The NYT Finds Heroes in Tbilisi -- In Baghdad, Only Terrorists
The New York Times ran a feature August 12, on Georgian civilians who've joined the fight against the Russian invasion of that former Soviet republic. The story, by Nicholas Kulish and Michael Schwirtz is full of empathy and heart.
Nika Kharadze and Giorgi Monasalidze went to war last week, the Times report begins, "even though they were not warriors."
It goes on to describe how the men's parents have been searching for them ever since. They've gone from hospital to hospital, to the local and International Red Cross. Mom and dad even asked the cellphone company to trace the last known location of their son's phone. No luck.
And then there's this line: as parts of the country fell before the Russian invaders, the Times writes, "it was not only the army that rose in its defense but also regular citizens." Resistance, we learn, was part of a tradition, inscribed in local history and culture going back to "medieval times."
To make the point, the writers describe a government employee, standing under a statue of Stalin in the city's main square with a rifle slung over his civilian clothes. The man is part of a group of a dozen locals who tell the reporter they're there to defend their town.
The story also describes displacement caused by bombing. "The planes came in and they started to bomb. The ground was covered with dead people, and there was nowhere to go," says Goderzi Zenashvili, 48. "The people that died, they died from their houses falling in on them, from the shrapnel and from concussions."
So now we know! The New York Times can do it when they want to. They can paint a picture of war that's hard to shake: heroic, hapless young men who take up arms to defend their homelands; moms and dads and lovers worried sick. The Times can explain how invading armies provoke righteous resistance.
But they didn't -- not when it was Baghdad instead of Tbilisi, and the statue Saddam's, not Stalin's. Then, local people in resistance were called dead enders, killers, terrorists. Because of course -- here's the difference: then the resisters were the enemy and the invaders were -- are -- us.
The F Word is a daily commentary by Laura Flanders.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
34 Comments so far
Show AllI find many of the comments on this board as hypocritical as the views that they are attacking. If the view that the Iraqis fighters are terrorists but the Georgian fighters are "freedom fighters" is hypocritical, then the mirror image- Georgians are not right to fight invaders of their country but Iraqis are- is also hypocritical.
How about both invading countries should withdraw? Just a suggestion.
My 1 on 1 interview with Secretary of State Rice
"Madame Secretary, thank you for taking time out from your month long vacation for this interview. "
"Let's start with the situation in Georgia. What type of weapons is the Bush White House shipping to Georgia?"
"Arrf, arrff, arf, aRFFFF, ARFF, arf, bark, bark arrff"
"Interesting. Will the US send more troops to Georgia?"
"ARFFFF. arf, arffffff, ARF, ARF, ARF... bark...bar..."
At this point in the interview, the Secretary takes a break to use her hind leg to vigorously scratch some fleas behind her left ear.
"Madame Secretary, is the US going to back Israel when that country attacks Iran?"
"ARF, ARF, ARF, ARFFFFFFFFFFF"
Another distraction. It seems that Israeli Foreign Minister Livni has entered the room. Rice runs over to Livni, obviously excited and they both start circling each other and smelling each others butts.
After a couple of minutes of this, the Secretary returns.
"Madame Secretary, is it true that you are hoping to stay in office in the next administration?
"Arrrff, ARFFFF, arf, arf, arfffff........."
Rice becomes extremely agitated and starts jumping up and down. She trots over to a mangy-looking, diseased dog that everyone in the neighborhood calls "George."
Rice starts panting, then raises her tail and George mounts her violently from behind. The ruckus they make with their yelping and barking is too much for this interviewer.
I conclude the interview to find a bucket of cold water.
The inability of the Americans to see themselves as others see them is quite astonishing. We know that Mr Bush has never had a very firm hold on reality, but when he stands up and denounces Russia for invading a sovereign country with the intention of overthrowing its government, we may be forgiven for wondering if he has completely taken leave of whatever senses he may once have had. And how can he and his advisers not have realised by now that when the US (backed by Britian - to our shame) invaded Iraq in violation of the most basic principles of international law, America and Britain automatically became rogue states? And how can he not be aware that a rogue state has forfeited, beyond recall, the moral authority which might have given it the right to criticise the behaviour of other states. The total loss of moral credibility through our own criminal folly is not the least of the harms Mr Bush and Mr Blair have done to their respective countries, and may well be the hardest ever to recover from.
