good(??!) old Aunty AusBC

Says it all, really. No *further* proof required, ever:

[applicable snip:]
Controversial UN racism talks open
Posted April 20, 2009 20:48:00
  «Mr Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and for Israel to be "wiped off the map".»

My comment: He *never* said anything even *remotely* like that. Paraphrasing Ahmadinejad - i.e. not putting stuff into quotes, like the AusBC gave itself licence to do - since what he said in this context was, if my recall is correct, in Farsi - what he said was to question why innocent Palestinians should be so horribly penalised (i.e. driven out from their homeland and/or slaughtered) for the holocaust (penalised possibly incorrect, since the Palestinians were certainly in no way responsible for what happened half a world away from them, perhaps more accurate would be preyed upon); possibly whether the holocaust itself was as is repeatedly, pathetically portrayed by the (self-selecting?) victim-Israelis and then Ahmadinejad went on to quote someone else saying that the Israeli *regime* would/should be 'erased from the pages of history.' Others may supply *exact* details, but as it stands, it seems to me that what the AusBC has relayed, quoting the BBC quoting Ahmadinejad is simply not true (i.e. it's an outright, dirty lie) - and this, from a) our paid public servants, who b) are charged with *critically, correctly* informing us, we the people, and (a v.poor 3rd) are c) supposed 'professionals,' to boot. Boo! Hiss!

Fazit (long story short): I cannot accept, that this 'story' from the AusBC was made either in error or out of (naïve) ignorance. It *must* be a conscious and deliberate attempt at pushing some (ugly!) pro-Zionist propaganda paradigm. As such, the perpetrators belong (looong) behind bars. Contempt. Nothing but utter, deepest contempt.


  1. And then, as usual, just when I think it's safe to climb down off the ceiling - Oh, no: BLAM! Keyword, 'éclat'[1]. Ahmadinejad gives a (fiery) speech, lots of people walk out. TV news: no transcript (yet; standing by.) But: pre-printed demo-placards, AusBC story as warm-up. Looks like a put-up job. Possibilities: a) Ahmadinejad is telling the truth, b) he's gone mad and/or c) he's suicidal.

    But based on form, he's not the crazy one - his country hasn't attacked any other (Iraq excepted, another put-up job prompted partly if not wholly by subversion by you know who); his country hasn't continuously attempted genocide for the last 60+ years ...



    [1] éclat n. 1 brilliant display. 2 social distinction; conspicuous success. [French] [pod]

  2. First transcript:

    Diplomacy | 20.04.2009
    Iranian speech sparks mass walk-out at UN racism conference

      «Mahmoud Ahmadinejad divided the audience at the UN anti-racism conference in Geneva

    European diplomats walked out of a United Nations anti-racism conference on Monday after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel had occupied Palestinian land to form a racist state.

    "Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," Ahmadinejad told the audience, speaking through a translator.

    "And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine," he said. "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

    Representatives of 23 European Union delegations quit the conference room in protest at some of Ahmadinejad's comments, while two protesters dressed as clowns were ejected for heckling the Iranian leader and calling him a "racist."»

    [Deutsche Welle]

    My comment: Apart from a possible lack of sensitivity, Ahmadinejad's remarks do not seem to vary much if at all from the truth as I perceive it.

  3. One more (3 in-a-row and enough for now); the AusBC report is now 'up' and hardly differs from the DW one, but does go to the trouble of repeating (twice!) the map-wiping meme: «Mr Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and for Israel to be "wiped off the map".»

    For the record:

      «According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

    The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[11]

    The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."[12]»


  4. Note that Iran defended itself against attack by Iraq (with a US Green Light) in what the Iranians call the Imposed War. Iran only went on the "offensive" in 1982

    Also note that during that war Israel supplied Iran with arms worth approx $500mil per annum.

    That was probably part of a "mutual exhaustion" strategy played by the usual suspects.

  5. Quick update.

    G'day orana gelar, thanks for the Iran/Iraq war tip, I followed it up a bit:

    The Iran–Iraq War, also known as the Imposed War and Holy Defense (Defā'-e-moghaddas) in Iran, and Saddām's Qādisiyyah ...
      «Iran's president Abolhassan Banisadr wrote that Brzezinski met directly with Saddam Hussein in Jordan two months before the Iraqi assault. Bani-Sadr wrote, "Brzezinski had assured Saddam Hussein that the United States would not oppose the separation of Khuzestan [in southwest Iran] from Iran." The Financial Times reported that the U.S. passed satellite intelligence to the regime of Saddam Hussein via third countries, leading Iraq to believe Iranian forces would quickly collapse if attacked. Therefore, it has been argued that the U.S. may have encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, not merely giving him a green light.[32]»

    I've just been around the AusBC 'traps' and find only the good old (actually more like 'bad old') RN/bfast bag's report here, with a brief mp3.

    My comment: At 1st sight (and sound, if one 'podcasts'), not much smoke here, let alone fire. More to come from me on the durban review thread. One thing, though; with radio, it's not just what they say, but how they say it - plus the choice of words. If, say, a publicly-funded broadcaster uses the H-word, is it more likely to a) be neutral and purely informative or b) actually trigger some emotional response?

