yaa, yaa, yaa (AusBC; US vs. Iran)

 .. Yankee voices on b-fast ...

   .. why do we 'buy' such rubbish ...

     .. some of it's not even *near* to the truth

-=*=-

Preamble: The 'standard' breakfast-bag has been temporarily replaced by a running-dog ring in - who's just about as bad. They could have a competition; "World's most corrupt presenter(ess)."

Thesis: that the AusBC is busily propagandising us. Well, one could say "That's a matter of opinion" AND/OR "That's opinion dressed up as fact" - both could be 'right' (as in 'correct') - but both (and worse), could be exactly how 'the right' pushes their (crooked!) paradigm. IMHO (recursion!) one simply cannot go wrong, if one assumes the worst - then at least doubles it.

To end this preamble, an injunction: Time to put up, or shut up.

-=*=-

One of the many (sneaky, underhanded) ways that the AusBC sets about propagandising us, is to broadcast stuff just the once, in out of the way time-slots, quoting other (i.e. not their own) sources, presenting opinion - or outright distortions if not actual lies - as fact, and then (damnably) by deliberately not documenting such 'infractions.' All of these sometimes come together, and so it was this morning, with a piece from CNN following the 'normal' news slot and before the 'embedded' news slot. I do not know, nor will I seek to find out, if this surreptitious piece of US-inspired slander is available as 'pod-cast;' IMHO that's an invalid form of documentation, being a) exceedingly tedious, b) expensive to download and c) non-text-searchable.

Exactly because they provide no (usable) documentation, I obviously can't 'prove' the allegation about this (blatant!) infraction; one simply needed to experience it. And as the (current) leader of the opposition found out to his enduring extreme cost, one really should try to be 101% sure of one's position. In this sense, then, I present this analogue:

Middle East
Jul 2, 2009
Iran awash with mistrust, despair
By Sara Farhang
  «"I don't see any space for civil action and organizing. How can we organize and address civil issues and concerns in a peaceful manner, when the government doesn't even take our votes into account?" he asked.» 
[atimes/Farhang]

My comment(s): First of all, it is *not* the CNN broadcast - but it contains much of what CNN said, and contains the same sort of 'blemishes.' (Distorted truth is by definition *not* the truth; that is to say, distorted truths = lies.) One easy way of pushing a distorted viewpoint is to quote 'vox-pops,' i.e. comments from 'people on the street.' There is no way of us knowing how many (100s?) of people were interviewed to select the few 'sound-bites' they do transmit.

My analysis: Under the theory we have learned, the Iranian president is a minor power wielder, if at all. In this respect, AND as both Mousavi & Ahmadinejad were allowed to run, it would not make a wet paper-bag full of difference who won. It would, however, be a total 'game-changer,' (detested Ameri-speak; spit!) - if some candidate were to be a potential (covert, corrupt) puppet. The 'supreme leader' is himself subject to control/choice (Qom); BUT the supreme leader's 'bosses' have now also lined up behind Ahmadinejad. (As has China, Russia - yeah; erstwhile US enemies - as seen by the (illegal!) interventionist US, and not so erstwhile; by nature, outlaws collect enemies.) It may well be, that many of Mousavi's supporters are genuine freedom-seeking democrats - or equally possibly, spoiled "iPod now!" inexperienced/deluded/immature youths/adults. Objecting to authority is a definition of an insurgent; those who keep it up now are really looking for trouble (i.e. 1st & foremost, Mousavi). Re-examining the protests, they went as good as immediately violent. That some militia wore no uniforms is a double-edged sword; *anyone* could go murderingly brutal - and blame the militia. We not only don't know, we can not know, what 'really happened.' Last 'but' here (and certainly not least): the US is known, by their own admission, to have targeted some $400mio for Iranian destabilisation (this doesn't count 'normal' CIA etc. budgets, nor the Oh, so super-cynical NED, say); it is 101% certain that if they wanted to they could deploy actual murdering 'black-ops' - and they are known not just to want to, they are obsessed - with attempting regime change, up to and including threats to nuke Iran, also by the illegitimate & murderingly outlaw sprog.

Means, motive & opportunity plus cui bono are all satisfied by US as the anti-Iran protagonist. Who could doubt its, or its proxies UK & especially Israel, of interference? Tell it to a judge.

To pretend otherwise, to propagandise otherwise, is to actively aid criminals - itself a crime, by the accessory mechanism.

-=*=-

One may contrast the above item and its implications, with this:

Greater China
Jul 1, 2009
COMMENT
China doesn't want Iran unstable
By Jian Junbo
  «China is an independent country; it is neither the world government nor the United Nations. Nor does it intend to police the world, despite its growing economic muscle. Hence, it is normal for China to refrain from commenting on the domestic affairs of another independent country.

Non-intervention in another country's internal affairs is a basic principle in China's foreign policy. Historically, non-intervention as a principle in international relations emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe, was then affirmed by the League of Nations in 1919 and finally re-endorsed and consolidated by the United Nations in 1945.

As a developing nation-state on the road towards modernization, the People's Republic of China cherished this principle. Late chairman Mao Zedong warned his officials and Communist Party members, "We must never interfere in other countries' internal affairs but co-exist with them in equality."» 
[atimes/Jian Junbo]

As we know, the US performs a good (actually, bad) mirror-image of this balanced approach from China. For good measure, I repeat the notes to that article:

  «The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence are:

Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Mutual non-aggression.

Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

Equality and mutual benefit.

Peaceful co-existence.» 
[atimes/Jian Junbo, ibid.]

Too bad the Anglo/Judaic US, UK, Aus & Israel totally violate these principles.

-=*=-

The proof of malfeasance is under our noses - only partly obscured by the smoke-screen of propaganda, also spread thickly by the AusBC. Shame and more: boo! Hiss! The truth may not set us free, but it can show us who the wicked perpetrators are.

As proof of AusBC perfidy, consider the crime-scene that is so-called 'modern' Israel. No just person on this planet (or any other) could have given the Zs 'permission' to occupy Palestine and eject the legal owners. Yet that's what the UN did. Similarly, no just person could have perpetrated such vicious crimes as Deir Yassin. Israel has from its inception and continues, 61+ years long now, to murder Palestinians to steal Palestine land. That the AusBC not merely 'airbrushes' but actively attempts to disguise this massive crime against humanity is such a proof of perfidy. A similar proof exists vis-à-vis the UN; despite perhaps 100s of resolutions since, it was the UN who/which originally 'enabled' Israel, as it 'enabled' the illegal invasion of Iraq - by failing to decry it (until too late), let alone by failing to stop it.

-=*=-

Fazit #1: That the AusBC propagandises us is both an offence and a tragedy; one absolute prerequisite for a properly functioning democracy is an informed electorate;

  reform - or go to gaol, Aunty.

Fazit #2: That the UN *allows* (by failing to prevent) such horrendous injustices, from '47/8 to now(!!?) is also both an offence and a tragedy;

  reform - or disband the UN. It is their supposed job to stop all war! Worse than stupid, worse than if they themselves murder; they actually provide cover for murderers. Utter disgust.

Fazit #3: There can be no peace without justice; until the malefactors are stopped, the disasters will continue - most probably getting ever worse - see Ir-Af-Pak, say.