Oh by the way got an update from the VFP seems due to HConRes362, they are ready to roll on their way to yet anothe, my Chapter Prez apologized for the bunch of CNN-Neocon bullshit sound bite way this reads but it's what's happening as we sleep, type or whatever.
________________________________________________________________________________
This massive deployment of naval strength occurs at the very outset of an unfolding crisis in the Caucasus, marked by the Georgian air and ground attacks on South Ossetia and Russia's counterattack. The timing and chronology of these related and concurrent military operations is crucial.
We are not dealing with separate and unrelated military events. The war in Georgia is an integral part of US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to Iran.
Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.
The attack on South Ossetia was launched by Georgia on the orders of the US and NATO. US military advisers and trainers were actively involved in the planning of Georgia's attacks on the South Ossetia capital. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, War in the Caucasus, Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation, Global Research, August 10, 2008)
Russia is an ally of Iran.
Russia is currently caught up in a military confrontation with Georgia. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia constitutes an act of provocation directed against Russia. It creates an aura of instability in the Caucasus, marked by heavy civilian casualties. It serves to distract Russia from playing a meaningful diplomatic and military role, which might undermine or obstruct the US-led war plans directed against Iran.
Both Russia and China have bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran. Russia supplies the Islamic Republic with military hardware and technical expertise in relation to Iran's air defense system and missile program.
Since 2005, Iran has an observer member status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In turn, the SCO has ties to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), an overlapping military cooperation agreement between Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan.
The structure and strength of military alliances is crucial. In the context of US war plans directed against Iran, the US is intent upon weakening Iran's allies, namely Russia and China. In the case of China, Washington is seeking to disrupt Beijing's bilateral ties with Tehran as well as Iran's rapprochement with the SCO, which has its headquarters in Beijing.
The Georgian attack on South Ossetia seeks to undermine Russia, which constitutes a significant countervailing military power and ally of Iran.
The ultimate objective is to isolate Iran, cut it off from its powerful allies: China and Russia.
In Washington's mindset, the events in Georgia coupled with media propaganda, can be usefully applied to discredit and weaken Russia prior to the enforcement of a naval blockade on Iran in the Persian Gulf, which could lead into an all out war on Iran.
This somewhat crude line of reasoning tends, however, to overlook America's own military setbacks and weaknesses as well as the enormous risks to America and the World which could result from a continued and sustained confrontation with Russia, let alone an attack on Iran.
In view of the evolving situation in Georgia and Moscow's military commitments in the Caucasus, military analysts believe that Russia will not protect Iran and encroach upon a US led operation directed against Iran, which would be preceded by a naval blockade.
In other words, Washington believes that Moscow is unlikely to get actively involved in a showdown with US and allied forces in the Persian Gulf.
"Operation Brimstone": North Atlantic Ocean War Games
Leading up to this naval build up in the Persian Gulf, US and allied forces have recently completed large scale war games off the US North Atlantic coastline.
Stating the purpose of a war game and identifying the real "foreign enemy" by name is not the normal practice, unless there is a decision to send an unequivocal message to the enemy.
Invariably in war games, the foreign enemy is given a fictitious country name: Irmingham, Nemazee, Rubeck and Churia stand for Iran, North Korea, Russia and China (codes used in the Vigilant Shield 07 War Games' Scenario opposing the US to four fictitious enemies. (See William Arkin, The Vigilant Shield 07 War Games: Scenario opposing the US to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, Washington Post, February 10, 2007)
In the case of "Operation Brimstone", the stated military purpose of the naval exercise is crystal clear: the North Atlantic war games are carried out with a view "to practice enforcing an eventual blockade on Iran". These naval exercises are intended to display US and allied "combat capabilities as a warning to Iran." They are tantamount to a declaration of war:
"The drill is aimed at training for operation in shallow coastal waters such as the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz."
Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) 08-4 'Operation Brimstone' commenced on July 21 in North Carolina and off the Eastern US Atlantic coast from Virginia to Florida. Of significance was the participation of British, French, Brazilian and Italian naval forces as part of a multinational US naval exercise directed against Iran.
More than a dozen ships participated in the naval exercise including the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its Carrier Strike Group Two, the expeditionary Strike Group Iwo Jima, the French submarine Amethyste, Britain's HMS Illustrious Carrier Strike Group, Brazil's navy frigate Greenhalgh and Italy's ITS Salvatore Todaro (S 526) submarine. (See Middle East Times, August 11, 2008, Dailypress.com, July 28, 2008 , www.mt-milcom.blogspot.com)
The USS Theodore Roosevelt equipped with 80-plus combat planes, was carrying an additional load of French Naval Rafale fighter jets from the French carrier Charles de Gaulle. (Ibid). France's E2C Hawkeye early warning aircraft, which was "assigned to the 4th Squadron began flight operations with Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8 aboard Roosevelt, marking the first integrated U.S. and French carrier qualifications aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier. French Rafale fighter aircraft assigned to the 12th Squadron also joined." Navy.mil, July 24, 2008
Anglo-US war games are a routine practice. What is significant in these large scale naval manoeuvres is the active participation of France, Brazil and Italy in war games which are explicitly directed against Iran.
The participation of these countries in extensive war games points to broad consensus. It also suggests that the participating nations have accepted (in political and military terms) to participate in a US-led military operation directed against Iran. The active participation of France and to a lesser extent Italy also suggests that the European Union is firmly behind the US initiative:
"Operations with our friends and allies are the cornerstone of the U.S. Navy's current maritime strategy," said Capt. Ladd Wheeler, Roosevelt's commanding officer. "These combined operations will certainly pay dividends into the future as our navies continue to work together to increase global security."Navy.mil, July 24, 2008
Another important precedent has been set. Brazil's President Luis Ignacio da Silva has ordered the dispatch of the Greenhalgh Frigate, marking the first time that a Brazilian warship (under a government which claims to be "socialist") has operated as part of a US. strike group in war games directed against a foreign country. We have not been able to confirm whether the Brazilian frigate has sailed to the Persian Gulf together with USS Roosevelt, to which it was attached during "Operation Brimstone".
According to the Greenhalgh's Commander Claudio Mello, "It allows us to be one more asset in an international operation." (Pilot Online.com, July 28, 2008)
Brazil's Frigate Greenhalgh dispatched to participate in US War Games
En Route to the Persian Gulf
Of significance is that immediately upon completing the North Atlantic war games, on July 31st, the "Operation Brimstone" Joint Task Force headed for the Persian Gulf, to join up with three other carrier strike groups and a constellation of US, British and French war ships. In other words, Operation Brimstone was a dress rehearsal of an actual naval blockade.
According to military sources, the following naval forces, which are already deployed in the Persian Gulf consists of
-the nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan Carrier and its Strike Group Seven;
-the USS Iwo Jima,
- the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal
-several French warships, including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste.
Also positioned in the region are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea and the USS Peleliu which is currently in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
USS Abraham Lincoln
Unprecedented Deployment of Naval Power
This is the largest concentration of US and allied naval power since the onslaught of the Iraq war in March 2003.
Once the Brimstone joint task force naval force arrives in the Gulf region, it will be joining two other U.S. naval battle groups already on site: the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Peleliu.
USS Peleliu
Four US aircraft carriers and strike forces will be positioned in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea and the Red Sea.
USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Ronald Reagan. USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Peleliu Strike Group. The US is also sending to the Middle East the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
With accompanying frigates and submarines, some 40 war ships will be in a state of readiness, in the region and/or or directly off the Iranian coastline.
In addition to these 40 war ships, there are some 36 US and allied war vessels operating under US Central Command as part of a Combined Maritime Force (CMF) involved in Maritime Security.