  6. A. Certainly b) and that's why there is such a concerted effort by the Lobby to restrict use of the H-word, which spills over into an effort to restrict use of the term 'genocide' even when all the legal tests for use of that term are satisfied.

  7. hypocrisy gets 'em ...

      .. every bloody time ...

        .. say one thing and do another


    Australia boycotts racism conference
    AM - Monday, 20 April , 2009 08:13:00

      «STEPHEN SMITH: Well, obviously I bear in mind what interested parties in Australia say, but if all I was doing was following what the Australian or international Jewish community had put to me, then Australia would have withdrawn some considerable time ago.»

    It's like the old joke that ends: "Madam. We've already agreed as to what you are, now we're just haggling over the price."

  8. a last word ...

      .. for now, then ...

        .. the appeal: WHERE ARE THE ADULTS?


    I followed up a bit, on hetzen = incite[1].

    As orana gelar opined, and I agree (after all, I did structure the query); the deployment of certain words (here, the H-word) is pretty-well guaranteed to provoke an emotional, i.e. an irrational response. This accords well with a little study I've got going - which is still a 'work in progress.' Slowly, since the source is 'audio/visual.' That's not to say that I have trouble with hearing or seeing, but it's an inconvenient, time-gobbling format - only one of its lesser handicaps, the greatest of which in this context is that it's impossible to cite, except in all of its 7-hour, 1374Mb entirety. Anyway, my study is on the psychological manipulation of the sheople, undoubtedly going on but rather *hush-hush*, not from me but from/by the manipulators. Wouldn't quite 'do' for the sheople to find out how comprehensibly verarsched (which is German for "made an ass of") they are, eh? Onwards.

    What we have here is a nice little example, (tin-hat warning!) - perhaps a test, of how they, the master-manipulators are going - or alternatively, a you-beaut example of an humongously massive stuff-up.

    One problem I can easily see, is that the sheople, after +/- 8 truly horrible years of B, B & H, especially (for the world), the idiot-savant GWBush, and (for poor old Aus), the thoroughly despicable Howard. Both now gone - good riddance to extremely bad rubbish - but now there are new so-called 'leaders,' of whom we expect a huge amount more & better, but: NOT COMING!

    Another problem - not for us, we the people, but for the US/Israeli evil-empire, is a dearth of enemies (for the M/I/C-plex), plus the apparently insatiable demand (by the so-called US 'élite') to dominate petroleum-producing countries and the similarly apparently insatiable demand (by the Zionists) for (hapless ex-Palestinian etc.) ME land and water. Note that everything in this paragraph is either immoral, illegal or both.

    At this point, I recall an old Wizard of Id joke:
    Rodney, "Sir! The peasants are revolting!"
    King, "They certainly are."

    It adds a new twist; why are they spinning this out, suggesting that there's some sort of justification being built? They showed us (not new, recall Askin: "Drive over the bastards!") then recently Howard called us anti-wars "A mob" - then totally ignored us; so why this looong drawn-out charade?

    «Mr Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and for Israel to be "wiped off the map".»

    Fazit: Now that's what I call incitement; it's perfectly clear, attack!

    (Why are we waiting; are we there yet?)



    [1] incite v. (-ting) (often foll. by to) urge or stir up.  incitement n. [Latin cito rouse] [POD]

    (Dictionary-serendipity: incivility n. (pl. -ies) 1 rudeness. 2 impolite act. [ibid.])

  9. Old Aunty AusBC was at it again this evening.

    Listening to the news on my way home this evening, I heard Warren Mundine (former member of the Howard government's National Indigenous Council) using all the (right; not correct) exaggerated stock phrases to describe Ahmadinejad's Durban II speech.

    It sounded to me like Mr Mundine hadn't actually heard it nor read a transcript of it and was merely echoing/amplifying hearsay.

    It also sounded like his primary purpose was to fling mud at Australia's Racial Discrimination Commissioner, Tom Calma.

    This time he was flinging it ostensibly for Calma's attendance at Durban II, but I suspect he'd fling any old mud at Calma.

    Mundine does that with some regularity.

  10. Close to real-time.

    After seeing orana gelar's comment arrive (g'day), I had a look on the AusBC/justin site, and 20mins ago, this item was posted: Calma under fire for attending UN racism talks.

    Keywords deployed by Mundine/AusBC: "anti-Semitic," Ahmadinejad "accusing Israel of being a cruel and racist regime," the conference "would become a platform for hate."

    Direct quote from AusBC article:

      «"He's [Calma] given oxygen to those sort of ranting and ravings that are quite abhorrent to anyone who's anti-racist or anyone who is strong on human rights," [Mundine] said.» 

    QED, and thanks orana gelar.

  11. H-this, H-that.

    It's always worth a repeat; read the article - please or no please, recall that Aunty AusBC began its tirade *before* the conference even took place (check the definition of prejudice), then if Mundine spoke without reading Ahmadinejad's speech - as it appears by the gross misrepresentations, check the meaning of bigot - then perhaps, ignorant.

  12. 3-in-a-row; recall also, that propagandists do not care a fig for any facts; they deploy emotional hooks - to brain-wash the sheople.

    It's as simple as that; ask Göring:

    «Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?
    Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.»