis of the above assertions, is there? AND, by removing Nuclear Weapons from the Middle East there will be a commensurate improvement in Global security (one less nuclear-armed player to worry about).
However, we ALL know that the State of Israel is "Special", and us goyim are regarded as "Stupid cattle"
And you wonder why they've been hated throughout history??
Iraq and Syria have attacked Israel before. What Israel did to both their nuclear facilities was a pre-emptive strike. Iran has threated the Zionist Regime. Attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be a pre-emptive strike.
If there is proof that Israel has previously attacked Iran, or has threatened to destroy the Shia Regime, then an Iranian pre-emptive strike would be legitimate.
Stop with the non-logic arguments.
"Pre-emptive strike would be legitimate"
Let's let that hang in the air for awhile.
Then non-logic would be to have a pre-emptive strike before a pre-emptive strike for another pre-emptive strike. Wait a minute... that is just nuts!
It's much simpler than that. Imagine you are in the vicinity of someone who has a pistol and you have reason to believe he is going to shoot you. If you also have a pistol, pre-emptive strike, or not?
I suppose some people would wait to get shot before they formulated a response.
Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. Who should be more afraid of the other? If you're going to advocate for preemptive attacks, Iran CLEARLY has a stronger case for making a preemptive attack on Israel than Israel does on Iran. In fact, what Israel wants is the right to attack Iran not because Iran is a threat to attack, but simply because Iran is threatening to even the playing field, a thought that exceptionalist Israel (and the exceptionalist United States) can't stand...
You didn't read what I wrote, did you. There must first be justification for a pre-emptive attack in order for it to be legitimate. In that context, you are wrong to state the Iran has a stronger case for making a pre-emptive attack on Israel. Read what I wrote above and you will see why.
You are funny man.
I hope some kid with a pellet gun is not wasted by you because "Pre-emptive strikes are legitimate."
If you ever get a CWP you should change your handle on ZH to "Pre-emptive Terminator".
If you encounter a kid with a pellet gun and you have no way of knowing it's only a pellet gun, and you have reason to believe he intends to shoot you - pre-emptive stike or not?
It is really quite simple. You are answering this question for yourself, not for me. (Rhetorically) What would you do in such a situation?
My point is that you won't ever know what you would do until you are actually faced with such a situation. And if you've never been faced with such a situation, you have no way of knowing how someone feels - and what goes into their decision-making process - when they are faced with such a situation.
Sometimes we are forced to make decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes national leaders are forced to make decisions with incomplete information.
Eat shit, delirious retard.
Pakistan seems to have been left out; it would change the chart a little bit.
The graph is misguided.
Instead list those countries that violate the NPT.
Israel didn't sign the NPT. Thus, it is not violating it.
Syria signed the NPT and violated it till Israel brought Syria into compliance.
Iraq signed the NPT and violated it. (It was also brought into compliance thanks to Israel in 1980).
Iran signed the NPT and violates it. Who will assist the Iranians in the their effort to get into compliance?
Btw, countries are compelled to sign the NPT as not signing it has severe price.
Not signing curbs a country access the relevant technologies.
Iran chose to sign, gaining access to sensitive technologies. Now it should make good on its signature.
Israel chose not to sign the NPT. Therefore, it does not get access to sensitive technologies.
"Israel didn't sign the NPT. Thus, it is not violating it."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! Way to lose all of your credibility, forever, in just two short sentences. A drunk, retarded first-grader would have had enough sense not to post something so comically stupid. Hey, you know what? I never signed the murder treaty--I'm off to kill without fear of arrest or imprisonment!
If you are not party to a contract, you can never be held liable in court for violating it. Pretty fundamental.
Therefore, it does not get access to sensitive technologies.
Therefore, Israel is not given access to sensitive technologies. But Israel still gets access to sensitive technologies - on its own and in its own way.
Who are you? Richard Pearl? You scum fucking, immoral, shit retard.
Go somewhere and die you ignorant motherfucker.
You've not heard of Israeli spies stealing technology from other countries?
I think the consensus is that many nations, including Arab nations, would like to keep that graph unchanged.
The consensus where? In Tel Aviv? LOL...by the way, did that new shipment of open-air city buses arrive yet? If not, I imagine you'll be getting them shortly after the commencement of Bibi's upcoming adventure in Iran....