In an August 11 article published by Global Research, the nature of this Naval Strike force is specified and enumerated as follows:
"The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:
Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Two Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assault ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assault ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer
Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing Eight [Set sail for the Gulf on August 5]
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer
USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group [Set sail for the Gulf]
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier with its Amphibious Squadron Four and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer
USS Hartford (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine
Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier with its Carrier Air Wing 14 Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship
Also likely to join the battle armada:
UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships
French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships
The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters off the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps)."
(See Earl of Sterling, Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran, Global Research, August 2008
"Maritime Security": Thirty-six More Vessels
US Central Command (CENTCOM) under the helm of General Petraeus, coordinates out of Bahrain so-called Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in Middle East waters ( Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea and Indian Ocean).
CENTCOM Commander General Petraeus
favors an all out war on Iran
This MSO initiative is conducted by the Combined Maritime Force (CMF) with a powerful armada of 36 warships.
Established at the outset of the Iraq war, CMF involves the participation of the US, Canada, Australia, UK, Germany, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Pakistan.
There are several combined task forces responsible for maritime security (including CTF 150, CTF 152 and the CTF 158 North Arabian Gulf (NAG))
The mandate of the Combined Task Forces "aims to establish security and stability by countering terrorism in the Middle Eastern maritime environment and allowing legitimate mariners to operate safely in the area..." (see Canadian Navy, News), In the present context, the multinational alliance, will be used to encroach upon maritime trade with Iran as well as play an active role in the implementing the proposed economic blockade of Iran.
Canada has recently deployed three war ships to the Arabian sea, including HMC Iroquois along with HMC Calgary and HMC Protecteur which will be operating under CTF 150, which is responsible for MSO in the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
Canada's HMC Iroquois, involved in Maritime Security.
Canada currently leads the CTF 150 Task Force
Among the 36 war vessels involved in so-called Maritime Security Operations, are:
RBNS Sabha (FFG 90) – The Bahraini flagship of CTF 152 conducting Maritime Security Operations (MSO) in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) – The U.S. flagship of CTF 50, conducting MSO in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf , as well as support Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.
FS Guepratte (F 714) – French Navy ship operating as part of CTF 150 in the North Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
USCGC Wrangell (WPB 1332) – One of several USCG 110' patrol boats conducting MSO in the North Arabian Gulf.
HMAS Arunta (F 151) – Australian Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 158 .
PNS Tippu Sultan (D 186) – Pakistan Navy ship conducting MSO as part of CTF 150.
RFA Cardigan Bay (L 3009) – British Royal Navy auxiliary ship operating with CTF 158.
USS Port Royal (CG 73) – US Navy guided-missile cruiser deployed with USS Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Group.
Source: US Naval forces, Central Command, Fifth fleet, Combined Maritime Forces
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
Naval Blockade
For Iran, a naval blockade enforced by some 80 war ships stationed in Middle East waters and off the Iranian coastline is tantamount to a declaration of war.
The blockade constitutes a blatant violation of international law. According to Francis Boyle, a renowned specialist international law:
"A blockade is an act of war under international and domestic law. A "Blockade" is a term used under international law to specifically refer to belligerent measures taken by a nation for the purposes of preventing the passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in theDeclaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare."
Meanwhile, war preparations are also being undertaken by Israel and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean. German war ships are stationed off the Syrian coastline. Turkey which constitutes a major military actor within NATO is a major partner of the US led coalition. It has an extended bilateral military cooperation agreement with Israel. Turkey has borders with both Iran and Syria. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, "Triple Alliance": The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, Global Research, August 6, 2006)
Pre-emptive Nuclear War
A diabolical and related consensus is emerging at the political level, pointing to the pre-emptive first strike use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater, more concretely against Iran:
"In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."
To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia."Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 2006)
More recently, a December 2007 NATO sponsored report entitled "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". calls for a first strike pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. The NATO doctrine in this report is a virtual copy and paste version of America's post 9/11 nuclear weapons doctrine as initially outlined in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
(for details, see Michel Chossudovsky, The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend "The Western Way of Life", Global Research, January 2008)
The preemptive use of nukes as formulated in the NATO Transatlantic Partnership document would be used to undermine an"increasingly brutal World" (e.g. Iran) as well as a means to prevent "rogue enemies" to use "weapons of mass destruction".
Under this NATO framework, which is explicitly envisaged in relation to Iran, US and allied forces including Israel would "resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, " (quoted in Paul Dibb, Sidney Morning Herald, 11 February 2008).
"They [the authors of the report] consider that nuclear war might soon become possible in an increasingly brutal world. They propose the first use of nuclear weapons must remain "in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction". (Paul Dibb, op cit)
In terms of the ongoing threats directed against Iran, a pre-emptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons, which are according to the Pentagon is "harmless to the surrounding civilian population" could be carried out in relationto Iran, even if if Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities, as confirmed by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of the Middle East war (Iran) alongside conventional weapons:
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent."(Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage".
The NATO sponsored report --which broadly reflects a growing consensus-- insists that the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable, "since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world." (Report, p. 97):
"Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation"
The US-NATO doctrine to use nukes on a pre-emptive basis against Iran, with a view to "saving the Western World's way of life", is not challenged in any meaningful way by the antiwar movement.
The mainstream media has a strong grip on the public's perception and understanding of the Middle East war. The dangers of nuclear war in the Post cold War era are barely mentioned and when they are, the use of nuclear weapons are justified as a preemptive military option to ensure the security of Western World.
The truth is twisted and turned upside down.
Media disinformation instills within the consciousness of Americans and Europeans that somehow the war on Iran is a necessity, that Iran is a threat to the Homeland and that the Islamic Republic is supporting Islamic terrorists, who are planning a Second 9/11. And that a pre-emptive nuclear attack is the answer.
In contrast, the powerful economic interests behind the war economy, the Anglo-American oil giants military, the defense contractors, Wall Street are rarely the object of media coverage. The real economic and strategic objectives behind this war are carefully obfuscated.
9/11 is used profusely both by the Bush administration and the media as a justification for waging war, despite the fact that there is mounting evidence of cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
Despite the evidence, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran have been portrayed as the "State sponsors of terrorism" and a threat to the Homeland, thereby justifying the various stages of the Middle East military roadmap. The Project for a New American Century, had already described in a 2000 document the nature of this road map or "long war". What is envisaged is a global war without borders:
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars (PNAC, September 2000)
At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the US led coalition including France, Germany and Italy, should understand that such an action could result in a World War III scenario.
Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon.
US sponsored war games have foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China in the Middle East. World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime.
In response to "Operation Brimstone" and the Naval deployment, Iran's Foreign Ministry said that "Tehran will give a 'maximum response' to the slightest threat against the country's national security."
War propaganda, through media disinformation consists in galvanizing US citizens not only in favor of "the war on terrorism", but in support of a social order which repeals the Rule of Law, derogates fundamental civil liberties, upholds the use of torture and establishes a modern police state apparatus as a means to "preserving Western democracy".
There is a tacit public acceptance of a diabolical and criminal military agenda, which in a very sense threatens "the community of nations" and life on this planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of the last four years, Global Research has documented in detail the various war plans directed against Iran. Operation TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) was initially formulated in July 2003, in the wake of the US led Iraq invasion.
We have done our utmost to reverse the tide of media disinformation, to inform our readers and the broader public on the impending dangers underlying the US military adventure.
This is the most serious crisis in modern history which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity.
We refer our readers to an extensive archive of articles and documents. See our War on Iran Dossier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America's "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005.
This seemed like the best place to update those of you that care about the great people sailing to Gaza to help, http://freegaza.com
####################################################################
Good morning from Cyprus. While the boats have been delayed because of weather,
those of us waiting for them to come and pick us up have been busy organizing.
Our support group, from Anis to Issa to the hundreds in the UK, US and
elsewhere have also been busy organizing. Here are the updates, then, from all
of us.
1. The Free Gaza website is completely redone. Please go look at it and let us
know what you think. It's easier to navigate, and you can also download, in PDF
form, the hundreds of interviews we have done. The media has been wonderful,
reporting on our trip and on our determination to get to Gaza.
2. We are releasing more than 500 hundred red, white, black and green balloons
(yes, they are biodegradable) with FREE PALESTINE on them in memory of the more
than 5000 Palestinians who have been killed or assassinated by the Israeli
military since September, 2000.
3. We are also getting ready for the memorial service for the men aboard the
USS Liberty who were murdered by the Israeli military on June 8, 1967. The
survivors sent us the names of the 34 men, and we will read them out the day we
leave and drop a red rose into the sea for each one. Since the United States
never did a single thing for these sailors, our small band of nonviolent people
will remember them. Here is what one of the survivors wrote to us?
"Hope every one is well and ready to go to sea and make a huge statement to the
world about the savage treatment of the people in Gaza.
Also again thank you for the honor of sailing on SS Liberty, a very bold
statement to say the least.God bless all you brave souls we wish you calm seas
and smooth sailing."
Watch for our press releases over the next few days as FREE GAZA and LIBERTY
sail into port once the storm has abated.
Greta Berlin
Media Team
Free Gaza Movement
00 357 99 08 17 67
www.freegaza.org
www.anis-online.de/office/events/FreeGazaSong.htm
www.flickr.com/photos/29205195@N02/
missdayan -- "Sorry Laura, but when "resistance" turns to sending retarded teenage girls into crowded markets with bombs strapped to them, its tough to call the perpetrators heroes."
Thats right. The perpetrators can only be called heroes when they sit in gigantic battle tanks or armoured personal carriers and rain bullets and bombs down on them. Who is retarded here again ??
Wanna see Fox news at its best?
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/08/14/american-girl-interviewed-on-fox-news-we-were-running-from-geor...
Right here in my city a group of insurgents attacked an international peace keeping force on the day after a holy holiday. December 26, 1776, Trenton,NJ George Washington defeated the Hessians.
It's been said before: "The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side you are on."
RichM and jlocke123:
Excellent points.
HaHaHaHaHa!--after 6 years of John Wayne "Diplomacy" the chickens are coming home to roost. Is there anything funnier than watching Condoleeza Rice, George Bush or John McCain deploring the Russian unprovoked invasion of
Georgia?
Yes, it's the wide eyed wondering press that swallows all that political ejaculation and reports it with furrowed brows of concern over this latest confrontation between Russia and the US.
Other funny moments for Bushco include when the Chinese told the Prez (while visiting to go to the Olympics) to mind his own business when he squeaked about the Chinese treatment of Tibet. The Turks are attacking Kurdish Iraq (in order to "protect their vital interests"--sound familiar?) with impunity, and the Pakistanis are on the verge of a civil war.
Well at least Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon are off the hook for a place in history as the worst President the United States has ever had.
So this man was standing under a statue of Stalin in a square, dressed in Civilan clothes to defend his country.
According to some on these boards, that makes the man an illegal combatant. According to some, the Russians are entitled to kill him or arrest him and any like him and send them to camps where they can be tortured or where they can be charged with war crimes and terrorism for shooting at Russian soldiers.
The Khadr trail is ongoing as we speak. Why did the NYT not talk about Khadrs brave stand to defend against invaders?
pk
I think that the Georgians have a statue of Stalin because he was a Georgian. Bad as he was , Stalin is their native son. The People of Northfield, Minnesota honor Jesse James, a bank robber and murderer. I understand that there will be George W. Bush Library/Memorial in Texas. Apparently criminals command respect.
Moshe,
i'm sure you actually know this BUT: the lie about the retarded girls / suicide bombers has long since been exposed as a lie. Thanks for repeating the propaganda, keep up the good work, i hope you are well paid.
Bush just sent troops to Georgia. Should we start digging in yet?
Sorry Laura, but when "resistance" turns to sending retarded teenage girls into crowded markets with bombs strapped to them, its tough to call the perpetrators heroes.
Overkill says it all in one sentence.
@rddimboy
Thanks for the history, I did not know that. I wonder how the world would treat Germany if it still payed public homage to Hitler?
But there is even another layer of hypocracy and double-talk going on here. Surely there are many irregular South Ossetians fighting the Georgians, who were attempting to ethnically cleanse automimous S. Ossetia through brutal bombardment. The Georgians started this conflict for crying out loud!
-- "I have learned to never trust Israeli Media."
LOL !!! Aint that the truth ! The first couple of articles from the NYTimes was actually a pretty unbiased analysis in the scheme of things and then they kicked into gear and began to toe the line. Sycophants.
-- "Why is the US supporting a country that still reveres Stalin?"
Because Stalin was Georgian and is still considered a hero in Georgia which pretty much sums up the Georgian (Sakaashvili's) state of mind.
Tbilisi was once free. Why is there a statue of Stalin in the city's main square? Even the Russians have destroyed all the Stalin statues.
Why is the US supporting a country that still reveres Stalin?
That was a good piece RichM in the NYT. I especially liked the opinion of the NYT that the sovereignty of Georgia must be guaranteed and that Moscow must not be allowed to annex them by force.
Actually, I predict that the latter will happen moreso than the former as technically, Russia is within all legal bounds to do what they are doing to Georgia. Will Russia grant Georgia their existence after all is said and done? I do not know, but Russia can legally wipe Georgia off the face of the Earth if it wants to. Georgia made a mistake to trust any Western countries to the detriment of Russia - especially when Georgia knew damn well that an affront on Russia would legally be an affront on the sovereignty of Georgia (via the treaties between Russia and Georgia dating back to the formation of the nation of Georgia). Georgia chose to go against Russia interests anyways (with some promise that the EU and the USA would ensure their security when this clearly is not the case so far) and are now paying the price.
JBPM (2:48) rightly calls the US "free press" a propagandistic farce.
Anyone who wants to savor a specially-concentrated dose of this filthy propaganda should read today's short NYT editorial, Russia Takes Gori.
According to the NYT, the current situation is all about "Russian agression." And naturally, it's the obligation of the freedom-lovin' USA to make clear to the Russkies "...that more aggression and lies will not be tolerated." Oh, no, we must tell Russia that it will "pay a price"; that it must "withdraw its troops, agree to international mediation and permit the deployment of truly neutral international peacekeepers to Georgia's breakaway regions..."
The editorial continues, "Georgia's sovereignty must be guaranteed. ... Moscow must not be allowed to annex them by force."
Is this or is this not the most unbelievably hypocritical bullshit you ever heard? The USA, headed by GW Bush, Butcher of Baghdad, occupier of Iraq & Afghanistan, is supposed to sit on his mighty throne and dictate to Russia about who is allowed to have their troops where, & who will "tolerate" the "lies" of whom!!!
Not a trace of irony in the whole piece! You'd almost expect the article to end with some kind of "wink, wink" symbol.
The conflict between Russia and Georgia is the reflection of what the USA has done and is doing. I understand why Georgian resistance to Russia is not viewed as terrorist activity whereas Iraqi resistance to the USA was. You know what though? The more that the USA helps Georgia and portrays them as victims in this situation while demonizing Russia for doing what the USA has done on the other side of the world (vis a vis next door in the case with Russia) the more the USA is portrayed as a hypocrite. That is the new reality now (Thanks George :-) )! Why is Western first- world media making Russia out to be much worse than Georgia and portraying Georgia as the innocent victim in this situation? Becuase the USA is unable to confess and tell the truth in its role regarding a deal made with Georgia to give Russia a headache. It was not smart to go against Russia interests - I do not care how powerful a nation or an alliance is. DON'T PLAY WITH RUSSIA! What will the outcome be? I am not sure but I hope that planet Earth will remain and that this is over with soon.
What is also disturbing is that many Americans really believe what their media is telling them about this. If Americans really want to know what is happening in the Caucasus, rely on overseas media stories about it accessed through the internet. Do not believe most of USA media on giving an unbiased reporting. For example, there is this piece of shit American named Glenn Beck who actually spoke with Saakashvili the other day while refusing to talk with Lavrov or Medvedev. This goes to show how manipulative and dishonest your media is. Of course, the reason why your media is so biased and manipulative is becasue in the USA, people have freedom of the press and it is not controlled by their Government so much. Therefore USA media is more prone to not tell the truth as it is a USA right for pundits such as Glenn Beck to lie rather than to give the whole story and to be completely honest. Most Americans claim that it is a virtue to have the right to lie in front of millions of people in their various media - especially about something as important as what is happening in the Caucasus right now as well as in Iraq.
"To make the point, the writers describe a government employee, standing under a statue of Stalin in the city's main square with a rifle slung over his civilian clothes. The man is part of a group of a dozen locals who tell the reporter they're there to defend their town."
No uniform? Doesn't this sound quite like an 'enemy combatant'?
Sorry jlocke123, your comment wasn't there when I posted. But great minds think alike, eh?
I've seen more pictures of the damage in Georgia from the last week than I've seen of the damage done to Iraq in the last five years. Anyone who believes in single-standards can see the US "free press" for the propagandistic farce that it is.
jlocke123,
I think you'll find that georgia's special relationship with the US surely involves "secret" CIA prisons on their "sovereign" land.
I didn't think before the Russian invasion of Georgia that conscription had any realistic chance of making a comeback in this country. But now - with the failure and catastrophe of Iraq and what looks like our glacially slow but inevitable not quite total withdrawal - it appears the MIC is gearing up for a remake of the Cold War against the Slavic Hordes in Russia. When McCain becomes president he'll push for it because, as an ex-military, he truly believes in it. The hapless Democrats, having lost the presidency yet again in an election any imbecile should have won, will jump at the chance to support conscription in a vain effort to show once more their "patriotism" and "toughness". The draft comes back, thousands of conscripts pour into the Central European former Soviet client states, to confront the Evil Ivans and Cold War II begins. Only now, the Russians will be referred to by the the government and their whores in the MSM as "terrorists" instead of communists. The usual suspects will make their usual obscene fortunes. Same shit, different day. LOL.
RichM, Well said. Aren't the Georgian civilian fighters in fact, illegal combatants, according to the US? Perhaps the US should ship them to one of the secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, Is there one in Georgia?
The perpectual hypocrisy is because my former tribe has always seen themselves as the good guys. Most actually believe it. "onward christian soldiers" Thanks for pointing it out Laura.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - just depends what side you are on. This also smacks of not-so-covert racism. Georgians are essentially white like us, not those brown people of the Middle East. Didn't you know? We only celebrate the killing of brown people, duh! If this were an African nation, or a Middle Eastern nation without oil, would we care? Methinks not...
Actually, the real "invaders" are still us. The USA was behind the Georgian action; the Georgians were our proxies, armed & encouraged by our govt. Georgia attacked the separatist province of South Ossetia a week ago (but to listen to the US corporate media, you'd really never know that).
So in the NYT article Flanders mentions, the NYT is showing sympathy for US proxies, which is basically like showing sympathy for ourselves. The main difference relative to Iraq is that this time we (actually, our Georgian proxies) attacked someone who could hit back (or, let's say, who had a very big friend who could hit back).
So actually Flanders' point is clumsily made. (I've never understood why anyone listens to her, anyhow.) The performance of the US media in Iraq is really perfectly consistent with its performance in Georgia: the underlying assumption in both cases is that whoever is on our side is "good," and whoever stands against us is a "terrorist" or "aggressor."
I have learned to never trust Israeli Media.
Perhaps bligh3. Yet you seem to have been just fine all along when USA invaded/occupied Iraq while being fine with Israelis treating Palestinians as sub-human pieces of shit yet not be fine with the corresponding response from the PLO.
Turce, thanks for your posting.
"Georgians are not right to fight invaders of their country but Iraqis are- is also hypocritical."
And where does this leave the Ossetians ? Theyve never really been a part of Georgia except by force in the past and are ethnically different and dont wanna be part of Georgia.
I suppose your 'Southern' brothers-in-arms also have a right to secede ... technically speaking.